Sudipta Roy Chowdhury vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 471 Cal

D/L14                             C.R.R. No.1412 of 2021
February                                  With
10, 2022
                                     CRAN 1 of 2022
   Bpg.
                                  (Via Video Conference)

In Re: An application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

Sudipta Raychowdhury alias Sudipta Roy Chowdhury Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Anirban Guha Thakurata. Mr. Abhijit Chowdhary, ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy.

...for the State.

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner took out an application contending that it was an

inadvertent mistake in the order dated 21st December, 2021 for not

incorporating the CCTV footages and it was the impression of the

learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that there were

reference in respect of the preservation of the CCTV footages which

were prayed before the learned ACJM, Bidhannagar.

Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the

State has filed an opposition to such application denying such

contention.

I have heard Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate, who

intended to rely upon the merits of the case so far as the

applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble' Supreme Court in

Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & Ors. reported in (2021) 1

SCC 184 are concerned. Learned advocate has relied upon

paragraph nos.4 to 8, 15, 17, 20 and 21 of the said judgment. The

purpose for which the said judgment was passed was obviously to

discipline police station and action against the accused.

The genesis of the application as is revealed from the

records was taken out almost after two months the petitioner was

released on bail. During the period while he was in custody for

almost 91 days, no such application was taken out. The purpose of

the petitioner is to create evidence. Investigation of the case is still

in progress. This Court consciously in the order dated 21st

December, 2021 did not refer for preservation or supply of any

extracts of the CCTV footage to the petitioner. Accordingly, the

contentions so advanced do not warrant any correction of the order

so passed on 21st December, 2021.

Thus, the application filed by the petitioner being CRAN 1

of 2022 is dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)