Allowed

Sutapa Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC12 Jun 2023CRR/2633/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta transferred a criminal proceeding from Basirhat to Barasat to prevent bias and ensure a fair trial, noting the accused's relationship with local prosecutors and the victim's new role as an advocate.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1912 of 2017 in Sessions Trial Case No. 7 of 2020 arising out of Basirhat P.S. Case No. 478 of 2017 is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned District &

Sutapa Chowdhury Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

12.06.2023 Serial no.6 Aloke Ct. No. 30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CRR 2633 of 2021

¶4

Mrs. Sutapa Chowdhury Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Debangan Bhattacharya … for the petitioner

¶6

Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Dipankar Paramanick … for the State

¶7

Mr. Pratick Ghosh Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya Mr. Bitan Das … for the opposite parties

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties including the learned counsel for the State.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State has submitted before this Court that all the witnesses to the said case are residents of Basirhat.

¶10

It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused person in this case has good relationship with Panel Prosecutors at Basirhat and, as such, the petitioner apprehends that she and her daughter will not get a ‘fair trial’.

¶11

On the other hand, it has come before this Court through the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged victim is now a practicing Advocate of Alipore Court. The prayer of the petitioner is for transfer of the case to Alipore

¶12

¶13

Court which again is an apprehension that the opposite party/accused may not get a ‘fair trial’.

¶14

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for all the parties and in view of the observations made above, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1912 of 2017 in Sessions Trial Case No. 7 of 2020 arising out of Basirhat P.S. Case No. 478 of 2017 under Sections 363/365/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1^st Fast Track Court, Basirhat, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Barasat, which is at a closer distance from Basirhat than the Court at Barrackpore.

¶15

Learned District & Sessions Judge, Barasat, shall assign the matter to any of the Courts having jurisdiction to dispose of the matter at the earliest or retain the same in his own file.

¶16

Case diary be returned to the learned counsel for the

¶17

State.

¶18

The revisional application being CRR 2633 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

All connected application, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶20

Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.

¶21

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)

Sutapa Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sutapa Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edigineni Garuppa Naidu Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Sudera Reality Private Limited(Formerly Abl Int. Pvt. Ltd) Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Hafijul Dewan Vs State of West Bengal

Partha Sarathi Banerjee Vs Kasturi Basu

Biswanath Basu & Ors. Vs Suprabhat Kundu

Susanta Chowdhury Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.