Disposed¶18

Sbarajendu Dey Sarkar @ Sarajendu Sarkar @ Rana Dey Sarkar v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC17 Jun 2026CRR/211/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: warrant of arrest; recall of warrant; no show-cause; no opportunity to accused; surety; bail continuation; Bar resolution 'no adverse orders'; lawyer's wrong submission of no instruction; Sections 447/354 IPC; Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST (POA) Act 1989; Special Court 2nd Court Darjeeling; Spl. G.R. Case No. 11 of 2022; Pradhannagar P.S. Case No. 286 of 2022; CRR 211 of 2026; Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.; criminal revision disposed; setting aside impugned order 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.04.2026 set aside; warrant of arrest recalled; petitioner to remain on the same bail; connected application(s), if any, disposed of; copy of order to be sent to the trial Court at once. ¶18

Sbarajendu Dey Sarkar @ Sarajendu Sarkar @ Rana Dey Sarkar Vs the State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.04.2026 of the Special Court, Darjeeling issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner, passed without any show-cause or opportunity to the accused, should be set aside. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not issue any show-cause or direct the surety to produce the accused, i.e., no opportunity was given to the accused prior to issuance of the warrant of arrest.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 is set aside.

¶15

Key takeaways

The warrant of arrest issued is hereby recalled.ratio¶16
The petitioner shall remain on the same bail.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR 211 of 2026 (Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; decided 17.06.2026; Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) — Revisional application challenging order dated 22.04.2026 of the learned Judge, Special Court under SC & ST (POA) Act, 2nd Court, Darjeeling, issuing warrant of arrest in Spl. G.R. Case No. 11 of 2022 arising out of Pradhannagar P.S. Case No. 286 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 under Sections 447/354 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A local Bar resolution dated 21.04.2026 had called for 'no adverse orders' for three days including 22.04.2026; the petitioner attributed the warrant to his lawyer wrongly submitting non-possession of instructions. Held: the learned Additional Sessions Judge issued the warrant without any show-cause or direction to the surety to produce the accused, i.e., without affording the accused an opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 was set aside in the interest of justice, the warrant of arrest was recalled, and the petitioner was directed to remain on the same bail; the revisional application and connected application(s) were disposed of, with a copy of the order to be sent to the trial Court at once.

¶1

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

¶2

17.06.2026 Court No.5 Item No.40

¶3

Aloke CRR 211 of 2026

¶4

Sbarajendu Dey Sarkar @ Sarajendu Sarkar

¶5

Vs. The State of West Bengal

¶6

Mr. Hillol Saha Podder

¶7

… for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Ms. Rajyashree Ghosh … for the State

¶9

The revisional application has been preferred challenging an order dated 22.04.2026, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under SC & ST (POA) Act, 2^nd Court, Darjeeling, in connection with Spl. G.R. Case No. 11 of 2022 arising out of Pradhannagar P.S. Case No. 286 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 under Sections 447/354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 thereby issuing warrant of arrest.

¶10

It appears from the document at page 25 that a resolution dated 21.04.2026 shows that there was a resolution by the local Bar for ‘no adverse orders’ for three days including 22.04.2026.

¶11

The petitioner submits it is due to the conduct of the lawyer who appeared before the Court on the said date and wrongly submitted that he has no instruction that the warrant of arrest was issued.

¶12

¶13

It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not issue any show-cause or direct the surety to produce the accused meaning giving an opportunity to the accused, prior to issuance of warrant of arrest.

¶14