Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasenjit Bhunia vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 3 May, 2023
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
03.05.2023
Court No.13
Item No.15
AP
WPA 10909 of 2023
Prasenjit Bhunia
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Soumya Nag
Mr. Aditya Tiwari
Ms. Namrata Chatterjee
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee
Ms. Ipsita Banerjee
... For the State.
Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti
Mr. Ayanava Raha
... For the Respondent Nos.8 & 9.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Ms. Priyanka Tibrewal ... For the added respondent.
1. Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Tati, who claims to be a victim, as he was also assaulted along with the writ petitioner, at the time of abduction of Bijoy Krishna Bhunia.
2. Let Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Tati be added as party respondent to the instant proceedings. Leave is granted to the learned advocate on record for the petitioner to amend the cause title and effect service.
3. The incident of kidnapping and subsequent murder of the victim Bijoy Krishna Bhunia is stated to have occurred on 1st May, 2023 sometime in the evening. The victim is stated to have been assaulted 2 along with the petitioner by certain named persons. The assailants were trying to drag the victim away from his house. Upon being resisted by the petitioner and his mother and neighbor Sanjoy Kumar Tati were severely assaulted.
4. It is complained by the mother of the petitioner that bombs were hurled and gunshots were fired in the air to scare the petitioner and the resistors away. The assailants were able to kidnap the victim and take him away.
5. Moyna Police claims to have been informed by a police outpost, of the incident and a search team stated to been is sent to the place of occurrence. Frantic attempts are stated to have been made to trace the victim out. It is stated that names of the assailants have not been mentioned by the victim's family and local.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite receipt of information from him, no GD entry has been made by the Moyna Police Station. This is a matter that will have to be enquired into at the later stage.
7. The police have submitted through State counsel, Mr. Banerjee, that the body of the victim was found late in the night near a pond in the locality. The body was thereafter taken to the Tamrolipta Government Medical College and Hospital at Tamluk where the victim was declared dead.
3
8. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner and other relatives were requested to be present at the time of inquest. Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner denies the same.
9. Inquest is stated to have been conducted in the presence of the local Executive Magistrate and the body was sent for post mortem and it was conducted.
Mr. Chatterjee learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not informed of the post mortem being conducted either. The State shall explain the need for having conducted a post mortem after sun down.
10. The post mortem is stated to have been videographed. Admittedly, a bullet injury has been found in the head of the victim. The details of other injuries and condition of the body within and outside cannot be ascertained, for want of the inquest and post mortem reports.
11. The petitioner at this stage makes the following prayers:
(a) A second post mortem should be conducted at an independent and non-State medical facility.
(b) Adequate security should be provided to the petitioner.
4
(c) The provisions of the Explosive
Substances Act 1908 and the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 must be included in the FIR.
12. On the above prayers for interim order, the State has susmitted that they have no objection to second post mortem even at the Command Hospital at Kolkata. On the prayer for securing the petitioner, the State has offered to put in place appropriate security measures.
13. As regards the addition of sections in the FIR, it is stated that since the incident has unfolded in its full perspective only yesterday, steps are now being taken based on the petitioner's mother complaint and that of Sanjoy Kumar Tati, to add further sections in the FIR.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court at the ad interim stage directs as follows:-
(a) The State shall forthwith transfer the body of the victim to the Command Hospital at Kolkata.
(b) The family may see the body of the victim at the Tamralipta Medical College and Hospital before the transfer as directed hereinabove.
(c) The Command Hospital shall constitute a team of medical experts to conduct a second post mortem and the same shall also be videographed. 5
(d) The State may depute two forensic experts from their side to be present at the time of the second post mortem.
(e) The petitioner and the added respondent may be present in course of post mortem.
(f) The report of second post mortem shall be submitted to this Court and simultaneously to the petitioner as also to the Moyna Police.
(g) The Central Government shall deploy a force either from the CISF or CRPF or any other paramilitary force, for the security of the family to be stationed near the house of the petitioner and the added respondent for a period of four weeks initially.
15. Since it is already submitted by the Moyna Police that further sections in the FIR are in the process of being considered and added, the Moyna Police shall include relevant sections of the IPC concerning kidnapping, simple or grievous hurt and provisions of the Explosive Substances Act in the FIR. Provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 shall also be added given the clear complaint of the mother of the petitioner.
16. The State shall submit a report before this Court on Monday (i.e. 8th May, 2023) when the matter shall be listed at 10:30 am.
6
17. All the questions raised by the petitioner and by this Court shall be addressed by the Moyna Police in their report on Monday.
18. Case diary may also be produced before this Court on the adjourned date.
19. All the parties are requested to maintain peace and calm.
20. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)