'Gruesome Crime Alone Not Ground To Deny Bail': Calcutta High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In 2021 Post-Poll Violence Case
The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a CBI-probed murder arising out of the 2021 post-poll violence, holding that even in cases involving grave allegations, pre-arrest protection must be decided on the “nature and quality of evidence prima facie available” and not merely on the seriousness of the offence. Justice Jay Sengupta observed that courts must carefully assess whether the materials actually justify custodial interrogation at the stage of bail.
The petitioner, a neighbour of the deceased, contended that he was neither named in the FIR nor in the first charge sheet and that his name surfaced only in a later statement recorded much after the incident. He argued that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail and that he apprehended being taken into custody upon appearing before the Special Court pursuant to summons.
Opposing the plea, the de facto complainant and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted that the murder was part of orchestrated post-poll violence and that subsequent investigation, including recovery of the deceased's mobile phone and certain visual material, indicated the petitioner's presence near the scene. The agency also relied on video footage allegedly showing the petitioner moving towards the victim's residence.
After perusing the case diary and viewing the footage, the Court noted that the individual was seen from a distance and that the evidentiary value and authenticity of such material would ultimately have to be tested during trial. The judge remarked that merely walking along a public road, without more, may not by itself be incriminating, and such circumstances required deeper scrutiny before depriving a person of liberty.
The Court further reiterated that an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even after filing of the charge sheet or issuance of process, observing that a contrary view would create anomalous results and undermine personal liberty protections under criminal procedure jurisprudence.
Considering the delayed implication of the petitioner, the limited nature of the materials relied upon, and the principles governing anticipatory bail, the Court granted him pre-arrest protection. It directed that in the event of arrest, he be released on bail upon furnishing bond and sureties, refrain from influencing witnesses, and remain outside the jurisdiction of the concerned police station for a specified period except for court or investigation purposes.
Case: Asit Barik Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No: C.R.M. (A) 2976 of 2025