Disposed¶12

Chiranjit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC20 Jul 2026CRR/2448/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of witnesses P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 for five additional cross-examination questions; Order No. 37 dated 15.06.2026 of Court below set aside; questions earlier deemed repetitive; closure of witness evidence and trial delay versus ends of justice; liberty confined to five questions on 21.09.2026 or within 15 days thereafter; CRR 2448 of 2026; State of West Bengal; petitioner Chiranjit Ghosh; coram Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.; decision date 20.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to put only the five questions mentioned in his application/petition dated 05.03.2026 to P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 by way of cross-examination, on the next date 21.09.2026 or within 15 days thereafter; the Court below's order dated 15.06.2026 set aside. ¶12

Chiranjit Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the five questions proposed to be put to P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were correctly found repetitive by the Court below, and whether, as urged by the petitioner's counsel, they were vital for adjudication and their disallowance would seriously prejudice the accused persons. +1 more

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and both opposite parties and gone through the questions proposed to be put to P.W. 6 and 7, the Court held that, for securing the ends of justice, the petitioner's prayer to recall the two witnesses deserved to be allowed.

¶11

Key takeaways

The instant application CRR/2448/2026 was disposed of by giving the petitioner liberty to put only those five questions mentioned in the petition dated 5th March, 2026 to P.W. 6 and 7 by way of cross-examination.ratio¶12
The five questions were to be put on the next date, i.e. 21.09.2026, or within a period of 15 days thereafter, and the order dated 15.06.2026 of the Court below stands set aside.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chiranjit Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., CRR 2448 of 2026 (decided 20.07.2026; Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.). The petitioner, aggrieved by Order No. 37 dated 15.06.2026 of the Court below rejecting his prayer to recall P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 to put five questions by way of cross-examination listed in his application dated 05.03.2026, contended that the questions were wrongly treated as repetitive and were vital for adjudication. Opposing counsel argued several cross-examination opportunities had been given and not availed, and the evidence of the two witnesses had rightly been closed to avoid further trial delay. Concluding that allowance was necessary to secure the ends of justice, the Court disposed of the application: the petitioner was confined to putting only those five questions on the next date, 21.09.2026, or within 15 days thereafter, and the order dated 15.06.2026 was set aside. No statute or precedent is cited in the judgment.

¶1

20.07.2026

¶2

Serial no. 29 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29

¶3

CRR 2448 of 2026

¶4

CHIRANJIT GHOSH -VS-

¶5

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

¶6

Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Mr. Dipendu Sarkar, Ms. Deblina De, Advocates … … For the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P., Mr. Imran Siddiqui, Advocate ……For the State. Mr. Ankan Das, Ms. Payel Das, Advocates …….For the Private Opposite Party. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

¶7

In this application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the Order No. 37 dated 15.06.2026 by which the Court below rejected the petitioner’s prayer for recalling P.W. 6 and 7 to put five questions by way of cross-examination which are mentioned in the application dated 05.03.2026.

¶8

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in observing that the questions are repetitive which is not correct. He further submits that the said questions are vital for adjudication of the issue and if such questions are not allowed to be put to the said two witnesses, then the accused persons will have serious cause to prejudice.

¶9

¶10

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party raised objection contending that several opportunities were given to the petitioner during cross-examination but as he did not avail such opportunities the Court below was justified in closing the evidence of said two witnesses, so that further delay may not be caused in concluding the trial. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for interference by this Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State leaves the prayer made by the petitioner to the discretion of the Court.

¶11

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and both the opposite parties and after going through the questions that are proposed to be put to P.W. 6 and 7, I find that for securing the ends of justice, the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶12

In view of above, the instant application being CRR/2448/2026 is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to put only those five questions mentioned in the petition of complaint dated 5^th March, 2026 to P.W. 6 and 7 by way of cross-examination on the next date, i.e., on 21.09.2026 or within a period of 15 days thereafter. The order dated 15.06.2026 thus stands set aside.

¶13

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Chiranjit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chiranjit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tariful Piyada @ Tariful Peyada and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Subhra Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Swapan Kumar De and Others Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Shantanu Dey and Another Vs Sweta Dey and Another

XXX-1 Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Somraj Ghosh Vs Sujata Ghosh Nee Nag