Form No. J(2) Item No. DL/3 ARPAN – A.R. (CT) In The High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (APPELLATE SIDE) W.P.A. NO. 26035 OF 2026 RINKU MANDAL Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ……….……. BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. MAYUKH MUKHERJEE, ADV. MR. MANISH BISWAS, ADV. MR. SUKHENDU BANERJEE, ADV. MR. UMESH KUMAR SHAW, ADV. MR. MRITYUNJAY SAHA, ADV. MR. FARHAD MALIK, ADV. FOR THE STATE : MR. RAJDEEP MAZUMDER, AAG MR. ABHIJIT RAY, AGP MR. DEB KUMAR CHANDRA, ADV. HEARING CONCLUDED ON : 30.09.2026 JUDGMENT ON : 30.09.2026 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.: 1. Matter is heard at length in presence of learned advocates representing petitioner and State respondents. P a g e | 2 2. A case is made out in this writ petition that though petitioner’s brother was enlarged on bail vide order dated 27th August, 2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North 24 Parganas but he was not released thereby prompting petitioner to approach this Court with the present writ petition seeking issuance of mandamus directing the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home to release petitioner’s brother on compliance of formalities. 3. It is argued by Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, learned advocate representing petitioner that detention of petitioner’s brother after he was enlarged on bail on 27th August, 2026 amounts to illegal detention and as such concerned respondent authorities are required to be dealt with appropriately. It is also submitted that if petitioner’s brother is arraigned in two criminal prosecutions — Cyber Crime Police Station Goutam Buddha Nagar (UP) FIR No.235/2026 and Cyber Crime Police Station Goutam Buddha Nagar (UP) FIR No.271/2026 and is required to be produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goutam Buddha Nagar based on production warrants issued in aforesaid criminal prosecutions, such production warrants were required to be served upon petitioner’s brother thereby granting him opportunity to seek remedy. 4. Reliance is placed on a communication dated 19th September, 2026 of Inspector-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate wherein it was disclosed that in connection with Cyber Crime Police Station Goutam Buddha Nagar (UP) FIR No.271/2026 dated 29th July, 2026 petitioner’s brother was shown arrested and was taken to Uttar Pradesh by concerned police station for further investigation, which according to petitioner, is not correct state of affairs since it is subsequently disclosed on behalf of State respondents that in compliance with a subsequent production warrant P a g e | 3 dated 10th September, 2026 petitioner’s brother was sent for production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goutam Buddha Nagar on 28th September, 2026/ 29th September, 2026. According to petitioner, petitioner’s brother was not sent to Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate prior to 28th September, 2026, which was not disclosed vide said communication dated 19th September, 2026. 5. It is further submitted on behalf of petitioner that if petitioner’s brother in spite of being enlarged on bail on 27th August, 2026 is found to be detained unauthorizedly in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home, in that event, he is entitled to get compensation. 6. Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, learned Additional Advocate General representing State respondents submits based on disclosure of facts vide communication dated 24th September, 2026 of Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home, that petitioner’s brother was taken to Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on 28th September, 2026/29th September, 2026 for production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in terms of production warrant issued on 10th September, 2026. 7. According to State respondents, anomaly might have occurred while disclosing facts before this Court relating to the date on which petitioner’s brother was forwarded to Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh since previous communication dated 19th September, 2026 was made by the Inspector-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station at the time when petitioner’s brother was in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home. Submission is made before this Court relying upon the contents of communication dated 24th September, 2026 of Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home since petitioner’s brother was lodged in the said Correctional Home at the P a g e | 4 material point of time and said Superintendent is better equipped to apprise correct state of affairs. 8. It is further contended on behalf of State respondents that in terms of two previous production warrants dated 13th August, 2026 and 14th August, 2026 petitioner’s brother could not be produced before the Court at Goutam Buddha Nagar and thereafter he was granted bail on 27th August, 2026 by the learned Sessions Judge, North 24 Parganas. After granting bail on 27th August, 2026 steps were taken to produce petitioner’s brother before the court at Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh in terms of a subsequent production warrant dated 10th September, 2026 issued against him. 9. It is also clarified on behalf of State respondents that production warrants dated 13th August, 2026 and 14th August, 2026 could not be executed and after obtaining bail on 27th August, 2026 petitioner’s brother could not be released since Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home was aware of the fact that petitioner’s brother was arraigned in two different criminal prosecutions initiated in Uttar Pradesh. Eventually on 10th September, 2026 another production warrant was issued and in terms of said production warrant petitioner’s brother was sent to Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on 28th September, 2026/ 29th September, 2026 to be produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goutam Buddha Nagar. 