Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34403 (CAL)

MANISHA DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/19456/2026 · 2026-08-24

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

05 Ranajit (AR.CT) 24.08.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 19456 OF 2026 Manisha Das -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Swapan Kumar Mazumdar, Mr. Saptarshi Mazumdar ….for the petitioner. Mr. Rohan Bavish, Mr. Aritra Palit ….for the respondent no.9. Mr. Sourav Sengupta, Mr. Tarun Kumar Jana ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition, prayer is made for granting protection in order to restrain respondent no.9 from disturbing petitioner. 3. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed a communication dated 18th August, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Cyber Crime Police Station, Howrah Police Commissionerate and same is taken on record. Copies of the communication dated 18th August, 2026 are made over to learned advocates representing petitioner and respondent no.9. 4. It is disclosed in communication dated 18th August, 2026 that based on complaint of petitioner an FIR was registered being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.187/26 dated 17th July, 2026 under certain provisions of BNS & Arms Act and investigation is going on. 5. Learned advocate representing respondent no.9 has opposed this writ petition and it is submitted that Sessions Judge, Howrah by passing order dated 13th August, 2026 granted pre-arrest bail to respondent no.9. 6. It is also submitted that prior to lodging complaint by present petitioner, respondent no.9 lodged complaint and a criminal prosecution was initiated and investigation is going on. 7. In view of submissions made on behalf of respective parties and contents of communication dated 18th August, 2026, it transpires that there are complaints and counter complaints by petitioner and respondent no.9 against each other and investigations are being conducted by concerned police authorities on drawing up FIRs. Moreover, respondent no.9 has obtained pre- arrest bail. 8. In view of aforesaid scenario, concerned police authorities are directed to expedite investigation and submit report before jurisdictional Magistrate. 9. Hence, no further order need be passed on this writ petition and same stands disposed of. 10. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2