The two applications for anticipatory bail being 2487 of
2025 and 2523 of 2025 pertain to the same Sessions Case No. 06 of
2025 presently pending before the Court of learned Judge, Bench – I,
City Sessions Court, Calcutta, arising out of CBI Case No.
RC0562021S0008 dated 01.09.2021, which, in turn, arose from
Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 124/2021 under Sections
302/341/323/506/142/143/147/148/149/449/452/201/395/34/1
09/120B of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the applications were
heard together, one after the other. The same are being taken up
together for passing an order.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in CRM (A) 2487 of 2025 has submitted as follows. The
petitioner no. 1 is about 79 years old. He is an MLA, belonging to the
ruling political party of the State from the Beleghata Constituency.
The petitioner no. 2 is aged about 63 years. He is a Counsilor of the
Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the Ward No. 56 and the petitioner
no. 3 is a 36 years old Counsilor for the Ward No. 36 of the Kolkata
Municipal Corporation. The present petitioners are members of the
ruling political party of the State. The petitioner no. 1 was suffering
from his old age ailments and was under continuous medical
supervision. The instant case relates to alleged post poll violence after
the Assembly Elections of 2021. It is alleged that on 02.05.2021 in the
afternoon, 7 or 8 unknown persons including 3 or 4 women came to
the house of the original de facto complainant and asked for the
whereabouts of her son, the victim deceased. They alleged that the
victim had occupied many rooms of Railways. Altercations took place
and the miscreants started assaulting the informant. The younger son
of the complainant was brutally assaulted and the police thereafter
came to rescue the victim and admitted him to the hospital. He was
succumbed to his injuries. Initially, the Narkeldanga Police Station
investigated the case on 08.05.2021. The initial FIR and the
subsequent complaint were merged on 31.05.2021. Investigation was
transferred to the Homicide Squad. A charge sheet was submitted on
06.08.2021 against the 15 accused persons. Subsequently, a Public
Interest Litigation was filed regarding the alleged post poll violence.
Vide order dated 19.08.2021, the investigation was transferred to the
CBI, which took up the investigation on 25.08.2021 and submitted its
first supplementary charge sheet dated 30.09.2021, against 20
accused. During deposition of the PW-1 and long after the institution
of the case, the CBI filed another supplementary charge sheet. Several
more accused were chargesheeted including the present petitioners.
The present petitioners have been arrayed as accused only to fix the
ruling political dispensation before the ensuing Assembly Elections of
2026. Incidentally, the first FIR as lodged by the mother was
substituted by a merged version. Moreover, over nearly the same
materials that were available during filing of the first charge sheet by
the CBI, a second supplementary charge sheet has now been filed
against the additional accused including the present petitioners. It is
germane to mention that two police personnel similarly arraigned as
accused subsequently surrendered before the trial Court, but were
taken into custody. They were granted bail by this Court by an order
dated 05.08.2025. The present petitioners have never tampered with
the evidence or influenced or threatened witnesses. Surprisingly, the
other accused were taken into custody despite mere issuance of
process. The trial Court had held that there was no requirement of
issuing warrant of arrest. In fact, the views of the investigating officer
and the Court regarding issuance of process were the same for the
present petitioners. The present petitioners were neither named in the
FIR nor were made accused by the State police. Although, the
materials that the CBI is now harping on for implicating the present
petitioners were all available during the submission of the first charge
sheet by them in the year 2021, the CBI chose not to cite the present
petitioners as accused earlier. Significantly, during the first further
investigation and then the second further investigation by the CBI that
continued for about four years, no effort whatsoever was made to take
the petitioners into custody. Now, all the evidences have purportedly
been collected and the second supplementary charge sheet has been
submitted. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by taking
the petitioners into custody. But, the petitioners are apprehensive
because the other co-accused who went to surrender before the
learned trial Court were taken into custody. The Hon‟ble Apex Court
has time and again deprecated the practice of taking custody of
accused when they appear pursuant to issuance of summons,
especially in cases where they had not been arrested during
investigation and had cooperated with the same. On this reliance may
be placed on (i) Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2022) 1
SCC 676, ii) Aman Preet Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2022) 13 SCC 764, iii) Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Jalandhar, (2024) 7 SCC 61. Although, a prima facie view is to be
taken in a hearing of an application for anticipatory bail and a mini
trial is to be avoided, however, the facts need to be briefly analyzed.
On facts, an absurd charge of conspiracy of committing murder has
been presented. The first piece of evidence is a video footage recorded
by the victim himself before his death, where he alleged that the
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and their men were bent upon harassing him,
they were damaging his shelter for animals, killing those animals and
attacking all. It is not the prosecution case that the present petitioners
were at all present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The
other material relied upon by the CBI is a video clip of a speech given
by the petitioner no. 1 in the locality about 12 days before the date of
incident declaring that the deceased and his brother were trouble
makers and that he would not allow them to stay there. In this
context, the only allegation against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 was
that although they were present in the stage when the speech was
being delivered, they did not prevent the petitioner no. 1 from
delivering such provocative speech. All these materials were available
with the CBI at the time of filing of the first supplementary charge
sheet in 2021 and yet, they did not consider it necessary to make the
present petitioners accused in the case. Mere delivery of a speech, not
giving death threats, but threatening that the victim may be evicted
from his place, would not amount to any instigation or abetment to
murder such person. Political figures do make speeches including on
local issues. But, if an unfortunate incident takes place, which has
not even a remote connection with the speech, and which is quite
distant in point of time, the maker of such speech cannot be hauled
up over the commission of such subsequent acts. It was necessary for
the investigating agency was to collect corroborative evidence, which
they failed to do or they deliberately did not do. Regarding the speech
in question, the allegations made against the petitioner no. 2 and 3
are too far-fetched and prima facie not tenable. On the question of
maintainability of such application, a Special Bench of this Court in
Shamim Ahmed and Ors. vs. State and Ors., 2003 SCC Online Cal
148 had clearly held that even when a process is issued in a criminal
proceeding, an application for anticipatory bail would be maintainable.