10.09.2026 Sl. No.01. Ct. No.237 Suman CRR 2427 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 With CRAN 2 of 2026 Krishna Damani -vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Anirban Dutta Mr. Debartha Chakraborty Ms. Siddhi Agarwal Mr. Sagar Dutta ..for the petitioner Mr. Ranjan Bachhawat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somopriya Chowdhury Mr. Paritosh Sinha Mr. Amitava Mitra Mr. S. K. Trivedi Mr. Sanket Sarawgi ..for O.P. No.2. Mr. Sayak Chakraborti Ms. Supriti Sarkhel Mr. Harshit Jaiswal ….for the State The issue involved in the present revisional application, despite the fact that this Court heard the parties at length, could not have detained the Court for long. It appears that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner by Opposite Party No. 2, which was registered as Hare Street Police Station Case No. 116 of 2023 dated April 16, 2023, under Sections 120B/406/408/409/420/467/477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, giving rise to G.R. Case No. 446 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta. The petitioner was apprehended by the Investigating Agency in the course of the investigation. He was, however, released on bail pursuant to an order dated May 27, 2024, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below: “Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within a maximum period of one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions. The learned Public Prosecutor shall be heard before fixing the terms and conditions. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.” In terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated May 27, 2024, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Magistrate in the Court below on May 28, 2024, subject to the following conditions: “Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well direction of Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 27.05.2024 the accused person namely Krishna Damani may find bail of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) with one Registered surety of like amount i.e. Rs.5000/- with a direction to (1) not to leave his residential jurisdiction; (2) to meet the Investigating Officer of this case once in a week till the completion of investigation; (3) not to enter within the jurisdiction of the school or interfere any affairs or work of the school or the society in any manner; (4) not to leave the country without the permission of the Ld. Court and to deposit the passport before the Ld. Court and (5) Not to tamper with evidence and not to intimidate any witness of this case, till further order.” Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking relaxation of the conditions of bail. The prayer for relaxation was opposed by Opposite Party No. 2. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the application for relaxation of the conditions of bail. 2 The petitioner thereafter filed an application for relaxation of the bail conditions being CRM(M) 289 of 2025. On May 7, 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as follows: “In the present application, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted right of audience only to the Public Prosecutor when the conditions of bail were imposed, this Court is of the view that it is sufficient if the Public Prosecutor is heard prior to considering the limited prayer of the petitioner herein.” CRM(M) 289 of 2025 was ultimately disposed of on July 15, 2025, with the following directions: “This Court is informed that charge sheet has been submitted and further investigation of the case is in progress. In view of the above, the second condition imposed upon the petitioner be relaxed to the extent that the petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in a month until further orders. The other condition of bail shall continue. The application being CRM(M) 289 of 2025 is disposed of.” The Investigating Agency thereafter filed a supplementary charge sheet on December 29, 2025. Following the filing of the supplementary charge sheet, the petitioner again approached the learned Magistrate on February 23, 2026, seeking further relaxation of the conditions of bail. In connection with the said application, Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application before the learned Magistrate containing the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that Your Honour would be graciously pleased to kindly direct the other side to serve the copy and pass necessary order/orders, as Your Honour may deem fit and proper” In addition thereto, Opposite Party No. 2 also filed a petition objecting to the prayer made by the petitioner for relaxation of the bail conditions. 3 By an order dated April 21, 2026, the learned Magistrate disposed of the petition dated March 7, 2026, filed by Opposite Party No. 2, with the following directions: “1. The trial of the accused shall continue to be conducted solely and exclusively by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 2. The private counsel engaged by the de facto complainant is permitted to be present in the courtroom during the day-to-day proceedings to observe the trial. 3. The role of the said private counsel is strictly, rigidly and legally limited to assisting the Special Public Prosecutor, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 24(8) of Cr. P.C. (Section 23(8) of BNSS) read with Section 301(2) of the Cr. P.C. (Section 340(2) of BNSS). 4. The private counsel shall act entirely and unreservedly under the directions of the Special Public Prosecutor. The private counsel shall not directly examine, cross-examine, or re-examine any witnesses, nor shall they make independent oral arguments or address this Court directly during the recording of evidence. 5. The private counsel is at liberty to brief the Special Public Prosecutor, suggest specific questions or lines of inquiry to the Special Public Prosecutor, and point out relevant evidence or legal precedents. However, the ultimate discretion and authority to utilize such assistance or pose such questions rests entirely and exclusively with the Public Prosecutor. 6. If the private counsel identifies a severe miscarriage of justice or an essential question that the Special Public Prosecutor inexplicably refuses to ask the private counsel may submit a written memorandum to this Court. The Court may then, in its absolute discretion choose to invoke its powers under Section 311 of the CrPC (Section 348 of BNSS) or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. After considering all the materials on record in the case, the private counsel may, in strict accordance with Section 301(2) of the CrPC (Section 340(2) of BNSS), submit comprehensive written arguments, for which separate permission from this Court must be sought at the appropriate procedural stage.” 8. The application stands disposed of accordingly.” Challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate dated April 21, 2026, a revisional application was filed before the learned 4 Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, on June 12, 2026. The learned Judge admitted the revision and fixed July 13, 2026, for appearance and hearing of the revisional application. Challenging the aforesaid order dated June 12, 2026, the present revisional application was filed by the petitioner before this Court. This Court, however, was informed that the learned Judge was due to finally decide the revisional application on merits on August 28, 2026. In view of the submissions made by the parties before this Court, the hearing of the present revisional application was adjourned, awaiting the outcome of the criminal revision pending before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge ultimately disposed of the said application on August 28, 2026. This Court thereafter granted liberty to the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit for the purpose of bringing on record the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit before this Court, annexing thereto a copy of the said order, with copies served upon Opposite Party No. 2 and the State. By an order dated August 28, 2026, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated April 21, 2026. The learned Sessions Judge, however, directed that the petition dated February 23, 2026, filed by the petitioner seeking relaxation of the conditions of bail, be served upon the learned Advocate representing Opposite Party No. 2 before the Trial Court. The aforesaid factual backdrop has been set out to appreciate that the entire controversy, which has resulted in prolonged 5 litigation, essentially arose out of a prayer made by Opposite Party No. 2 seeking service of a copy of the petitioner’s application for relaxation of the conditions of bail. As appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated August 28, 2026, in substance, allowed the prayer made by Opposite Party No. 2 before the learned Magistrate. It is, however, an admitted position before this Court that, irrespective of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Opposite Party No. 2 is already in possession of a copy of the application for relaxation of the conditions of bail filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid position becomes apparent from the fact that Opposite Party No. 2 had filed an objection petition before the learned Magistrate dealing paragraph-wise with the application filed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present revisional application. This Court must, however, observe that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in observing that the learned Magistrate had travelled beyond the scope of the application filed by to Opposite Party No.2 in adjudicating upon the question as to whether Opposite Party No. 2 had a right to participate in the trial. Such adjudication was wholly unnecessary and, at the very least, premature in the context of the application filed by Opposite Party No. 2 which contained only a prayer for service of a copy of the petitioner’s application for relaxation of the conditions of bail. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed in his order that while taking up the hearing of the relaxation 6 application of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall grant the right of audience only public prosecutor. It is clarified that the role of Opposite Party No. 2 shall, while the said application is being heard, be limited to assisting the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present revisional application is disposed of with a direction upon the learned Magistrate in the Court below to consider the application for relaxation of the conditions of bail filed by the petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of communication of this order. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the right of Opposite Party No. 2 to participate in any subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, CRR 2427 of 2026, along with CRAN 1 of 2026 and CRAN 2 of 2026, stands disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 7