CW-2025-0034Murshidabad, West BengalJudgment 14 November 2025

Suti Man v. State of West Bengal and Others

The Calcutta High Court (Justice Suvra Ghosh) ordered the State to pay Rs 50,000 within seven days to a Suti man @ a Suti man for 30 days of admittedly illegal detention. It was the admitted position that the petitioner, who had no nexus whatsoever with Suti PS Case No.404/2025 dated 15 April 2025 (though accused in other cases), was kept in custody in that case, with the State attributing it to inadvertent clerical mistake and unintentional error. The Court held such faultless 30-day custody unacceptable, granted compensation citing D.G. & I.G. of Police v. Prem Sagar (1999) 5 SCC 700, and made the order peremptory and mandatory. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 14 November 2025 in WPA 24157 of 2025, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Suvra Ghosh, J.) returned findings adverse to the Unknown, Suti Police Station, Murshidabad, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 50,000.

Register number
WB 57 CW 0002
Case reference
WPA 24157 of 2025
Court and date
Calcutta High Court (Coram: Suvra Ghosh, J.), 14 November 2025
Officer(s) at the material time
Unknown, Suti Police Station, Murshidabad
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“It is not acceptable that a person is detained in custody for as many as 30 days without any fault on his part merely on the ground of some clerical mistake or unintentional error.” (at para n/a)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 50,000.
Present status of the proceedings
The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

Judgment dated 14 November 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“It is not acceptable that a person is detained in custody for as many as 30 days without any fault on his part merely on the ground of some clerical mistake or unintentional error.” (para n/a)

Institutional response

1
14 Nov 2025

Order issued

Concluded
Calcutta High Court External · Binding

The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: WPA 24157 of 2025
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.