The Calcutta High Court on Friday heard the bail plea of Congress' Nandigram by-poll candidate Milan Pradhan in connection with criminal cases dating back to 2007, after a Division Bench led by Chief Justice RV Ghuge set aside the protection earlier granted to him by a Single Bench.

The bail plea was heard by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh. Senior Advocate Milan Mukherjee appeared for Pradhan, while Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar represented the State.

Pradhan sought interim bail to enable him to campaign in the Nandigram by-poll, scheduled to be held on October 6.

Opposing the plea, the AAG submitted that the cases involved allegations of murder and that proclamation, warrant and attachment proceedings had been issued against the accused.

The Court questioned the State regarding the execution of the coercive processes and sought to know how the matter had progressed from proclamation and attachment to a warrant of arrest.

"How did it revert back to warrant of arrest after earlier order of proclamation and attachment? How come proclamation boiled down to warrant of arrest again?" the Court asked.

The AAG submitted that the proclamation had not been issued in 2016 and that the warrants had remained unexecuted at the relevant time. He said directions were subsequently issued for their re-issuance and steps were taken in 2019 and 2020.

The State further submitted that it had sought withdrawal of the cases in 2020. According to the AAG, one withdrawal application had initially been allowed, following which a PIL was filed and the Court directed that the cases could not be withdrawn until it was satisfied. The proceedings before the lower court were subsequently revived.

The Bench then questioned the State about the number of accused presently appearing before the trial court.

"Till now, how many people are before the lower court?" the Court asked.

The AAG submitted that six out of 18 accused were on bail and were appearing before the trial court.

The Court then asked the State to show whether steps had been taken to arrest the other accused.

The AAG submitted that one person had been arrested shortly before Pradhan's arrest.

The Court sought police records showing when the authorities had actually started executing the orders after the Division Bench's order in the PIL.

"Show me from the police's records. Any GD entry or diary entry? When did your police force start working?" the Court asked.

The Bench also questioned the State regarding the alleged attachment proceedings.

"You never executed the attachment. That is in the order of the court which you have placed. You don't require the person. You could have attached the property. Give me the list?" the Court asked.

The AAG submitted that there was no attachment, while maintaining that the allegations involved a heinous crime.

Opposing interim bail, the State also argued that Pradhan could potentially influence witnesses and affect the investigation.

The AAG relied upon the Supreme Court's decision concerning former Delhi minister Tahir Hussain, submitting that a candidate could campaign through pamphlets rather than interacting with people in the locality while remaining in custody.

The Court, however, distinguished the circumstances, observing that Tahir Hussain's case involved a person who intended to file his nomination, whereas Pradhan had already filed his nomination.

Senior Advocate Milan Mukherjee, appearing for Pradhan, submitted that his client was not seeking regular bail at this stage but interim bail.

Mukherjee submitted that Pradhan had been arrested after announcing his candidature and that the State had not placed the case diary before the Court to demonstrate his role in the alleged offences.

He further submitted that the cases dated back to 2007 and that the political governments in power during different periods were different. He said Pradhan had not been a member of either government.

"Why is the government so afraid of me contesting?" Mukherjee submitted on behalf of Pradhan.

The senior counsel also submitted that Pradhan had initially been taken to Mandarmani without being kept in custody and was subsequently arrested. He argued that the State had failed to produce material showing his role in the cases.

Mukherjee also relied upon a previous case concerning Rakesh Singh, submitting that an accused had earlier been permitted to contest an election.

He also placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision concerning Arvind Kejriwal.

The senior counsel submitted that Pradhan was seeking interim bail on any conditions imposed by the Court until October 9, when the polling process would be over.

The State, however, maintained that Pradhan had been asked to appear before the authorities and opposed granting him special consideration on account of his candidature.

The Court reserved the matter for orders and indicated that it would pass its order on Monday.

Pradhan had earlier obtained protection from a Single Bench in connection with the 2007 cases. However, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice RV Ghuge subsequently set aside that protection and directed him to proceed in accordance with law, following which he approached the High Court seeking bail. Current reports also record that Pradhan's bail plea was moved before Justice Tirthankar Ghosh amid the approaching October 6 Nandigram by-poll.

Case: Milan Pradhan v State of West Bengal