Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6596 (CAL)

ADARI GHOSH AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA(H)/110/2025 · 2026-01-20

Debangsu Basak, Md Shabbar Rashidi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L DL-16 20.01.2026 Court No.37 [Bench ID-266046] (AD) WPA (H) 110 of 2025 Smt. Adari Ghosh & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee, Advocate … for the petitioners Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, Ld. Sr. Advocate & Govt. Pleader Mr. Biplab Guha, Advocate Mr. Rajsekhar Basu, Advocate … for the State Mr. Pintu Karar, Advocate Mr. Sabab uddin Laskar, Advocate Ms. Meghna Chowdhury, Advocate … for the respondent nos.4 & 5 1. In this writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner claims that, the respondent no.5 is missing from her matrimonial home. Petitioner no.1 is the mother of the respondent no.5 while the petitioner no.2 is the brother of the respondent no.5. 2. Respondent nos.5 and 6 are represented by an Advocate. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.5 and 6 submits that, the respondent no.5 filed a police complaint against her husband. He submits that, the private respondent no.5 is staying separately. 4. Report submitted on behalf of the State be taken on record. 5. Report states that, the respondent no.5 appeared in the police station in response to a notice and produced original documents and witnesses. The 2 Investigating Officer recorded her statement under Section 180 of the BNSS with regard to the General diary dated November 16, 2025. 6. Respondent no.5 is an adult and is married. She is living separately. There are proceedings pending amongst the private parties. 7. The facts and circumstances do not warrant any further interference by us in a writ of habeas corpus. 8. WPA (H) 110 of 2025 is disposed of without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)