The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday declined to grant an urgent hearing to a prosecution witness in the R G Kar Medical College and Hospital rape and murder case who has moved the court seeking protection, claiming his house was vandalised following the declaration of the West Bengal Assembly election results.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, before whose bench the matter was mentioned, directed the petitioner to formally file the petition and serve notices to all concerned parties. The court maintained that the matter would be taken up for hearing in accordance with its serial listing on the daily cause list.
Summary of the Legal Issue
The petitioner, Sanjib Mukherjee, sought the high court’s intervention to obtain state protection after his residence was allegedly targeted and vandalised. Mukherjee claimed that the attack on his house was linked to the post-election environment and his role as a key prosecution witness in the high-profile R G Kar rape-murder trial. However, the court declined to bypass the standard listing procedure to hear the matter on an urgent basis.
Background of the Case
The petitioner is a neighbour of the post-graduate trainee doctor who was raped and murdered at the R G Kar Medical College and Hospital. According to the submission made by Mukherjee’s counsel, he served as a prosecution witness in the trial. The criminal trial before the Sealdah sessions court recently concluded with the conviction of the sole accused, Sanjay Roy, who was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections, the mother of the R G Kar victim contested the polls on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket and was successfully elected to the state legislature. Following the announcement of these election results, the petitioner’s house was allegedly vandalised.
Petitioner’s Prayer for Protection
On Tuesday, the petitioner’s lawyer mentioned the matter before Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, praying for permission to file a writ petition out of turn and seeking an urgent hearing. The counsel highlighted the threat to the witness’s safety and argued that immediate judicial intervention was necessary to secure police protection for Mukherjee and his household in the wake of the vandalism.
The Court’s Decision
Refusing the prayer for an urgent hearing, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the petitioner’s counsel to follow standard procedural rules. The bench instructed the advocate to file the petition formally in the registry and serve notices of the petition to the state and other opposing parties.
The court ruled that the petition would be listed and heard sequentially as per its established serial order on the cause list.
