Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37343 (CAL)

YOGENDRA SINGH RANAWAT v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

WPA/1603/2026 · 2026-08-31

Raja Basu Chowdhury

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

5 31.08.2026 S.Seal Ct.9. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE WPA 1603 of 2026 Yogendra Singh Ranawat Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty Ms. Shreyasi Roy … For the petitioner. Mr. Rupayan Deb Ms. Susmita Ghosh … For proforma respondent. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP Ms. Rajni Singh Dev …For State. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. The petitioner claims that he was travelling from Delhi to Assam and since Jaigaon fell enroute, he stopped there to render assistance to one Babu Rathi who had been defrauded of approximately Rs.1.5 crores by Bhutan-based accused person in connection with FIR No. 291/2025. The petitioner claims that he has been subject to harassment by the police authorities. Accordingly, prays for a direction to stop the investigation against the petitioner 3. The matter relating to Jaigaon Police Station case no. 168/2026 dated 1st July, 2026 under Sections 319(2)/318(4)/308(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya 2 Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to G.R case No. 1518 of 2026 is pending in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipurduar. The petitioner has already been granted bail and an investigation is in progress. 4. Ms. Dutta Chakraborty, learned Advocate representing the petitioner would insist that the petitioner seeks for a direction upon the respondents to produce the CCTV footage of all the CCTV cameras starting from 12 noon of 30th June, 2026 till the midnight of 1st July, 2026. 5. State and the private respondent are represented. 6. Having heard the learned Advocate representing the respective parties, and noting from the advocate for the State that the investigation is in progress, I am of the view that it is too premature at this stage, to stall the investigation or to direct the respondents to produce CCTV footage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. There shall no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)