Soukat Ali v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Jul 2025MAT/748/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

False implication in criminal cases; police harassment after complaint against political personalities; request for protection of appellant and family; about 20 police cases since 2012; charge sheets filed and charges framed; Writ Court declines to pronounce on false implication, defers to Jurisdictional Court; condonation of 13-day delay; MAT 748 of 2025; CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025; WPA 5874 of 2025; Soukat Ali v. State of West Bengal; Calcutta High Court; disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay in making and filing the appeal condoned (CAN 2 of 2025 disposed of accordingly); no substantive relief granted to the appellant; appeal and CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of without any order as to costs. ¶¶27

Soukat Ali Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 13 days in making and filing the appeal should be condoned. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The delay in making and filing the appeal is condoned considering the averments in the condonation application and for the ends of justice; CAN 2 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

On the issue of false implication, the appellant may raise the same before the Jurisdictional Court, if so advised; the Writ Court declines to pronounce on it.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

Since charges stand framed against the appellant in some of the criminal cases, the Writ Court is not called upon to pronounce that the appellant stands falsely implicated in such criminal cases.ratio¶¶23
The Court finds no merit in the present appeal.ratio¶¶27
M.A.T. 748 of 2025 and the connected application CAN 1 of 2025 are disposed of without any order as to costs.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Debangsu Basak, J.; Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. concurring) heard and disposed of M.A.T. 748 of 2025 on July 24, 2025. The appeal, filed by writ petitioner Soukat Ali against an order dated March 26, 2025 in W.P.A. 5874 of 2025, was beyond time by 13 days; the delay was condoned and CAN 2 of 2025 disposed of accordingly. Counsel for the appellant alleged that the appellant and his family were being falsely implicated in numerous criminal cases — said to have begun after his August 10, 2020 complaint against certain political personalities — with another case filed even after the appeal, and sought protection. The Court noted from the records that police cases against the appellant dated back to 2012, about 20 police cases involved him, charge sheets had been filed in some, and charges stood framed in some. Holding that, with charges framed, the Writ Court was not called upon to pronounce the appellant falsely implicated, the Court left that defence to be raised before the Jurisdictional Court, found no merit in the appeal, and disposed of M.A.T. 748 of 2025 and CAN 1 of 2025 without any order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

Present:

¶3

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

¶5

M.A.T. 748 of 2025 With

¶6

CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

¶7

Soukat Ali Vs.

¶8

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Saikat Chatterjee Mr. Purnakar Biswas For the State : Mr. Suman Ghosh Mr. Arka Mondal

¶10

Heard & Judgment on : July 24, 2025

¶11

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

¶12

Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against an order dated March 26, 2025 in W.P.A. 5874 of 2025.

¶13

Appeal is beyond time.

¶14

Department reports a delay of 13 days.

¶15

Considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay and for the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in making and filing the appeal.

¶16

CAN 2 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

¶18

By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

¶19

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant and his family members are being falsely implicated in numerous criminal cases. He submits that since the appellant protested against certain activities of the police and political personalities at the locale, appellant is now being singled out for the purpose of entanglement in false and frivolous criminal cases. He submits that, even after the filing of the present appeal, another criminal case was filed as against the appellant. He submits that at the very least, some protection be granted to the appellant and his family members.

¶20

State is represented.

¶21

We find from the averments made by the appellant it transpires that subsequent to August 10, 2020 when the appellant complained as to certain activity of certain political personalities at the locale, the police started implicating him falsely in several cases.

¶22

However, the records demonstrate that the police cases were initiated as against the appellant since 2012. There are about 20 police cases which involve the appellant. In some of the police cases, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶23

As to the issue of false implication, the appellant may raise the same before the Jurisdictional Court, if so advised. Since charges stand framed as against the appellant in some of the criminal cases at this stage as a Writ Court we not called upon to pronounce that the appellant stands falsely implicated in such criminal cases. Such

¶24

¶25

defence if canvassed before the Jurisdictional Court, no doubt would it

¶26

be considered by the Jurisdictional Court, in accordance with law.

¶27