Calcutta High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To TMC Leaders Accused In 2021 Post-Poll Violence Death Case

The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Paresh Paul, a 79-year-old MLA, Paresh Paul, and two others belonging to the ruling political party of the State, accused in a post-poll violence death case after the Assembly Elections of 2021.

It was alleged that on 02.05.2021 in the afternoon, 7 or 8 unknown persons came to the house of the original de facto complainant and asked for the whereabouts of her son, the deceased victim. They alleged that the victim had occupied many rooms of the Railways. Altercations took place, and the miscreants started assaulting the informant. The younger son of the complainant was brutally assaulted and succumbed to his injuries.

In granting the protection, Justice Jay Sengupta held: "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...the CBI had chosen not to make the corresponding petitioners accused in the said charge sheet...due 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." 

Senior counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioners, stated that they 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.

Counsel submitted that the petitioners are apprehensive because the other co-accused who went to surrender before the trial Court were taken into custody even after the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of taking custody of accused when they appear pursuant to issuance of summons.

It was argued that an absurd charge of conspiracy to commit murder has been presented, and that 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 act," it was argued.

Counsel submitted that it was necessary for the investigating agency to collect corroborative evidence, which they failed to do or deliberately did not do.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI opposed the prayer for the anticipatory bail and has submitted that the case at hand involves a most gruesome murder that took place as a part of the post-poll violence committed by the political dispensation in 2021.

It was submitted that there was a provocative speech given by the petitioner no. 1 in the presence of the petitioners 2 and 3 on the stage. He had vented his grudge against the deceased victim and was looking to oust him from that place. The second and more clinching evidence is the other video clips recorded by the victim himself before his death. He has taken the names of the of petitioners nos. 1 and 2 in the same.

It is true that these pieces of evidences were available at the time of filing of the first supplementary charge sheet in 2021. However, further investigation was being carried out and different aspects of the relevant facts were being carefully assessed. As such, the second supplementary charge sheet here could be filed only in 2025.

It was submitted that the gravity of the offences and the influential position of the present petitioners do not warrant that an anticipatory bail be granted to them.

In hearing the arguments, the court held that since the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and that the information had been available with the CBI since 2021, but they had only decided to file a supplementary chargesheet in 2025, the court granted the relief sought by the petitioners.

Case: In the matter of: Paresh Paul & others.

Case No: CRM (A) 2487 of 2025

Click here to read order