Calcutta High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To West Bengal MLA Humayun Kabir In Case Over Alleged Political Speech
The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Aam Janata Unnayan Party (AJUP) MLA Humayun Kabir in connection with a case registered at Rejinagar Police Station under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 152, observing that it did not find even prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 152 and that there was no need for his custodial interrogation.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta passed the order on September 10 while hearing Kabir's application for anticipatory bail in connection with Rejinagar Police Station Case No. 219 of 2026, registered on June 27 under Sections 152, 192, 196, 197, 224, 299, 351(2), 352 and 353 of the BNS. The case corresponds to G.R. Case No. 3106 of 2026 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, Murshidabad.
Kabir's counsel submitted that he was a political leader, an MLA and a public figure and had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It was argued that the ingredients of Section 152 BNS were not made out and that, except for Section 152, the maximum punishment prescribed under the other sections invoked against him extended up to five years.
The Court was also informed that Kabir had already complied with two notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He was interrogated for about four hours on the first occasion and about five hours on the second occasion.
His counsel further submitted that Kabir was ready to cooperate with the investigation and relied upon an earlier order of a coordinate Bench dated August 19, 2026, in CRM(A) 2124 of 2026, by which his prayer for anticipatory bail had been allowed.
Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162, to contend that where an offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and the accused cooperates with the investigation, arrest ought to be a rare occurrence.
Opposing the bail application, the State relied on the case diary and memo of evidence and submitted that Section 152 BNS was attracted as Kabir had allegedly used threatening language while addressing a public gathering, particularly targeting a political party and public servants.
The State argued that Kabir, being an MLA, was required to exercise caution while delivering speeches at public gatherings and contended that the offence was serious and sessions-triable. It was further argued that granting anticipatory bail could endanger the public at large as well as the nation.
After considering the submissions and examining the case diary, memo of evidence and the judgment relied upon by Kabir, the High Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary.
The Court primarily noted that it did not find even prima facie ingredients of Section 152 BNS against Kabir.
The Court also took note of the fact that Kabir was a public figure in West Bengal and had "his own hearth and home", that he had complied with the Section 35(3) BNSS notices on two occasions and had already been interrogated extensively for more than eight hours.
Another factor considered by the Court was that there was no possibility of tampering with the evidence since the electronic clipping had already been seized by the investigating officer.
The Court further noted that no complaint had yet been lodged against Kabir by any person following the speech and that no untoward incident had taken place on the basis of the speech.
"Considering the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, considered and allowed," the Court held.
Accordingly, the Court directed that in the event of Kabir's arrest, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed and the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
The Court clarified that if Kabir failed to comply with the conditions imposed, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail in accordance with law.
Case: In the matter of: Humayun Kabir
Case No: C.R.M.(A) 2105 of 2026