Disposed¶12

Manoranjan Mohapatra v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC16 Jul 2026CRR/2812/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Speedy trial; Article 21 Constitution of India; expeditious disposal of criminal trial; direction to trial court; six-month timeline; CRR 2812 of 2026; Calcutta High Court; Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.; Manoranjan Mohapatra v. State of West Bengal; B.G.R. Case No.3557 of 2024; Budge Budge Police Station Case No.178 of 2024; Sections 354C/354D/506 IPC; 4th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore; charge framed 21.02.2025; no witness examined since 08.08.2025; service dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the Court below to make every endeavour for expeditious disposal of B.G.R. Case No.3557 of 2024 and to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within six months from the next date of hearing; service of the application on the opposite party dispensed with. ¶12

Manoranjan Mohapatra 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 abnormal delay in the trial of B.G.R. Case No.3557 of 2024, with no prosecution witness examined since 08.08.2025, violates the petitioner's fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Considering that after framing of charge about one and a half years had already passed but recording of evidence had not yet started, the Court found the petitioner's prayer justified and required to be allowed to secure the ends of justice.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The instant application CRR 2812 of 2026 was disposed of with a direction upon the Court below to make every endeavour for expeditious disposal of the proceeding and to make his best effort to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

¶12

Key takeaways

The prayer being innocuous and, if allowed, causing no prejudice to the opposite party, service of copy of the application upon the opposite party was dispensed with.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR 2812 of 2026 (Calcutta High Court, Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., 16.07.2026): The petitioner, the accused in B.G.R. Case No.3557 of 2024 arising out of Budge Budge Police Station Case No.178 of 2024 under Sections 354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned 4th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, prayed for expeditious disposal on the ground of inordinate trial delay. Although the proceeding was initiated on 30.06.2024 and charge was framed on 21.02.2025, recording of evidence fixed on 08.08.2025 had not commenced and not a single prosecution witness had been examined, which counsel argued violated the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Finding the delay and the prayer justified, the Court dispensed with service on the opposite party and disposed of the application with a direction upon the Court below to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within six months from the next date of hearing.

¶1

16.07.2026 Sl. No.16. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29.

¶2

CRR/2812/2026

¶3

Manoranjan Mohapatra Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶5

Mrs. Pampa Dey ( Dhabal), Mr. Bioswarup Chatterjee

¶6

…for the petitioner

¶7

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for expeditious disposal of B.G.R. Case No.3557 of 2024 arising out of Budge Budge Police Station Case No.178 of 2024 under Sections 354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before learned 4^th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.

¶8

Being aggrieved by the inordinate delay caused in disposal of the said proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30^th June, 2024, the criminal proceeding was initiated and thereafter police submitted charge-sheet after completion of investigation on 30^th September, 2025. Thereafter the charge was framed against the accused/petitioner on 21^st February, 2025. Thereafter recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses was fixed on 08.08.2025 but since then not a single witness could be examined so far and, as such, the trial is getting delayed abnormally which violates the petitioner’s fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he prayed for necessary direction upon the Court below for expeditious disposal of the said proceeding.

¶9

¶10

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and that the prayer made by the petitioner is innocuous and if it is allowed in terms of the prayer made in the application, the opposite party will have no cause to prejudice and, as such, service of copy of application upon the opposite party is dispensed with.

¶11

Having considered submission made on behalf of the petitioner and that after framing of charge about one and half years have already been passed but the recording of evidence not yet started, I find that the prayer made by the petitioner is justified and required to be allowed to secure the ends of justice.

¶12

In view of above, the instant application being CRR 2812 of 2026 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the Court below to make every endeavour for expeditious disposal of the said proceeding and to make his best effort to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

¶13

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

¶14

( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )

Manoranjan Mohapatra v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjan Mohapatra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Shaw and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Satyaki Mandal Alias Swarthaki Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sofia Haque Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Subhra Rani Halder Nee Sardar Vs Subrata Sardar and Another

Mithu Lahiri Vs Rana Lahiri

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