Calcutta High Court | Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Even After Summons | TMC Leaders Accused in 2021 Post-Poll Violence Death Case Granted Protection
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held that the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners were maintainable even after issuance of summons and subsequent to the filing of charge sheet in a case involving non-bailable offences. The Court directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest upon appearance before the trial court in response to the summoning order. Conditions were imposed on the petitioners including execution of bond, furnishing of sureties, restriction on travel, and prohibition against threatening witnesses or entering the locality of the complainant until completion of the trial. The Court further directed initiation of a proceeding under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against one of the petitioners for furnishing bond of good behavior. The applications for anticipatory bail were accordingly disposed of.
The two applications for anticipatory bail, numbered 2487 of 2025 and 2523 of 2025, pertained to the same Sessions Case No. 06 of 2025 pending before the Court of learned Judge, Bench – I, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. This case arose out of CBI Case No. RC0562021S0008 dated 01.09.2021, which in turn arose from Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 124/2021 registered under Sections 302/341/323/506/142/143/147/148/149/449/452/201/395/34/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Both applications were heard together and decided by a common order.
In CRM (A) 2487 of 2025, the petitioners included a 79-year-old Member of Legislative Assembly, a 63-year-old Councillor of Kolkata Municipal Corporation for Ward No. 56, and a 36-year-old Councillor for Ward No. 36, all belonging to the ruling political party of the State. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case related to alleged post-poll violence following the Assembly Elections of 2021.
It was alleged that on 02.05.2021, miscreants assaulted the complainant and her younger son, leading to the latter’s death. Initially, the case was investigated by Narkeldanga Police Station and later transferred to the Homicide Squad, with a charge sheet filed on 06.08.2021 against 15 accused persons. Subsequently, upon a Public Interest Litigation, investigation was handed over to the CBI which filed its first supplementary charge sheet on 30.09.2021 against 20 accused. Later, another supplementary charge sheet was filed in which the present petitioners were arrayed as accused. It was contended that the petitioners were implicated only to target members of the ruling party ahead of the Assembly Elections of 2026.
The petitioners submitted that the CBI had not cited them as accused despite availability of the same materials in 2021 and that they had never tampered with evidence or influenced witnesses. They relied on Supreme Court decisions including Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 13 SCC 764, and Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar (2024) 7 SCC 61, to argue against unnecessary custody at the stage of appearance before court. On merits, the petitioners submitted that the only materials against them were video recordings alleging harassment and a speech given 12 days prior to the incident, which could not amount to instigation or abetment to murder.
In CRM (A) 2523 of 2025, the petitioner was alleged to be a political activist of the ruling party. It was argued that he was not named in the first FIR or in initial statements, and was falsely implicated later by reference as “Pancha Da’s Jamai.” Counsel for the petitioner denied the identification and alleged involvement.
The counsel for the de facto complainant opposed the applications, raising an objection on maintainability by relying on P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State CBI, 1997 (40) DR J (DB) and Sandip Kumar Bafna (2014) 15 SCC 623, contending that anticipatory bail was not maintainable after summons issued post-charge sheet. It was submitted that the petitioners, being local leaders of the ruling party, instigated and conspired against the victim who was politically active. The petitioner in CRM (A) 2523 of 2025 was also alleged to have been directly named later and involved in threatening the victim’s brother during pendency of proceedings.
The counsel for the CBI also opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, adopting the objection on maintainability and submitting that the case concerned a gruesome murder committed during post-poll violence. It was argued that the roles of the petitioners were evident through a provocative speech and video recordings where the victim had named them before death. The CBI contended that though evidence was available earlier, supplementary charge sheet was filed in 2025 after thorough assessment. The influential position of the petitioners and gravity of offences warranted denial of anticipatory bail.
