Merely Being Named by Co Accused Cannot Justify a 14-Year Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Case Based on Unverified Statement

“If the police fail to verify the lead and remain inactive for 14 years, liberty of the accused cannot be sacrificed at the altar of delay”, In a powerful rebuke of investigative inertia, the Calcutta High Court, quashed a 14-year-old criminal proceeding against a man who was arrested solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement during interrogation.

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, without any corroborative evidence beyond a confession of a co-accused — which is inadmissible — would amount to a “sheer abuse of process of court”.

The Court directed immediate release of the petitioner if not wanted in any other case and noted:

"Liberty of a person cannot be sacrificed for the investigative failures of the police, particularly when the only evidence is a co-accused’s statement which was never verified."

“A Confession by Co-Accused Is Not a Conviction Tool — It Must Be Corroborated”: Court Reiterates Fundamental Evidentiary Principle

The case pertained to NDPS Case No. 35 of 2024, corresponding to GR Case No. 1591 of 2010, stemming from Jalangi Police Station Case No. 308 of 2010, registered under Sections 379/411/413/414 IPC and Section 27(a)(6)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

On 15.05.2010, narcotics were recovered from a Maruti car and two accused persons — Babu Sk @ Abid Hossain and Ejaharun Mandal — were arrested. During interrogation, they named the petitioner, Kajim Sk., as being involved.

No recovery was made from the petitioner, and he was not present at the scene. Yet, a chargesheet was filed against him showing him as an absconder, and a warrant of arrest was issued on 02.09.2010, but not executed for over 13 years.

The Court emphasized: “On the basis of a statement of an accused none can be punished or convicted unless there are other materials connecting the offenders who were named by the said accused persons.”

“No Reminders from Court Is No Excuse — It Is the Duty of Police to Execute Warrants”: Court Rejects Bizarre Defence of Inaction

The most shocking revelation came from the police report, which stated that the warrant was not executed because the Court did not send reminders between 2011 and 2023. Additionally, police cited bifurcation of the Jalangi Police Station in 2020 as another reason.

Justice Ray slammed this reasoning: “There is no law in our country obliging the court to give a reminder to the police authority for execution of a warrant of arrest which was already issued.”

And further: “For 10 long years, the police remained idle since they thought there would be a separation of jurisdictions... All the above reasons seem unconscionable and cannot be accepted, particularly when the matter involves the liberty of a person.”

“Investigative Leads Must Be Verified — Mere Naming Is Not Evidence”: Court Explains Role of Police Under Section 161 CrPC

Delving into the legal framework under Section 161 CrPC, the Court clarified that while statements made to police can act as “leads”, they must be verified with other evidence before proceeding against an accused.

“If the said information received from the accused is not verified nor acted upon, mere naming of another by the apprehended accused makes the issue irrelevant.”

The Court categorically stated that the absence of any corroborative action or recovery from the petitioner, despite his presence in the jurisdiction for 14 years, renders the proceedings unsustainable.

“Court Must Exercise Its Power Under Section 482 CrPC to Prevent Misuse of Process”: High Court Cites Precedents for Quashing

The Court emphasized: “It is trite law that the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC ought to be exercised with extreme care, but the court should not hesitate to quash any proceedings which may amount to abuse of the process of law.”

 “14 Years of Silence, No Evidence, and an Inadmissible Statement — Liberty Must Prevail”

The Calcutta High Court’s verdict sends a clear signal against prosecutorial complacency and misuse of judicial processes through unsubstantiated accusations. The ruling emphasizes that police must not rely blindly on unverified confessions, and courts must step in to protect fundamental rights when such apathy endangers liberty.

The Court concluded: “Allowing the proceedings to continue... would be a sheer abuse of process of court.”

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR, chargesheet, and all subsequent orders against Kajim Sk., were quashed, and he was directed to be released from custody immediately, if not wanted in any other case.

Date of Decision: 10.09.2025