10. Reliance is placed on the order dated 16th December, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on an application for pre-arrest bail being CRM(A) 4166 of 2024 and in reference to the observations made in paragraph 15 therein it is contended that once production warrant is issued by Court against a person in custody, for all practical purposes thereafter said person is treated to be arrested. It is further P a g e | 5 contended that as petitioner’s brother was lodged in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home at the material point of time when first production warrant was issued on 13th August, 2026, it was duty of the Superintendent of said Correctional Home to take steps for producing the accused before the Court. 11. A simpliciter case is made out in this writ petition that in spite of enlarging petitioner’s brother on bail vide order dated 27th August, 2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North 24 Parganas, he was not released. 12. But on perusal of communication dated 24th September, 2026 and on hearing the learned advocates representing petitioner and State respondents, it appears that situation is completely different. Petitioner’s brother is arraigned in two different criminal prosecutions, namely, Cyber Crime Police Station Goutam Buddha Nagar (UP) FIR No.235/2026 and Cyber Crime Police Station Goutam Buddha Nagar (UP) FIR No.271/2026 and in connection therewith production warrants were issued on 13th August, 2026 and 14th August, 2026 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goutam Buddha Nagar. Petitioner’s brother could not be produced at the first instance but it is the duty of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home to take steps based on issuance of a subsequent production warrant dated 10th September, 2026 to produce him before the Court at Goutam Buddha Nagar on 30th September, 2026. 13. It is disclosed in the communication dated 24th September, 2026 that petitioner’s brother has been transmitted on 28th September, 2026 to Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in terms of production warrant issued on 10th September, 2026. P a g e | 6 14. Section 302 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 prescribes the procedure which is required to be followed in the event of issuance of production warrant against a person who, being accused in another case is in custody/ Correctional Home. It is contemplated under Section 302(1) that whenever in the course of an inquiry, trial or proceeding under said Sanhita, it appears to the Criminal Court that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him the Court may make an order requiring the Officer-in-Charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or for giving evidence. Therefore, prescription of law as per Section 302 casts obligation upon Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home to take steps in terms of production warrant issued by a Court in Uttar Pradesh. 15. From the chronology of facts, it appears that Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home was aware that petitioner’s brother was arraigned in two different criminal prosecutions alluded above and production warrants were issued therein on 13th August, 2026 and 14th August, 2026; therefore, this Court does not find fault with the steps taken by the Superintendent of the said Correctional Home in not releasing petitioner’s brother after he was enlarged on bail on 27th August, 2026. Subsequently, production warrant was again issued against petitioner’s brother on 10th September, 2026 and steps have been taken, as it emanates from the communication dated 24th September, 2026, for his production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goutam Buddha Nagar. 16. Taking note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CRM (A) 4166 of 2024 it can be concluded that it is the P a g e | 7 jurisdictional Court which can pass necessary order thereby recalling the production warrant or insisting on attendance of accused on a subsequent date. Therefore, it was not within the domain of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home to take steps ignoring production warrant issued by the jurisdictional court. 17. In aforesaid conspectus, steps taken by the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Correctional Home by forwarding petitioner’s brother for his production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh in terms of the production warrant issued on 10th September, 2026, ought not to be interfered with. 18. However, more alacrity is expected of the Inspector-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate, while preparing communication since it is found that Inspector-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station in his communication dated 19th September, 2026 failed to disclose correct facts relating to steps taken by the concerned authority in terms of production warrants issued on 13th August, 2026 and 14th August, 2026 against petitioner’s brother. He is cautioned not to recur same in future, otherwise it will be appropriately dealt with. 19. Writ petition stands dismissed. 20. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)