Disposed¶20

Alamgir Mallick v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Aug 2025WPA(H)/43/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; missing person aged about 18; illegal detention; ransom demand calls; BNS Sections 137(2)/140(2)/140(3); Bishnupur Police Station Case no. 1185/2024; major son left voluntarily; Rs.10,000/- State financial assistance; employment in Goa at 'Centre of Air Technical Service'; fair investigation direction; writ petition disposed of; State of West Bengal; liberty to approach other forums.

What did the court decide?

No habeas relief granted; writ petition disposed of with a direction that the investigating agency conduct the investigation fairly and conclude it at an early date, and with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before any other forum. ¶20

Alamgir Mallick Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's son, Md. Sain Mallik, reported missing, is under illegal detention such that habeas corpus intervention by this Court is warranted. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Sain is a major who left his residence after receiving Rs. 10,000/- as financial assistance from the State.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

From the records produced by the investigating officer, Sain took up a job in a private concern in Goa where he worked from 14.09.2024 to 14.11.2024.

¶15

Key takeaways

Sain does not appear to be under illegal detention; consequently, no further interference is called for in the writ petition.ratio¶16
The investigating agency shall conduct the investigation in a fair manner and conclude it at an early date.ratio¶17
Nothing in the order prevents the petitioner from initiating appropriate proceedings before any other forum, seeking reliefs in accordance with law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas corpus writ petition (WPA (H) 43 of 2025) by Alamgir Mallick concerning his son Md. Sain Mallik (aged about 18), missing on and from 27.11.2024, followed by ransom-demand calls and registration of Bishnupur Police Station Case no. 1185/2024 dated 03.12.2024 under Ss.137(2)/140(2)/140(3) BNS. On the investigating officer's report, the Court found that Sain, a major, had received Rs.10,000/- as financial assistance from the State (credited to his account on 04.10.2024) and had been employed at 'Centre of Air Technical Service' in Goa from 14.09.2024 to 14.11.2024, after which he left. Holding that Sain did not appear to be under illegal detention, the Court declined further interference, disposed of the writ petition, directed the investigating agency to conduct the investigation fairly and conclude it at an early date, and preserved the petitioner's liberty to seek appropriate reliefs before any other forum.

¶1

20.08.2025

¶2

rpan / 09

¶3

WPA (H) 43 of 2025 Alamgir Mallick - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Others

¶4

Mr. Samrat Das …for the Petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Simanta Kabir … for the State/Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s son, namely, Md. Sain Mallik (in short, Sain), who is aged about 18 years, went missing on and from 27^th November, 2024 and accordingly, a missing diary was lodged on 27^th November, 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner started receiving phone calls demanding ransom. A complaint to that effect was lodged by the petitioner which was registered as Bishnupur Police Station Case no. 1185/2024 dated 3^rd December, 2024 under Sections 137(2)/140(2)/140(3) of BNS. However, proper investigation was not being conducted by the police authorities and as such, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court.

¶7

When the matter last appeared on 16^th July, 2025, we directed the investigating officer to file a report as regards the steps taken in the matter.

¶8

¶9

Pursuant to such direction, a report has been filed today. Let the same be kept on record.

¶10

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondents submits that in course of investigation it was found that Sain was studying in Class – XII in the academic session 2024-25 at Pir Tala High School and he received financial assistance to purchase tablet computer/smart mobile phone. The petitioner’s bank statement would reveal that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was duly credited to the account of Sain on 4^th October, 2024.

¶11

He further submits that to ascertain the whereabouts of Sain, a police team was constituted and it proceeded to Goa. Thereafter raids were conducted at various places and it was found that Sain was working at private concern, namely, ‘Centre of Air Technical Service’ , owned by one Mukrim Sk. The said owner was examined and relevant documents concerning the employment of Sain were seized wherefrom it was found that he was working in the said concern for the period from 14^th September, 2024 to 14^th November, 2024 and thereafter, he left and that as such he could not be recovered. However, investigation is still continuing.

¶12

¶13

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶14

A writ in the nature of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ by virtue of which the causes and validity of detention of a person are investigated by a summary procedure. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction, however, cannot usurp the ordinary administration of criminal justice.

¶15

It appears that Sain is major and he left his residence after receiving an amount of Rs. 10,000/as financial assistance from the State. From the records produced by the investigating officer, it appears that Sain took up a job in a private concern in Goa where he worked for the period from 14^th September, 2024 to 14^th November, 2024.

¶16

In such circumstances, it does not appear that Sain is under illegal detention and in view thereof, no further interference is call for in the present writ petition.

¶17

However, the investigating agency shall conduct the investigation in a fair manner and conclude the same at an early date.

¶18

Nothing in this order shall prevent the petitioner from initiating appropriate proceedings before any other forum, seeking reliefs, in accordance with law.

¶19

¶20

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Alamgir Mallick v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alamgir Mallick v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purna Chandra Samai Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mallika Naskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Minarul Islam Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Priyanka Naskar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bellalhossain Sekh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalipada Ghorai Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.