Soiada Bibi Alias Sayeda Bibi Vs State of West… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

Soiada Bibi Alias Sayeda Bibi Vs State of West… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; writ petition disposed of with observations that the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023 regarding police inaction, and may take steps in accordance with law for cancellation of bail if threatened by accused persons released on bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should direct the concerned police authorities to seize certain materials and take the investigation in Nalhati Police Station Case No. 307 of 2026 to its logical conclusion at an early date. +1 more

Court's answer

If the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the police authorities in taking necessary steps to seize items, she needs to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023.

Ratio / Principle

The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not an appropriate forum for giving direction upon the concerned police authorities/investigating agency to take steps in connection with investigation at the first instance, unless exigencies demand otherwise.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is threatened by accused persons after their release on bail, it will be open to her to take steps in accordance with law for cancellation of bail.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 16709 of 2026, Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) by Soiada Bibi alias Sayeda Bibi seeking directions to police to seize materials and conclude investigation in Nalhati Police Station Case No. 307 of 2026 (under provisions of BNS), and complaining of threats from accused persons enlarged on bail, stands disposed of with observations: the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an appropriate forum for directing the police authorities/investigating agency to take investigative steps at the first instance unless exigencies demand otherwise; an aggrieved petitioner must approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023; reliance was placed on 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 (Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.); threats by accused on bail are to be addressed through steps in accordance with law for cancellation of bail.

25 27.07.2026 Ct. No. 05 adeb

WPA 16709 of 2026

Soiada Bibi alias Sayeda Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Arindam Chatterjee Ms. Lipika Chatterjee Mr. Soumik Dey Ms. Rika Das …for the petitioner Mr. Soumik Ganguly ..for the respondent nos. 6 & 7 Mr. Deb Kumar Chandra Ms. Megha Sarkar …for the State

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that certain materials are required to be seized by the investigating officer while investigating Nalhati Police Station case No. 307 of 2026 dated 16^th June, 2026 under certain provisions of BNS. It is also submitted that accused persons after being enlarged on bail are threatening the petitioner. Prayer is made in this writ petition for directing the concerned police authorities to take necessary steps for taking investigation to its logical conclusion at an early date.

2

State respondents and respondent nos. 6 and

7 are represented by learned advocates.

If petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the police authorities in taking necessary steps thereby seizing items in that event petitioner needs to approach jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023. High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate forum for giving direction upon the concerned police authorities/investigating agency to take steps in connection with investigation at the first instance, unless exigencies demand otherwise. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 (Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that accused persons being enlarged on bail are posing threat to the petitioner. If petitioner is being threatened by accused persons after being released on bail in that event it will be open to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law for cancellation of bail.

3

With the aforesaid observation writ petition stands disposed of.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)