Calcutta High Court Declines To Interfere With CBI Probe Into Former Sandeshkhali TMC Leader Shahjahan Sheikh

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order, which handed over the investigation into former TMC leader from Sandeskhali, Shahjahan Sheikh, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Sheikh had been accused of various crimes, including rape, extortion and assault, culminating in an attack allegedly ordered by him on an ED team who had been deployed to search his premises in connection with the ration scam.

In upholding the order of the single bench, Justices Debangsu Basak and Prasenjit Biswas held: "As an accused, the appellant, does not have a right to be heard at the stage of investigation or have a say in the matter of an appointment of an investigating agency. Rule of audi alteram partem is not super imposed at the stage of investigation so far as an accused is concerned. High Court is not obliged to hear the accused or make the accused a party to a writ petition, in which, the writ petitioner has sought direction for investigation to be conducted by a particular investigating agency. Moreover, direction for an investigation by the CBI passed by the High Court, is not open to challenge by a prospective suspect or an accused in a criminal case."

Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he was not a party respondent in the writ petition in which the impugned order was passed. He has submitted that the appellant is both a necessary and proper party in the writ petition, as the writ petition concerns the criminal case in which the appellant is an accused. It was stated that by the impugned judgment and order, the Single Judge has directedthe  Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation. Consequently, the legal rights of the appellant have been affected.

Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is an unexplained delay with regard to the filing of the writ petition. He pointed out that the First Information Report with regard to the police case concerned is of 2019 in which a chargesheet was filed in 2022. Thereafter, the private respondent filed a writ petition in 2024 without explaining the delay in approaching the Writ Court. He contended that the writ petition was a result of a political vendetta.

Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 1 contended that the appellant has no right of appeal. He has contended that the appellant as an accused has no right to choose his investigating agency. The appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition in which the impugned judgment and order has been passed.

Counsel submitted that in respect of incidents relating to the post-poll violence, three police cases had been registered on June 8, 2019, at the Nazat Police Station, and the investigations conducted in respect of these cases were perfunctory and that the same should be conducted by a specialized investigating agency, namely, the CBI. This contention was accepted by the single judge.

Thus, the court noted that at the present stage of proceedings, the accused could not have any say on the modalities of the investigation and thus could not be heard. It therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the single judge.

Case: Sahajahan Sk. & Anr. Vs. Supriya Mandal Gayen & Ors

Case No: MAT/1054/2025

Click here to read order