Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: July 31, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Surendra Sharma (father) vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
  • Petition: WPA (H) 57 of 2026 filed under Article 226 seeking relief from the arrest of his son, Sumit Kumar Sharma, on grounds of non‑communication of arrest reasons and alleged political motive.
  • Arrest Details: Son arrested on June 27, 2026 at 11:00 am (later noted as about 15:15 hrs) by police in connection with Burdwan FIR No.876 of 2026 dated June 27, 2026.
  • Charges: Sections 126(1), 115(1), 117(2), 109(1), 308(1), 308(4), 76, 64, 62, 324(4), 3(5) of the Bengal Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
  • Prior Order: A separate writ petition (WPA 13152 of 2026, Sumit Kumar Sharma vs. State of West Bengal) was disposed on June 24, 2026, recording that no criminal prosecution was pending against the son at Burdwan Police Station as of that date.
  • FIR Timing: The FIR forming the basis of the arrest was registered on June 27, 2026, i.e., after the June 24 order stating no pending case.
  • Complaints: Two complaints lodged by the de‑facto complainant concerning an incident on September 5, 2025. One complaint names the son; the other does not. The arrest relates only to the first complaint.
  • Grounds of Arrest: The State’s affidavit‑in‑opposition admits that grounds of arrest were not communicated to the son or his family at the time of arrest. The son’s wife visited the police station on June 28, 2026, but the grounds were allegedly refused by her.
  • Legal Precedent Cited: (2026) 1 SCC 500 – Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing mandatory communication of grounds of arrest.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • The arrest was based on a cognizable offence of extortion as alleged in the FIR; therefore, the arrest cannot be faulted.
  • While the family was not initially informed, the wife’s subsequent visit indicates possible later communication, though not conclusively proven.
  • Remedies are available to the arrestee under law; extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate in these facts.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition (WPA (H) 57 of 2026) is disposed of without any order as to costs.
  • The court declined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, effectively upholding the legality of the arrest.

Topics: Arrest, Writ Petition