IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/9/2026 Shri T. Madhavan Vs The State Mr. Arul Prasant … for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State February 09, 2026 [AKB] Item No.7 The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of lodging F.I.R. the de-facto complainant being the victim has categorically stated in his F.I.R. that at the time of incident he was beaten up by four boys with helmet, fists, legs and due to which he sustained grievous injury in his right ear and was bleeding heavily from his ear. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical report. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Arul Prasanth has submitted that subsequently the I.O. has submitted charge sheet under Section 308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons but the I.O. did not seize the helmet, although the CCTV footage recorded that the victim was being assaulted by helmet. The investigation was not done satisfactorily and as such, he has filed the present application for directing further investigation in the instant case. The Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the I.O. has conducted the investigation in accordance with law. Even if the helmet is not recovered, that will not give fatal blow to the prosecution case if the prosecution is able to convince the Learned Judge on the basis of the available materials on record. I have considered the materials on record including the discharge summary which states that the victim received severe head injury, got 4 stitches on head, fracture of temporal bone, facial nerve palsy resolving problems, hearing loss at right side leading to permanent disability, moderate to severe mastoid air cells, and ear bleeding lasted for 03 days. It is from the above materials on record I find that the injuries are sufficiently grievous. It is not clear whether the I.O. has taken appropriate steps to recover the helmet from the custody of any accused or not. I find some merits in the contention of the Learned Counsel of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is given liberty to move an appropriate application before the Learned Sessions Judge, Port Blair praying for further investigation of the case and the Learned Sessions Judge, Port Blair is expected to dispose of the said application, if filed, in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner is to communicate this order to the Office of the Learned Sessions Judge, Port Blair. With this direction, C.R.R. 09 of 2026 is hereby disposed of. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)