Read Full Judgment: The State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das
In the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das, the Supreme Court addressed the legality of a judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta on May 11, 2023. The case stemmed from the registration of FIR No. 01 of 2022 at the STF Police Station, Kolkata, following the recovery of an unclaimed bag containing incriminating materials related to the CPI(Maoist). The respondent, Jayeeta Das, was apprehended and additional charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) were added upon the Investigating Officer’s request. The respondent petitioned the High Court to quash these charges, arguing that only a Special Court designated under the NIA Act had jurisdiction over UAPA offenses.
The appellant, represented by Shri Siddhartha Dave, contended that since the case was investigated by state police and no Special Court had been constituted by the State Government, the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try the offenses. Despite conceding that only the Sessions Court could extend detention beyond 90 days, Dave argued that the accused’s failure to seek default bail rendered any irregularities in remand irrelevant.
In response, the respondent’s counsel argued that the High Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, citing a Gazette Notification indicating the existence of a Special Court for UAPA offenses in West Bengal. The respondent’s counsel also acknowledged the failure to seek default bail but maintained that the jurisdictional issue invalidated the proceedings.
The Supreme Court examined Section 22 of the NIA Act, which grants jurisdiction to the Sessions Court until a Special Court is designated by the State Government. Since West Bengal had not constituted such a court, the Sessions Court had jurisdiction over the case. The Court also clarified that while the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could authorize remand for 90 days, any extension beyond that required authorization from the Sessions Court.
However, the Court noted that the accused did not claim default bail despite the charge sheet being filed beyond the extended period, raising questions about the effect of evidence collected during the allegedly illegal remand. These issues, the Court emphasized, should be addressed at the trial stage.
Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgment, affirming the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and dismissing the appeal.
Disclaimer: The case is presented solely for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or imply any legal conclusion. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for specific legal advice or guidance related to any legal matters.
