Calcutta High Court Declines To Hear Anticipatory Bail Plea By TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee's PA Sumit Roy

The Calcutta High Court on Friday declined to entertain the anticipatory bail plea filed by Sumit Roy, personal assistant to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, holding that it could not ignore an earlier order passed by a coordinate Bench directing that the matter be placed before the regular Bench.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya released the matter and directed that it be placed before the appropriate Bench in terms of the order dated June 30.

During the hearing, the Court referred to the earlier order under which a coordinate Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh had passed directions, including for filing supplementary affidavits.

The State drew the Court's attention to the June 30 order. Reading the order, the Court remarked: "In view of the order dated 30th June, how can I take it up?"

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present situation arose due to the listing of the matter before a different Bench, arguing: "It is not my fault that this has happened."

The Court acknowledged the predicament but maintained that judicial discipline required it to follow the earlier order. "At the same time, I appreciate the predicament of this Court. In view of this order, how can I ignore it?"

When the petitioner's counsel pointed out that the regular Judge was not sitting and asked what remedy was available, the Court responded: "Even if I have determination, I cannot take up this matter."

The petitioner then requested the Court to at least consider and reject the interim protection prayer on merits so that appropriate remedies could be pursued.

However, while dictating the order, the Court noted that another Bench had already observed on June 30 that the matter had been "extensively dealt with" by a coordinate Bench and had directed that it be placed before that Bench.

Accordingly, the Court ordered: "In view of this order, the matter stands released. Matter be placed before the Bench in terms of the 30th June order."

Before the hearing concluded, the petitioner's counsel requested that the Court record the submissions made during the hearing.

Declining the request, the Court observed: "Do not put this Court in an awkward situation. We are not sitting in appeal over the 30th June order. This is not a fresh matter."

The hearing thereafter concluded without any interim relief being granted to the petitioner.