Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Interim Bail To Congress Nandigram Candidate Milan Pradhan

Pradhan was arrested on 18^th September, 2026 in criminal cases dating back 19 years arising from the 2007 Nandigram agitation.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana dismissed the West Bengal government's plea challenging the High Court's September 29 order granting Pradhan interim bail till October 21. Voting for the by-election took place on October 6, while counting is scheduled for October 9.

The Court noted that although the cases registered against Pradhan include allegations of serious offences, the High Court's order was primarily intended to ensure that he was not denied an opportunity to contest the election.

“Even though the list of cases registered against the respondent indicates certain serious offences, however, the object of the impugned order of the High Court was to enable the respondent to contest the election and also to participate in the counting of votes,” the Court said.

The Court thus held that there was no need to interfere with the interim bail, which is operative till October 20, with Pradhan directed to surrender on October 21. The State, however, will be entitled to raise all its contentions if Pradhan subsequently seeks an extension of interim bail or regular bail, the Court clarified.

“In such circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the impugned order. However, in case the respondent applies for extension of interim bail or seeks enlargement on regular bail, all the contentions raised before us shall be available to the State and shall be considered by the High Court in accordance with law,” the Court ordered.

The Court also made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought to address the concern that Pradhan may have been arrested only because he was contesting the election.

Mehta took the Court through the allegations contained in the criminal cases pending against Pradhan. He referred to allegations that accused persons had set fire to a victim's house resulting in the victim being burnt alive, alleged attacks with bombs and firearms which allegedly resulted in multiple deaths, a murder in which the victim was allegedly attacked with a sharp weapon and his body carried away in a gunny bag, and another alleged murder involving a gunshot injury.

He submitted that Pradhan had not been arrested since 2007 despite non-bailable warrants having been issued against him. He alleged that this was because the State administration had been protecting him, highlighting the State government's earlier attempts to withdraw criminal cases arising from the Nandigram violence.

He cited an earlier Calcutta High Court order rejecting the withdrawal of criminal cases involving serious allegations of murder. The High Court had observed that criminal cases involving murders should not be withdrawn under Section 321 of the CrPC merely on the ground of restoration of "peace and tranquillity".

The High Court had further observed that allowing persons accused of murder to remain without fear of prosecution could erode the basic fabric of a law-abiding society, and such conduct could send a wrong signal by being interpreted as condoning political violence.

Mehta said that this history explained why the State's conduct after 2007 was relevant to the present dispute. On the question of why Pradhan was arrested now, he submitted that the police came to know of the pending warrants after Pradhan disclosed the relevant criminal cases in his nomination papers.

“It was not because of the election or he was a candidate, etc. He was not arrested since 2007 because the state was protecting him,” Mehta submitted, adding that once the new BJP government became aware of the warrants, the police was under an obligation to execute them.

“When we come to know since 2007, this man is facing non-bailable warrants, not arrested, it's our obligation. Not that we can, but we should, and we must,” he said.

Mehta referred to the allegations in the various criminal cases against Pradhan, including cases involving alleged murders, attacks with bombs and firearms, unlawful assembly and other acts of violence during the Nandigram agitation.

CJI Kant said that these contentions could be raised before the High Court in regular bail proceedings. He clarified that the Court was not suggesting that the seriousness of the allegations, the existence of non-bailable warrants or other relevant circumstances should be disregarded.

However, he said that the peculiar circumstance in which the High Court had granted interim bail also had to be kept in view as the purpose of the order was to ensure that Pradhan was not unfairly deprived of an opportunity to contest the election.

“We are not saying that gravity of offence, non-bailable warrants, all these factors should be ignored. But only on account of the peculiar situation, one should not feel that he has been unfairly denied an opportunity to contest the election. Only for that purpose.”

Ultimately, the Court upheld the interim bail order.

The State's plea challenged the Calcutta High Court's decision after Pradhan, who was facing criminal cases arising from the 2007 Nandigram agitation, was arrested after filing his nomination papers for the by-election.

The High Court granted interim bail, noting that Pradhan was not in custody when he filed his nomination. It observed that the State had not placed material showing that he had been wanted in connection with any offence after 2007. It also took note of the fact that the cases relied upon by the State had been investigated by the CBI and the police had considerable time to execute the warrants.

On October 5, Justice Joymalya Bagchi recused from the matter citing a conflict of interest. Justice Bagchi said that during his years as a lawyer, he had represented some parties connected with the underlying case involving Pradhan.