The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal Government to file affidavits addressing allegations raised in a batch of Public Interest Litigations concerning the alleged police encounter killing of an accused who was taken to the place of occurrence for reconstruction of a crime involving the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in Baruipur.

A Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra was hearing a batch of petitions, including those filed by the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), Protection for Peoples Right Organisation, Shiladitya Rakshit, Sujato Bhadra and Janaswastha Suraksha O Adhikar Mancha.

The petitions concern an incident in which, according to the Court's order, a young girl aged about nine years was raped and murdered somewhere in Baruipur. When one of the accused persons was taken to the place of occurrence for reconstruction of the crime, the accused allegedly died in a police encounter.

“The petitioners say that it was a fake encounter,” the Court recorded.

The State strongly denied and disputed the allegation through its learned Additional Advocate General.

The Court noted that the State had filed a report pursuant to an earlier order dated July 30, 2026, passed by a Coordinate Bench in WPA (P) 366 of 2026.

The report was directed to be kept on record. However, the State submitted that it could not immediately supply the report to the other parties since the investigation was still underway.

The Bench accordingly directed the State to file affidavits dealing with the allegations raised in the writ petitions and serve copies on the advocates appearing for the petitioners within two weeks.

The petitioners were granted one week thereafter to file replies, if any.

The matters have been listed for further hearing on October 6, 2026.

On the next date, the State has been directed to apprise the Court about the progress of the investigation.

The Bench observed that considerable time had elapsed since the investigation commenced and said it expected the investigation to be completed “very shortly” and preferably before the next date, while making it clear that this should be done “without of course compromising the quality of the investigation.”

Senior Counsel Partha Sarathi Sengupta, appearing for the petitioners in WPA (P) 374 of 2026, also submitted that the Investigating Authority should preserve all material evidence relating to the alleged offence.

The Court observed that the Investigating Authority was required to preserve such evidence in accordance with the applicable law.

The matter will next be considered on October 6, 2026.

Click here to read order