07.09.2026 Sl. No.01. Ct. No.237 Suman CRR 1321 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2026 With CRAN 2 of 2026 Mr. Ritanjal Ghosh and Another -vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Antarikhya Basu Mr. Sayan Mukherjee ..for the petitioners Mr. Satadru Lahiri Ms. Piya Goswami ..for O.P. No.2. Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick ..for the State The petitioners seek quashing of Lake Town Police Station Case No. 47 of 2023 dated March 23, 2023, under Sections 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 271 of 2023. Petitioner No. 1 was posted as the Senior Branch Manager and Petitioner No. 2 as the Deputy Manager/Officer of Punjab National Bank, Patipukur Branch, at the relevant point of time. Opposite Party No. 2 had a locker in the said branch. In the complaint, Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that on March 17, 2023, he went to the Punjab National Bank, Patipukur branch to operate his locker. Despite repeated attempts, he was unable to open the same. Upon being informed, the bank officials also attempted to open the locker but failed. Thereafter, on March 20, 2023, the bank officials asked Opposite Party No. 2 to come to the bank on March 21, 2023, along with his wife. On March 21, 2023, an attempt was made to open the locker in the presence of a mechanic, Opposite Party No. 2, his wife and the bank officials. The attempt again proved unsuccessful and, ultimately, the locker had to be broken open. Upon the locker being opened, Opposite Party No. 2 noticed that the jewellery/ornaments which, according to him, had been kept in the locker for about a year were missing. No jewellery was found inside the locker. Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that the value of the jewellery/ornaments was in excess of Rs. 25 lakhs. Upon completion of the investigation a charge-sheet has been filed. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance upon the order dated March 7, 2025 passed by the Division Bench, submits that the Division Bench had occasion to consider a report dated March 5, 2025 filed before it while considering the anticipatory bail prayer of the petitioners. The said report, according to him, clearly indicated that the locker had not been tampered with. Therefore, it is submitted that there could be no implication of the petitioners in the present case. It is further submitted that, on the basis of the said report, 2 the Division Bench granted anticipatory bail to both the petitioners. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the said report clearly exonerates the petitioners from the allegations in the present case. Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, submits that, while filing the charge-sheet, the Investigating Agency prayed for leave of the learned Magistrate to file a supplementary charge-sheet upon obtaining a report from the manufacturer of the locker. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no scope for interference with the proceedings at this stage. By filing CRAN 1 of 2026, Mr. Lahiri further submits that the order of stay granted on October 14, 2025 ought to be vacated so as to enable the Investigating Agency to file the supplementary charge-sheet. The State has filed a report before this Court. The said report discloses that subsequently another report dated August 12, 2025 has been received from the manufacturer of the locker. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that there is no justification for keeping the present application pending. The Investigating Agency, while filing the charge-sheet, had specifically prayed for leave of the learned Magistrate to file a supplementary charge-sheet. Since the Investigating Agency has, subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet, obtained a report from the manufacturer of the locker, the Investigating Agency should be 3 permitted to file the supplementary report bringing the said report dated August 12, 2025 on record. Mr. Chatterjee, however, submits that the report dated August 12, 2025 also exonerates the petitioners. This Court is not inclined to examine the said report at this juncture. Needless to mention, the petitioners shall have the liberty to urge all such grounds before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, if the report dated May 6, 2025 or any other report is found to operate in their favour. In view of the aforesaid, the present revisional application as well as the connected applications are disposed of with a direction upon the Investigating Agency to file the supplementary charge- sheet within a period of four weeks from date. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The interim order August 14, 2025 stands vacated. Both the petitioners shall be at liberty to file appropriate applications before the learned Magistrate, urging all available grounds, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Both the petitioners shall be permitted to continue on the same bail as granted to them by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, by orders dated March 7, 2025 and March 12, 2025, notwithstanding the addition of Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency. 4 Needless to mention, this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The learned Magistrate in the Court below shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Accordingly, CRR 1321 of 2025, along with CRAN 1 of 2026 and CRAN 2 of 2026, are disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 5