The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from coercive action to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee in a case alleging forgery of signatures of newly-elected TMC MLAs in a resolution relating to the appointment of the Leader of Opposition after the Assembly elections.

Justice Kausik Chanda directed Banerjee to appear before the investigating agency at 6 PM on Thursday (today) and cooperate with the investigation being carried out by the West Bengal CID, while restraining the State from taking coercive steps against him for a period of three weeks.

Significantly, the Court observed that an accused person cannot be compelled to produce documents that may incriminate him, remarking that such a course would offend the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20.

The case concerns allegations that signatures of several TMC MLAs were forged on a resolution purportedly recording their unanimous decision regarding the election of the Leader of Opposition. The CID had earlier conducted searches at the party office situated at the residence of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Appearing for Banerjee, counsel submitted that the allegations were confined to offences of forgery and cheating and argued that his client was not an MLA at the relevant time but was functioning as the General Secretary of the party.

It was argued that after the election results, a unanimous decision had been taken by the MLAs and, in his capacity as party General Secretary, Banerjee merely communicated the decision to the Speaker.

When the Court asked why Banerjee had written to the Speaker, counsel responded that he had done so solely as General Secretary of the party.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar, opposed the plea and contended that the investigation had revealed serious discrepancies. According to the State, Banerjee initially informed the Speaker regarding the choice of Leader of Opposition without enclosing any minutes of the meeting. After the Speaker sought supporting documents, a resolution and attendance sheet bearing signatures of MLAs were subsequently furnished.

The State alleged that the signatures annexed to the resolution were claimed to relate to a meeting held on May 6, whereas several MLAs had stated that no such meeting took place on that date and that they had never signed the document. It was further argued that at least five MLAs had disputed the authenticity of the signatures and that comparisons with nomination papers revealed significant differences.

The State also submitted that Banerjee had failed to produce the original resolution despite repeated notices and argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the document.

However, the Court repeatedly questioned how custody would assist in recovering the document and observed that the investigating agency possessed statutory powers of search and seizure to secure evidence.

At one stage, the Court remarked: "You cannot interrogate him to get a document. You cannot compel an accused to give a statement against himself like this."

The Court further observed that if the investigating agency wanted to recover the document, it must resort to lawful investigative measures such as search and seizure rather than compel the accused to produce it.

Rejecting the State's contention that protection should not be granted, the Justice Kausik Chanda stated: "Show me one provision that the investigative agency can compel an accused to produce a document. Nothing. You have to search and seize."

While acknowledging that the allegations concerning the sanctity of the Legislative Assembly were serious and warranted investigation, the Court held that Banerjee's willingness to appear before investigators and cooperate with the probe justified interim protection.

Dictating its order, the Court recorded that Banerjee had volunteered to participate in the investigation and held that the investigating agency was free to interrogate him and take all lawful steps available under law for recovery of documents and collection of evidence.

Accordingly, the Court directed Banerjee to appear before the investigating agency at 6 PM on Thursday and thereafter as and when required upon 24 hours' notice. The Court granted protection from coercive action for three weeks and directed that the matter be listed again after two weeks.

Before concluding the hearing, the Court reiterated that an accused cannot be compelled to assist the prosecution by producing potentially incriminating material, observing that the Constitution protects an individual's right against self-incrimination and that the investigating agency must secure evidence through procedures recognised by law.

Case No : CRR/2240/2026

Case : ABHISHEK BANERJEE VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had said where a person is under statutory arrest pursuant to multiple FIRs disclosing cognizable offences the remedy of habeas corpus cannot be granted specially wherein previous detention orders had been revoked and the person is not under illegal detention. 

The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen observed:

"Second relief in regard to production of the petitioner and is in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus as admitted by Shri Mohammad Ali, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and therefore, we are of the opinion that since petitioner is under statutory arrest on account of registration of different FIRs, disclosing cognizable offence, such relief cannot be granted by this Court in the form and nature of writ of Habeas Corpus, especially in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Kusum Sahu (supra)".

The court said that the petitioner can invoke remedy of seeking bail from the competent court.

The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the State had repeatedly invoked preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 and thereafter continued registering criminal cases against him while he remained incarcerated to keep him imprisoned indefinitely. 

The petitioner contended that he was first arrested in August 2021 in connection with the offence of attempt to murder (Section 307) IPC. Subsequently, detention orders under the NSA were imposed on three occasions- August 2021, April 2022 and January 2-023. According to him, each detention order was later revoked as they were not approved by the State Advisory Board constituted under the NSA. 

The petitioner argued that despite securing bail in various cases, the authorities repeatedly initiated fresh proceedings to prevent his release. He further alleged that several FIRs were registered after his incarceration but related to the period before his arrest, indicating a deliberate attempt to keep him in continuous custody. 

The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the State had acted in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. It was contended that the petitioner had not been properly informed of the grounds of arrest and that successive criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of power. 

The petitioner also argued that the repeated registration of criminal cases while he remained in custody was similar to the circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Binay Kumar v State of Jharkhand, where concerns were expressed regarding efforts to keep an accused continuously incarcerated. 

The Advocate General for the State opposed the petition on the ground that the relief sought was essentially a writ of habeas corpus, which could not be invoked where a detention order arose from judicial orders passed in criminal cases. 

The State emphasized the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of MP v Kusum Sahu, wherein it was held that custody pursuant to criminal proceedings could not be treated as unlawful merely because bail was denied. 

The bench noted that all three NSA detention orders challenged by the petition were already revoked by the Board, and no order of preventive detention was in force. The bench noted that the petitioner's current incarceration stemmed from statutory criminal cases and not from any subsisting preventive detention order. 

The court held, "Accordingly, we hold that, since the relief of issuance a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued under the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially when we hold that, there is no illegal detention and petitioner has a statutory remedy of obtaining bail from the competent Court. Other relief being not admissible they are declined and to that extent, this writ petition is dismissed".

Relying on the case of Kusum Sahu, the bench reiterated that custody in a criminal case could not be treated as illegal detention merely because the petitioner alleged malice or because multiple FIRs had been registered against him. 

The bench rejecting the habeas corpus plea observed that entertaining such a petition would amount to encroaching on the jurisdiction specifically vested in courts dealing with bail matters. 

Therefore, the bench directed the authorities to furnish details of all criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his family members where an arrest was sought. The bench also directed that any newly registered criminal cases against them be communicated within 24 hours of registration. 

Further, the court ordered that the grounds of registration of cases and material collected during the investigation be supplied in in the light of decision in Mihir Rajesh Saha Vs. State of Maharashtra.

"Therefore, this writ petition to the extent of furnishing information in regard to the disclosure of all pending criminal cases and prompt intimation of newly registered crimes is allowed in part and for other reliefs, this writ petition is dismissed. Before we part, we would like to bring on record, none of the observations made by this Court shall come in the way of the petitioner while applying for bail before the competent Court," the court said. 

The plea was partly allowed. 

Case Title: Haji Abdul Rajjak v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-27476-2025

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Modh Ali with Advocates Sharik Akeel Farooqui and Ahmad Shahid Hushain 

For State: Advocate General Prashant Singh with Additional Advocate General Bramhadatt Singh 

Click here to read/download the Order