"Could This Have Happened Before Present Govt?": Calcutta High Court Flags Abhishek Banerjee Office Demolition Amid 'Influence' Claims

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday questioned the contention that Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee continues to have influence to interfere with police investigations if granted interim protection from arrest.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya was hearing Banerjee's plea seeking quashing of three FIRs registered against him. The court has extended interim protection granted to Banerjee, and reserved it's orders.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Banerjee, submitted that the number of FIRs against the TMC leader had now risen to 16. He also pointed out that only the first pages of the FIRs were available online and sought copies of the complete FIRs and complaints.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for one of the complainants argued that Banerjee remained a powerful political figure and that his release from the possibility of arrest could affect the investigation and witnesses.

The Court, however, questioned whether the same concern could be sustained after the change in the political situation in the State.

Referring to the demolition proceedings concerning a property being used as Banerjee's MP office at Amtala, the Court observed:

"If he is so influential, how his office in Amtala is being demolished? Where a coordinate bench of the court had to interfere (to stall the demolition)? It does not support your contention that the petitioner is very influential. Whether any influential person's office is being demolished within his constituency?"

Advocate General, Surojit Nath Mitra, responded that the property in question did not belong to Banerjee and also disputed the claim that it belonged to Leaps and Bounds, a company linked to him.

The Court further referred to the timing of the demolition proceedings and the burden placed on the judiciary when administrative actions are initiated immediately before weekends.

"Before the era of the present political dispensation, this (demolition of the property linked to Banerjee) could have been done? I am asking everybody. So it goes to show, the situation is changed.. And that demolition proceedings began on Friday evening. Like yesterday's matter, rally matter. All proceedings are being started from Friday evening. And the Court is then required to sit during weekends," the Court observed.

The complainant's counsel, however, maintained that Banerjee remained highly influential and opposed any extension of interim protection.

"After May 4 also, he is influential. Kindly do not give him an interim protection, investigation will be hampered, no common man will come forward (to give evidence against him). If this super influential person remains outside, complainant will be forced to withdraw the complaint," counsel submitted.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also opposed interim relief, arguing that the FIRs disclosed cognisable offences and that Banerjee should not seek interim protection in a petition for quashing the FIRs.

"If a FIR discloses a cognisable offence, it cannot be quashed at the threshold. I am pointing out from the FIR how a cognisable offence is made out. Look at each of the FIRs. For passing of an interim order, first requirement is prima facie case. He must demonstrate a prima facie case. He could have filed for anticipatory bail and prayed for no coercive steps. (Instead) he has come for quashing, If there is no case for quashing, where is the case for interim relief? Delay is no ground for quashing if a cognisable offence is made out," Raju submitted.

Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya also opposed interim protection, referring to previous proceedings concerning Banerjee's cooperation with the investigation.

"Despite orders passed by court, the State had to come up by way of an application to direct him to cooperate for collecting voice sample. I am on a more practical aspect. After a week, he will come back and say 'I am cooperating, now they are harassing me.' This will never stop. It has to be a meaningful cooperation. Without looking at case diary, lordship may not pass an interim order (protecting Banerjee)," he submitted.

The Court, however, responded: "Then you approach the Court. Let us not anticipate."

The Court subsequently extended Banerjee's existing interim protection from coercive action in connection with the three FIRs till August 31 or until further orders. It also reserved its decision on whether the protection should continue until final adjudication of Banerjee's plea seeking quashing of the FIRs.

The Court allowed the request and directed the concerned police authorities to furnish copies of all FIRs relating to the existing criminal prosecutions along with the complaints.

The matter will next be heard on August 25.