03.09.2026 In The High Court at Calcutta Item No.5 Court No.37 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Bench Appellate Side ID:266447 CHC WPA (H) 76 of 2026 Smt. Isha Maity Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pintu Karan, Advocate Mr. Sahab Uddin Laskar, Advocate …for the petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Dibasish Basu, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Prasanta Naskar, Advocate Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri, Advocate …for the State Mr. Abhijit Basu, Sr. Advocate (V.C) Mr. Debdipto Banerjee, Advocate …for the respondent nos.10 & 11 1. The writ petition claims that, her husband was abducted. 2. State and the private respondents are represented. 3. Report submitted on behalf of the State be taken on record. 4. It appears from the report of the State that, the husband of the writ petition took gold from the private respondent under written agreement. He was unable 2 to give back the gold or repay the valuation of the gold. The value of a portion of the gold that was taken was paid by the husband of the writ petitioner. 5. Report states that, since a police Constable was involved in receiving the payment of the value of the portion of the gold, departmental proceeding was initiated against such Constable. 6. State is at liberty to conclude such departmental proceeding in accordance with law.

7. On the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that, the husband of the petitioner was kept confined by the private respondents, we are requested the learned advocate for the private respondents to ensure that, the husband of the writ petitioner was made available on the virtual platform, since, he was located at Bangalore. We also requested the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner to allow the writ petitioner to appear on the virtual platform. 8. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, both the writ petitioner as well as the husband of the writ petitioner appeared on the virtual platform. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner put questions to the husband of the writ petitioner which, were responded to. 9. We do not find that, any further order need be passed in this present writ petition, as the husband of the writ petitioner is located. 3 10. WPA (H) 76 of 2026 is disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Aryak Dutt, J.) CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY DigitallyDate: 2026.09.03signed by14:11:02CHINMOY+05'30'CHAKRABORTY

03.09.2026 In The High Court at Calcutta Item No.5 Court No.37 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Bench Appellate Side ID:266447 CHC WPA (H) 76 of 2026 Smt. Isha Maity Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pintu Karan, Advocate Mr. Sahab Uddin Laskar, Advocate …for the petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Dibasish Basu, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Prasanta Naskar, Advocate Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri, Advocate …for the State Mr. Abhijit Basu, Sr. Advocate (V.C) Mr. Debdipto Banerjee, Advocate …for the respondent nos.10 & 11 1. The writ petition claims that, her husband was abducted. 2. State and the private respondents are represented. 3. Report submitted on behalf of the State be taken on record. 4. It appears from the report of the State that, the husband of the writ petition took gold from the private respondent under written agreement. He was unable 2 to give back the gold or repay the valuation of the gold. The value of a portion of the gold that was taken was paid by the husband of the writ petitioner. 5. Report states that, since a police Constable was involved in receiving the payment of the value of the portion of the gold, departmental proceeding was initiated against such Constable. 6. State is at liberty to conclude such departmental proceeding in accordance with law.

7. On the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that, the husband of the petitioner was kept confined by the private respondents, we are requested the learned advocate for the private respondents to ensure that, the husband of the writ petitioner was made available on the virtual platform, since, he was located at Bangalore. We also requested the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner to allow the writ petitioner to appear on the virtual platform. 8. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, both the writ petitioner as well as the husband of the writ petitioner appeared on the virtual platform. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner put questions to the husband of the writ petitioner which, were responded to. 9. We do not find that, any further order need be passed in this present writ petition, as the husband of the writ petitioner is located. 3 10. WPA (H) 76 of 2026 is disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Aryak Dutt, J.) CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY DigitallyDate: 2026.09.03signed by14:11:02CHINMOY+05'30'CHAKRABORTY