Calcutta High Court directs that when a petitioner alleges threat during pendency of a criminal case, the jurisdictional Magistrate must consider the application under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, call for a threat perception report, and, if satisfied, pass necessary protection orders. This judgment upholds the established statutory mechanism, reinforcing the binding effect of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 for future cases involving witness safety concerns.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/687/2025 of NIBEDITA (JANA) BHUNIA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0011912025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive authority in other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Victim and Witness Protection |
| Questions of Law | Whether the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to consider threat perception and pass protection orders under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, on application by a petitioner in a pending criminal case. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reaffirmed that if a criminal case is pending and a petitioner alleges a threat to their safety, the appropriate course is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Magistrate, under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is then required to call for a threat perception report. Upon satisfaction that there exists a real threat, the Magistrate must pass necessary protection orders in accordance with the Scheme. The Court made clear this mechanism is to be followed in all such cases and that recognition of threat and the subsequent grant of protection is a judicial responsibility. The order disposes of the writ petition on these directions, without deciding on the factual allegations of threat. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner complained of threats in connection with Nandigram Police Station Case No. 977 of 2024. Information regarding the threats was given to the authorities, but no steps were taken for her protection. The Court noted these facts and prescribed the statutory remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Magistrates in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Magistrates and courts in other states; relevant for criminal law practitioners everywhere |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that petitioners facing threats in pending criminal cases can and should invoke the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 via the jurisdictional Magistrate.
- Magistrates are statutorily bound to call for a threat perception report and, if satisfied, grant appropriate witness protection.
- The process is judicially monitored — not left to executive or police discretion alone.
- Lawyers must advise clients facing threats to use this legal route for protection.
- The Court clarified that factual claims of threat in writ petitions are not deemed admitted unless affidavits are called for.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that while information of threats was furnished by the petitioner, authorities took no steps for her protection.
- It held that where a criminal case is pending, the proper remedy is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
- The Magistrate must then call for a threat perception report.
- If the Magistrate is satisfied after reviewing the report, he must pass appropriate orders for witness protection under the Scheme.
- The Court disposed of the petition on these directions, without requiring detailed examination of the factual dispute about threats as no affidavits had been invited.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Complained that despite Nandigram Police Station Case No. 977 of 2024 being under investigation, she continued to face threats.
- Asserted that information about these threats was given, but no protection measures were implemented.
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
Submissions not detailed in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner, in connection with Nandigram Police Station Case No. 977 of 2024, reported that she faced ongoing threats. She stated that while she had informed the authorities, no protective steps had been taken on her behalf. This led to approaching the Calcutta High Court for relief regarding her safety.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment addressed the applicability of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Court stated that, pursuant to the Scheme, the jurisdictional Magistrate has to call for a threat perception report upon an application by a concerned person. Depending on the report, the Magistrate must pass appropriate protection orders. The mechanism is judicially anchored under the Scheme, ensuring the Magistrate’s role is central and mandatory in cases of alleged threats to witnesses or victims.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment is a single-judge order. No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court clarified that unless affidavits are specifically called for from respondents, factual allegations (such as threat perception) in writ petitions are not deemed admitted.
- The order permits parties to rely on digital versions on the official website for compliance, expediting communication of orders while formalities are completed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms and operationalizes the process under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, for safeguarding the rights and safety of witnesses and petitioners in criminal cases.