The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday recorded the state's submission that 5 out of 6 cases being challenged by Congress Nandigram bypoll candidate Milan Pradhan had been closed and that he was not an accused in the remaining case, in connection with developments dating back to 2007.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya recorded the submission while hearing Pradhan's plea seeking protection from coercive action in cases pending against him. Pradhan is presently in custody in connection with five other cases and has sought bail in those matters separately.

When the issue of Pradhan's participation in the election came up, the Court orally remarked to the state: “Let him contest...Provided he gets bail.”

Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, appearing for Pradhan, submitted that the timing of the execution of warrants in the old cases required consideration, particularly since the Nandigram bypoll is scheduled for October 6, campaigning ends on October 4 and counting is scheduled for October 9.

Describing the situation as a “textbook example of subversion of democracy,” Bhattacharjee submitted that Pradhan had been arrested in five FIRs and apprehended that he could be subjected to further coercive action in the remaining cases.

He urged the Court to direct disclosure of any other proceedings pending against Pradhan and submitted that he would seek bail in the five cases in which the Congress candidate was already in custody.

Bhattacharjee pointed out that in one of the cases, the warrant was being executed on September 18 even though the case dated back to 2007.

“Kindly appreciate the timing. The by poll is on the 6th, 4th the campaign ends. 9th is counting,” counsel submitted.

He further submitted that Pradhan had not been directly arrested in one of the proceedings.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar, submitted that there were a total of 11 cases against Pradhan and that he had been arrested in five of them. According to the State, of the remaining six cases, five had been withdrawn by the previous government and Pradhan was not wanted in those matters.

The State submitted that the police were required to execute pending warrants whenever there was an election and that the warrants in Pradhan's cases were being executed pursuant to that process.

It was also submitted that Pradhan was not the only person arrested and that other persons against whom warrants were pending in the same case had also been arrested.

Bhattacharjee submitted that warrants in cases dating back to 2007 were being executed only now, when Pradhan had become a candidate for the opposition in the Nandigram bypoll.

The Court thereafter observed: “All are from 2007. Don't take any steps till 9th October.”

The State submitted that the matter could be disposed of. The Court, however, declined to do so and directed that the matter be listed on October 12.

Pradhan was arrested on September 18 pursuant to pending warrants in cases arising from the 2007 Nandigram anti-land acquisition movement. He was subsequently shown arrested in four other cases and is presently in judicial custody. The cases involve allegations including murder, attempt to murder, abduction with intent to murder, causing disappearance of evidence, house trespass and rioting with deadly weapons.

The Nandigram Assembly bypoll is scheduled for October 6, with counting on October 9.

Case: Milan Pradhan v State of West Bengal