The Court observed that the applications concerned a case of post-poll violence following the 2021 Assembly Elections where a victim was brutally murdered. The Court noted the principles of anticipatory bail and the issue of maintainability. Referring to a Special Bench decision, the Court stated: “So after a careful scrutiny of the different case laws and on perusal of the structure of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we hold and conclude that there is no bar in filing an application under section 438 after the filing of the chargesheet or after the issuance of a process under section 204 of the Code or after the issue of warrant of arrest in a complaint case. We also come to the conclusion that such an application is quite maintainable at post-cognizance stage of a case instituted on police report or complaint after the court issues process like warrant of arrest for production of a person of having committed a non-bailable offence.”
The Court rejected the contention that anticipatory bail would not lie after issuance of summons, observing: “One has to go by the plain words used and the same would imply that an application for anticipatory bail would indeed be maintainable in a case where a process is issued like the present one where a summons was issued after filing of charge sheet in a police case involving non-bailable offences.”
On the meaning of apprehension of arrest, the Court recorded: “There seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why they seek protection.”
The Court, referring to Aman Preet Singh, held: “If a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because chargesheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail.”
On the materials against the petitioners, the Court observed that the allegations were primarily based on video clips and a speech. It noted: “Although the above video clips were available to the CBI before submission of its first supplementary charge sheet in 2021, they chose not to treat the petitioners as accused or file charge sheet against them.”
On the speech, the Court recorded: “This speech was admittedly given a few days before the incident and there was apparently no direct provocation to murder anyone.” The Court further stated: “The only allegation against the petitioners Swapan Somaddar and Papiya Ghosh is that at the time of giving of such speech by the said Paresh Paul, they were present on the dais, but did not prevent him from delivering such speech.”
Regarding petitioner Rajdip Singh, the Court observed: “Although it has been alleged by the brother of the victim/deceased that he had taken name of the said petitioner in his letter dated 02.05.2021, the said letter actually does not specifically disclose the name of the said Rajdip Singh. However, there is a reference to unnamed others who might be involved.”
The Court recorded that although an allegation of threat during pendency was made against him, it had been denied. The Court held that on available materials, most evidence was already with CBI in 2021, and petitioners had cooperated with investigation.
The Court concluded: “Considering the materials available in the case diary as discussed above, the fact that although most of the evidence against the present petitioners were available to the CBI at the time of filing of the first supplementary charge sheet, except the material presented against the petitioner, Rajdip Singh, the CBI had chosen not to make the corresponding petitioners accused in the said charge sheet, the fact that the CBI filed second supplementary charge sheet over such materials after about four years from the date of their first charge sheet, the fact that the petitioners had co-operated with the investigation in the meantime, that summons was issued upon a finding by the Court that no case for issuance of warrant of arrest was made out, the fact that inspite of similar stand taken in case of some other co-accused, they were taken into custody upon surrender and the alleged roles ascribed to each of the present petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail when they appear in response to the summoning order.”
The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Special Court. It further directed that the petitioners shall not threaten witnesses, shall not enter Sitala Tala Lane, Post and Police Station – Narkeldanga, Kolkata – 700011, till the completion of the trial, and that petitioner Paresh Paul shall not give any provocative speech concerning the family members of the victim/deceased.
The petitioners were directed not to leave the country without permission of the trial Court and to attend Court regularly on dates fixed. The Court recorded: “In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the bail to be granted to the petitioners shall be liable to be cancelled without any further reference to this Court.”
The Court further directed: “In view of the subsequent allegation of involvement of the petitioner Rajdip Singh in an incident of threat during pendency of the application, a proceeding shall be initiated against him under Section 129 of the BNSS for furnishing bond for good behavior.”
The applications for anticipatory bail were accordingly disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Mr. Indradeep Das, Ms. Eshita Dutta, Ms. Sanjana Saha; Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Mr. Ghazala Firdaus, Mr. Sk. Saidullah, Mr. Mithun Mondal, Mr. Mohammed Arsalan, Ms. Zannat Haq
For the Respondents: Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amajit De; Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Ms. Aishwarya Bazaz
Case Title: In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita, 2023, in the matter of Paresh Paul & Others; In the matter of Rajdip Singh
Case Number: CRM (A) 2487 of 2025; CRM (A) 2523 of 2025
Bench: Justice Jay Sengupta
