SC Cancels Bail In Post-Poll Violence Case | Crime Was A Grave Attack On The Roots Of Democracy | Fair Trial Impossible Amid Political Clout And Witness Intimidation
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the gravity of the offences and the conduct of the accused made it untenable for them to remain on bail. The Court allowed the criminal appeals and cancelled the bail granted by the High Court to the accused persons involved in a post-election incident of violence and alleged sexual assault. The bench observed that the nature of allegations and the imminent possibility of the accused adversely affecting the trial warranted interference.
The apex court directed the accused to surrender within two weeks from the date of judgment and authorized the trial court to take coercive measures in case of non-compliance. The Court also directed the State of West Bengal to provide necessary protection to the complainant and other material witnesses to ensure their uninhibited participation in the trial. Further, the trial court was instructed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the receipt of the judgment. The Court made it explicitly clear that any stay granted earlier would be deemed vacated. The appeals were consequently allowed, and all pending applications stood disposed of.
The case arose from an incident reported to have occurred on May 2, 2021, coinciding with the announcement of election results in West Bengal. According to the FIR, the complainant, a follower of the Hindu religion and a supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was targeted by individuals allegedly affiliated with the ruling political party in the region. The complainant resided in Gumsima village, Post Office Jatra, where most residents belonged to another community and supported the ruling dispensation.
The complainant alleged that he was unable to pursue his religious practices in the village and that he and a few others began supporting the BJP during the run-up to the elections. This provoked hostility from ruling party supporters. The FIR further noted that a bomb had been thrown at his tea stall before the elections. On the evening of May 2, 2021, a group of 40 to 50 miscreants, led by Sekh Mahim, allegedly attacked his house with weapons including sticks, knives, iron rods, and firearms.
The complainant alleged that his house was vandalized and looted. His wife was reportedly assaulted, forcibly undressed, and molested. The FIR states that she poured kerosene on herself and threatened to self-immolate to stop the attack, prompting the assailants to flee. The complainant and his family then escaped and approached Sadaipur Police Station the following day. However, the officer-in-charge allegedly refused to register the FIR and advised them to leave the village for their safety.
Numerous similar complaints surfaced after the election results, prompting the filing of multiple writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court. By its judgment dated August 19, 2021, the High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate all cases involving murder or crimes against women, including rape or attempted rape.
Following this directive, FIR No. RC0562021S0051 dated December 16, 2021, was registered by the CBI at its Kolkata office under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427, 326, 376 read with 511, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused were arrested on November 3, 2022, and remanded to judicial custody.
Subsequent to the investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet implicating the accused under Sections 34, 148, 149, 326, 354, 511 read with 376D, and 450 IPC. The accused then filed bail applications before the Calcutta High Court. These applications were allowed by orders dated January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023.
The CBI challenged the High Court’s orders before the Supreme Court. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General, represented the appellant-CBI. He argued that the High Court had granted bail on extraneous grounds and stressed that the accused had substantial political influence, which posed a serious threat to a fair trial. He further contended that the FIR was registered only after High Court intervention, and the investigation had faced resistance from local police.
Mr. Banerjee also submitted that the accused had failed to appear before the trial court on multiple occasions, thereby stalling the framing of charges. He asserted that the accused had been specifically named by both the complainant and the victim.
Counsel for the respondents countered that the High Court had properly analysed the facts and found no specific role attributed to the accused in either the FIR or witness statements. Therefore, the respondents argued that the appeals deserved to be dismissed.
The Supreme Court observed: “Law is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different." The Court explained that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless obtained by fraud, or if the accused are likely to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.
The bench stated: "We feel that the present one is a case wherein the allegations against the accused respondents are so grave that the same shake the conscience of the Court." It also recorded: "There is an imminent propensity of the accused persons adversely affecting the proceedings of the trial."
Referring to the FIR and associated delays, the Court remarked: "Apparently, this approach of the local police lends credence to the apprehension of the complainant about the clout and influence which the accused respondents bear over the locality and even the police."
On the procedural delay, the Court stated: "The charge-sheet has been filed way back in the year 2022 and till date, the trial has not budged an inch." It noted: "This delay is mostly attributable to non-cooperation by the accused persons including the respondents herein which fact is palpably established from record."
Regarding the gravity of the offence, the Court stated: "The concerted attack on the complainant’s house was launched on the day of election results with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance because he had supported the saffron party." It recorded: "The dastardly offence was nothing short of a grave attack on the roots of democracy."
Further, the Court noted: "There is prima facie material to establish that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and launched a concerted attack on the house of the complainant vandalising the same and looting away the household articles." It added: "The complainant’s wife was viciously pulled by the hair and was disrobed."
The Court concluded that there was "no possibility of a fair and impartial trial being conducted if the accused respondents are allowed to remain on bail."
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders dated January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023. It recorded: "The impugned orders dated 24th January, 2023 and 13th April, 2023 deserve to be and are hereby reversed. The bail granted to the accused respondents by the High Court is accordingly cancelled."
The Court mandated: "The accused respondents shall surrender before the trial Court within two weeks from today, failing which, the trial Court shall adopt coercive measures to secure their presence."
The judgment continued: "Upon surrendering/being arrested, the accused respondents shall be remanded to custody."
In relation to expediting proceedings, the Court ordered: "The trial Court shall expedite the proceedings and will try to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The Court further clarified: "In case, any stay orders have been passed on the proceedings before the trial Court by any higher forum including the High Court, the same shall be deemed to have been vacated."
To safeguard the trial, the Court directed: "The Home Secretary, State of West Bengal and the Director General of Police, State of West Bengal shall ensure that proper protection is provided to the complainant and all other material witnesses so that they can freely appear and depose at the trial without any fear or apprehension."
Finally, the Court noted: "The observations made in this judgment and in the orders of the High Court shall not prejudice the trial in any manner."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.; Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv.; Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Adv.; Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, AOR
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sekh Jamir Hossain and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 788
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2880–2881 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
[Read/Download order]
