The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant interim protection to Trinamool Congress (TMC) opposition MLA Dilip Mondal against the registration of further FIRs and initiation of criminal proceedings, allegedly as part of a politically motivated campaign against him.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee dismissed Mondal's appeal challenging a Single Judge's refusal to grant interim protection in his writ petition, observing that since he was already in custody and charge-sheets had been filed in several criminal cases, it would be premature to grant a blanket order at this stage.

The Bench, however, clarified that it had not examined the merits of the rival contentions and that the Single Judge would be free to decide all issues arising in the writ petition on their own merits.

Mondal, represented by Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, alleged that several criminal complaints had been lodged against him out of political vendetta following the declaration of the Assembly election results on May 4, 2026.

His counsel submitted that, according to a police report, at least 37 cases had been registered against him after the declaration of the election results. Although another case had been registered earlier, the charge-sheet in that matter was filed only on August 21, 2026, after the election results, and Mondal was subsequently implicated.

It was further alleged that a video clip placed before the Single Judge showed one of the State's highest political functionaries threatening on the floor of the Assembly that Mondal would continue to remain in police custody.

Arguing that most of the FIRs contained substantially identical allegations and were politically motivated, Mondal sought an interim direction restraining the State authorities from registering further FIRs, entertaining complaints or initiating criminal proceedings against him without prior leave of the Court.

His counsel relied on the English decision in Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Supreme Court's judgment in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, submitting that investigating agencies must function independently of the Executive and that court-monitored investigations could be directed where necessary.

Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Rajeep Mazumdar, appearing for the State, produced an order dated October 15, 2026, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Twelfth Court at Alipore, rejecting Mondal's bail application. The State also submitted that charge-sheets had been filed in several cases and that Mondal was presently in custody. It refuted the allegations of political vendetta and argued that there was no pressing urgency warranting interim intervention.

The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had not dismissed Mondal's writ petition at the threshold but had entertained it for hearing and directed the police to furnish a list of cases registered and pending against him. The Single Judge had also taken note of the fact that charge-sheets had already been filed in certain cases and that Mondal had been taken into custody.

The Bench observed:

"Although we agree with the contention of the appellant that mere apprehension and/or filing of charge-sheets do not mitigate the allegations made in the writ petition, at the same time, this Court is of the opinion that since the appellant is already in custody and charge-sheets have been filed in certain criminal cases, it would be premature at this stage for the Writ Court to interfere and/or to pass any blanket order, thereby pre-judging the contentions in the writ petition itself."

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, while the connected application was also disposed of.

The Court clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the parties' respective contentions and left it open to the Single Judge to adjudicate all questions arising in the writ petition independently.

Case Title: Dilip Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No.: MAT 1919 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026