Anil Chandra Barman Vs the State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2026)

Anil Chandra Barman Vs the State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application disposed of with directions: jurisdictional court to conclude commitment of the case to the Sessions Court, preferably within six weeks of communication of the order, complying with necessary formalities and splitting up proceedings against appearing accused if necessary; Sessions Court thereafter to expedite and conclude the proceeding without unnecessary adjournments.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued for expeditious completion of the commitment of a criminal proceeding pending since a 1987 FIR (charge-sheeted in 1990, 80 accused, not yet committed to the Sessions Court despite a 2019 High Court direction), and for expeditious conduct of the subsequent trial.

Court's answer

The learned jurisdictional court is directed to conclude the proceeding regarding commitment of the case to the Sessions Court, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, after complying with necessary formalities.

Ratio / Principle

If necessary, the commitment proceedings are to be split up as against the appearing accused.

Key takeaways

Thereafter, the Sessions Court is to take necessary steps to expedite the proceeding and conclude it in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), Jay Sengupta, J., disposed of C.R.R. 18 of 2024, an application seeking expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding arising out of Dinhata Police Station Case No.26 of 1987 (FIR dated July 15, 1987), in which a charge-sheet under Sections 147/148/149/324 and 302 of the Penal Code was submitted on 10.12.1990 against 80 accused persons including the petitioner. Although this Court had directed on 19.07.2019 that the matter be committed to the Sessions Court, the case was never committed; some accused were absconding and warrants were issued. Directing that the delay not burden the petitioner (who was denied post-retirement pension owing to the pendency), the Court ordered the jurisdictional court to complete the commitment proceedings, preferably within six weeks, splitting up proceedings against the appearing accused if necessary, and directed the Sessions Court thereafter to expedite and conclude the trial without unnecessary adjournments.

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Before:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 18 of 2024

	Sri A The	nil Chandra Barman Vs. State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner	:	Ms. Suman Sehanabis (Mandal) Mr. Salok Sah Ms. Anwesha Chakraborty
For the State	:	Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty Mr. Subhasish Misra
Last heard on	:	18.03.2026
Judgement delivered on	:	18.03.2026

Jay Sengupta, J. :

This is an application praying for expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147/148/149/324 and 302 of the Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the 80 persons made accused in this case. The FIR was registered being Dinhata Police Station Case No.26 of 1987 dated July 15, 1987. A chargesheet was submitted against the accused on 10.12.1990. On 19.07.2019, this Court passed an order directing the jurisdictional court to commit the

2

matter to the Sessions Court. On some pretext or the other, the matter got dragged and the case was not committed to the Sessions Court. It appears that some of the accused remained absconding and warrant of arrest had to be issued against them. For this, the present petitioner cannot suffer. He is not even getting pension after retirement because of pendency of this case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that it would be for the interest of justice that the criminal proceeding be expedited.

It is, indeed, a very unfortunate case where although the FIR was lodged in 1987 and a charge-sheet was submitted far back in 1990, the matter could not even be committed to the Sessions Court. This is despite the fact that in 2019, there was a specific direction passed by this Court to do the needful in this regard.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, learned jurisdictional court is directed to conclude the proceeding regarding commitment of the case to the Sessions Court, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, after complying with necessary formalities and if necessary, spliting up the proceedings as against the appearing accused. The Sessions Court would thereafter take necessary steps to expedite the proceeding and conclude it in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

With these observations and directions, the revisional application is disposed of.

3

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the

parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

64/SG