SOMNATH BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the above case has claimed that he has been falsely implicated by the defacto complainant. He is not the principal accused. According to the FIR he was present at Guwahati and he did not play any pivotal role in connection with the alleged offence. However, investigation is complete and chargesheet has been submitted in the relevant case being Tamluk Police Station Case No. 894/24 dtd. 10/10/2024 under Ss. 336(1)/ 336(2)/ 338/ 340(2)/ 318(4)/ 316(2)/ 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and as such the relevant case being a Magistrate triable case, there is no need for further detention of the petitioner in custody.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of arrest the concerned police personnel violated judicial dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 by not informing the ground of arrest to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel has also submitted that the person who allegedly took the commission money to the tune of Rs.1,60,00,000.00 was not made an accused nor a witness in the charge-sheet. This goes to show that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.