15 2288..0088..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 20519 of 2026 Iqbal Ahmed Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Anirban Kar Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi Md. Sahidullah Mridha Mr. Rohit Mahata …for the petitioner Mr. Francis Samson Correa Mr. Sunny Nandy Ms. Sneha Singh …for the respondent no. 5 Mr. Arka Kumar Sen Mr. Pratip Mukherjee …for the State Mr. Subhendu Hazra …for the respondent no. 8 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Matter is heard in presence of learned advocates representing petitioner, State respondents and respondent nos. 5 and 8. 3. By presenting this writ petition five FIRs are questioned which are described in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. All the FIRs are drawn up by the concerned authority of Narkeldanga Police Station. 4. During course of hearing this Court is apprised that out of five FIRs in two FIRs petitioner has obtained pre-arrest bail. Since according to petitioner altogether five FIRs are subsisting as 2 on date and out of five in connection with two FIRs petitioner has obtained pre-arrest bail it will be open to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum seeking anticipatory bail. 5. On perusal of contents of complaints made against petitioner at this stage Court finds it is not apt to make observations which may have bearing on the proceedings pending against petitioner. Since investigations are at nascent stage and out of five criminal prosecutions in two petitioner has obtained anticipatory bail it would also be inappropriate to find out veracity of allegations leveled against petitioner. 6. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Others). Paragraph 33.16 of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) runs infra:- “33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to 3 apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 7. There is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner which petitioner has availed of in connection with two criminal prosecutions out of five and it will be open to petitioner to approach appropriate forum under Section 482 BNSS 2023. 8. Hence present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 9. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. 10. Parties to act on server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)