Also Read - Allahabad High Court Bars Proof of FIR Contents Through Scribe When Informant Dies Naturally

The Additional Advocate General, representing the State, opposed the allegation of public parading. He submitted that the accused had been taken to the place of occurrence solely for the purpose of reconstruction or fixation of the scene of crime. He stated that although people had gathered at the location, the police had ensured that no untoward incident occurred. The AAG further noted that the accused was implicated in a gang‑rape case and that the National Investigation Agency was also involved in the investigation.

Datta challenged the State’s position, asking whether the State’s case was that the NIA had carried out the alleged parading, and if so, whether the NIA should be impleaded as a party. The AAG responded that the NIA had initially taken custody of the accused, clarifying that the State had not taken him into custody at the outset.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Holds Shariat Law Permitting Marriage at Puberty Conflicts with POCSO and PCMA

During the hearing, the Bench also observed that the report placed before it did not disclose the specific penal provisions under which the proceedings were instituted. The Court remarked, “Sections are not stated in the report,” indicating a procedural lacuna that needed to be addressed.

Datta additionally argued that the principal accused named in the First Information Report had not yet been arrested and urged the Court to consider the contents of the FIR while evaluating the petition. The Bench, however, expressed skepticism about the prayer for quashing, stating that the facts of the case were “very ugly” and questioning why the petitioner sought to have the proceedings set aside.

Also Read - Gujarat High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 14 HMA in Premature Divorce Suits

The matter has been adjourned for a later date, allowing the parties to file further submissions and for the Court to consider the maintainability of the relief sought in light of the observations made.

The oral observation of the Calcutta High Court adds to the growing judicial scrutiny of police practices that may affect the fundamental rights of accused persons. By characterising public parading as impermissible and a human rights infringement, the Bench underscores the necessity for law‑enforcement agencies to adhere to procedural safeguards that protect the dignity and liberty of individuals, even during the investigative stage. The remark also signals that any allegation of such treatment will be examined closely for compliance with constitutional guarantees and statutory mandates.

Also Read - Gujarat High Court Grants Regular Bail in AI‑Generated Defamation Extortion Case