The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Trinamool Congress MLA Paresh Pal and municipal councillors Swapan Samaddar and Papiya Ghosh in connection with the death of BJP activist Abhijit Sarkar during the post-poll violence that followed the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections. The incident had drawn nationwide attention at the time, with allegations of politically motivated violence being levelled against ruling party members. After sustained controversy and demands for an impartial investigation, the case was taken up by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which filed multiple charge sheets over the years. The recent order of the High Court reflects its concerns over procedural delay, investigative lapses, and the rights of the accused, while also imposing conditions to safeguard the ongoing legal process.
The case arises out of the political violence that broke out soon after the results of the West Bengal Assembly elections in May 2021. Abhijit Sarkar, a BJP activist, was killed in the violence that occurred in Kolkata’s Beleghata area. His death was seen by many as emblematic of the widespread clashes and reprisals that followed the elections, with rival political factions accusing each other of orchestrating attacks. The matter soon became the subject of intense legal scrutiny, with petitions being filed before the Calcutta High Court seeking an independent probe into the violence. The court, considering the scale of the allegations, had transferred several cases, including this one, to the CBI to ensure impartial investigation and fair trial.
In the present case, the CBI filed an initial charge sheet but did not include the names of Paresh Pal, Swapan Samaddar, or Papiya Ghosh at that stage. For nearly four years, the three remained outside the ambit of direct prosecution, although their names were occasionally referred to during the course of investigation. It was only much later that a supplementary charge sheet was filed, in which their alleged involvement was brought on record. The considerable delay in naming them as accused became a central issue before the High Court when they sought anticipatory bail to avoid arrest.
Justice Jay Sengupta, who heard the matter, focused on the delay and the conduct of the investigating agency. The judge noted that if there was material available earlier, the CBI should have included the names in its first supplementary charge sheet. The fact that the names were introduced nearly four years after the incident raised questions about the timing and credibility of the investigative process. The court also underscored that during the entire investigation, the three leaders had cooperated and had not attempted to evade the process of law.
A significant aspect of the court’s reasoning was the observation that when the trial court had issued summons earlier, the CBI had not sought their immediate arrest. This, according to the court, suggested that their involvement was not considered grave enough to warrant custodial interrogation at that stage. By introducing their names belatedly, the investigating agency created grounds for suspicion about whether the process was being influenced by other considerations. The High Court, therefore, concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary and that anticipatory bail would not hamper the trial if certain strict conditions were imposed.
In granting anticipatory bail, the court required each of the three accused to furnish a personal bond of one lakh rupees. Additionally, the court imposed conditions to safeguard the integrity of the investigation. The accused were directed not to leave the country without obtaining permission from the investigating agency or the trial court. They were further prohibited from entering Sitalatala Lane, the locality near the residence of the deceased, in order to prevent any intimidation of the victim’s family or potential witnesses. Most importantly, the court ordered that they must cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and not interfere with the judicial process.
The order represents a balance between two competing concerns. On one hand, there is the need to ensure that victims of political violence and their families receive justice through a fair trial and that powerful individuals are not able to escape accountability. On the other hand, there is also the fundamental principle that no individual should be subjected to unnecessary custodial measures when the investigation can proceed without it, particularly when there is undue delay or inconsistency in how charges are brought forward. The court’s ruling reflects an attempt to maintain this balance in a politically sensitive case.
The post-poll violence of 2021 in West Bengal had triggered a national debate about the accountability of ruling party members and the capacity of state authorities to maintain law and order during transitions of political power. Several reports of arson, assault, and targeted killings surfaced in the days following the election results. Opposition parties, including the BJP, accused the ruling TMC of unleashing violence against their workers, while the TMC dismissed many of these allegations as politically motivated exaggerations. The death of Abhijit Sarkar became a prominent instance of the alleged excesses, drawing the attention of courts and human rights groups.
The decision to transfer investigations to the CBI was itself significant, as it underscored concerns about whether the state police could handle the matter impartially. The CBI has since filed multiple charge sheets in various cases of post-poll violence, but questions about the pace, scope, and impartiality of its investigations have persisted. In this particular case, the High Court’s observations regarding the delay in filing the supplementary charge sheet highlight such concerns directly. By calling attention to why the accused were not named earlier, the court implicitly questioned the consistency of the CBI’s approach.
It is also important to note that the High Court’s order comes against the backdrop of earlier developments in the same case. Earlier in the month, bail had been granted to other individuals implicated, including Sub-Inspector Ratna Sarkar and home guard Deepankar Debnath, who had been taken into custody. Their release, followed by the anticipatory bail to the three political leaders, marks a series of judicial decisions that collectively shape the trajectory of this trial. Each decision underscores the court’s role in ensuring due process while not compromising on accountability.
The conditions imposed on Paresh Pal, Swapan Samaddar, and Papiya Ghosh are significant not merely for their immediate practical effect but also for the broader message they convey. By restricting their movement and prohibiting them from entering areas associated with the victim, the court has attempted to create a protective barrier around the witnesses and the victim’s family. At the same time, by refusing to order custodial interrogation, the court has affirmed the principle that the justice system cannot subject individuals to unnecessary deprivation of liberty in the absence of compelling grounds.
For the families of victims of post-poll violence, the case continues to represent a test of the justice system’s capacity to deliver accountability in politically charged contexts. The granting of anticipatory bail does not absolve the accused of the charges but ensures that they will face trial without being arrested at this stage. The outcome of the trial, whenever it concludes, will ultimately determine whether the allegations against them are proven. Until then, the High Court’s order serves as an interim measure to balance rights, responsibilities, and procedural fairness.
The ruling also reflects the broader challenge Indian courts face in politically sensitive cases. In such situations, judicial decisions are not only about the specific legal issues but also about maintaining public confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary. By carefully articulating its reasoning, pointing out investigative lapses, and imposing clear conditions, the Calcutta High Court has attempted to strike that delicate balance.
The anticipatory bail granted to Paresh Pal, Swapan Samaddar, and Papiya Ghosh is thus not just a development in one case but part of a larger narrative about how courts handle cases of political violence. It underscores the importance of timely and credible investigation, the duty of the judiciary to protect both the rights of victims and the rights of the accused, and the challenges of administering justice in an atmosphere of political contestation.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s order in the Abhijit Sarkar case demonstrates a nuanced approach to justice. It highlights investigative delays, acknowledges the cooperation of the accused, and emphasizes the need to prevent interference with the trial process. While the families of victims still await final justice, the court’s intervention ensures that the trial will proceed with conditions that protect both fairness and accountability. The order stands as another example of the judiciary’s attempt to navigate the complex intersection of law, politics, and justice in contemporary India.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.