Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the police not to take any further steps against Congress' Nandigram candidate Milan Pradhan in connection with a criminal case dating back to 2007, observing that the State had not disclosed the pendency of the case when the Court had passed an order on September 22 recording that there were no other cases in which Pradhan was required.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya passed the direction after Pradhan approached the Court alleging that he had been “brazenly” implicated in another case despite the State's submissions during the previous hearing.

During Thursday's hearing, Pradhan's counsel, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, submitted that the petitioner was in custody till October 7 and that the election was scheduled for October 6. The counsel alleged that another case had been added against Pradhan despite the Court's order on September 22.

The State submitted that Pradhan had been arrested in the case on September 19 itself, before the matter was heard by the High Court on September 22. It was argued that a production warrant had been issued and that Pradhan was already in custody in connection with the case.

The Court, however, recalled that during the September 22 hearing, the State had submitted that the five cases in which Pradhan was in custody were the matters then subsisting against him, while out of six other cases, five were not subsisting and he was not wanted in the remaining case.

“I remember that you submitted that these were the only matters and other matters were not alive,” the Court observed.

The State referred to a report dated September 22 and an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, contending that the petitioner had already been arrested in the case on September 19 pursuant to a warrant.

The Court, however, noted that the report relied upon by the State was not before it when the earlier order was passed.

“That report is not with me. We proceeded on your submission. No report was filed,” the Court said.

The Court further questioned where it had been disclosed that Pradhan had been apprehended in the additional case before the September 22 order.

“Where is that disclosure? Show me from the record,” the Court asked.

The State maintained that Pradhan had been tagged in the case on September 19 itself, while the petitioner's counsel submitted that the development had not been disclosed to the Court.

The Court observed that, had the case been brought to its notice during the earlier hearing, it could have taken the same into consideration.

“In the earlier hearing it was not surfaced before this court that another criminal prosecution was pending,” the Court said while dictating its order.

The Court recorded that, based on the State's submission, it had proceeded on the premise that Pradhan was in custody on September 22 in connection with five criminal cases and that, out of the other six cases, five were not subsisting and he was not wanted in the remaining case.

Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar appearing for the State, also contended that a production warrant in the 2007 case was subsisting. The Court, however, noted that it could not find any document from which it could be concluded that the production warrant had been executed.

“Therefore, State contention regarding execution of production warrant is negated at this stage,” the Court held.

The Court also expressed surprise over the fact that the criminal prosecution dated back to 2007, while the investigating officer had made a prayer on September 19, 2026 for treating Pradhan as shown arrested in the case.

The Court questioned the State as to what the investigating officer had been doing for nearly 19 years if a warrant had been issued as far back as 2021.

The State explained that the cases had earlier been sought to be withdrawn by the previous government in 2020, but were subsequently revived in 2021 following a PIL, after which warrants were issued.

The Court also referred to a prayer made by the investigating officer before the trial court for treating Pradhan as shown arrested, observing that the prayer appeared to reveal a different position.

The State submitted that the action was based on an Election Commission order.

At one stage, the Court directed the State that, in view of its September 22 order, “whatever the cases are pending, if any other are pending don't take any steps.”

The State assured the Court that no steps would be taken in the cases. The Court thereafter clarified that while Pradhan had already filed bail applications in four cases, no steps should be taken in the remaining six cases.

Pradhan's counsel also sought protection until the next date of hearing, pointing out that his custody was stated to continue till October 7, while the election was scheduled for October 6.

The Court ultimately directed that the police shall not take any steps till October 12 in connection with the 2007 case and that Pradhan shall not be shown as arrested in connection with the said case.

“Police is directed not to take any steps till 12th October in connection with this case and petitioner shall not be shown as arrested,” the Court ordered.

The Court also observed that it was surprising that, in a prosecution originating in 2007, the investigating officer had made the prayer for treating Pradhan as shown arrested only on September 19, 2026.

The matter was thereafter concluded with the Court observing, “Allow him to contest, Mr Majumdar, allow him to contest.”

The hearing before Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya follows the Court's September 22 proceedings concerning criminal cases pending against Pradhan. In those proceedings, the Court had considered the State's submissions regarding the cases in which he was in custody and the cases said to be no longer subsisting.

Case: Milan Pradhan v State of West Bengal

Tags: