No Prima Facie Case: Calcutta High Court Orders Release Of Sandeshkhali BJP Worker Who Was Accused Of Fabricating Evidence By Local BJP Leader In 'Sting Video'

The Calcutta High Court has ordered the release of local Sandeshkhali leader Mampi Das who was arrested by the police after allegations by BJP leader Gangadhar Kayal surfaced in a sting operation video, claiming that Das was crucial in threatening witnesses to give false evidence, and staging women's protests.

Notably, the CBI is probing allegations of rape and land-grabbing committed against the locals by former Panchayat pradhan Shahjahan Sheikh.

A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta ordered Das's release upon noting that whilst she was arrested under the non-bailable Section 195A CrPC, which concerns threatening witnesses to furnish false evidence, there was no prima facie case against her which was ignored by both the police and the magistrate. The Court said:

Section 195A of the Penal Code would apply only in case there is an allegation that a witness or a complainant was threatened to give false evidence in a court of law. It does not appear that the only non-bailable charge of Section 195A of the Penal Code is even prima facie made out as no applicable allegation has been levelled in terms of such provision. Yet, the petitioner was taken into custody on the basis of such allegation and is still languishing in custody. In such exigent circumstances, this Court intends to exercise its exceptional power to release the petitioner on interim bail.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had taken an active role in the Sandeshkhali agitation regarding the sexual exploitation of women and land grabbing by one Sajahan Sk and his accomplices. Subsequently, it was stated that she learnt that, as a countermeasure, a case had been registered against her at Sandeshkhali Police Station.

It was argued that no notice was served on the petitioner under Section 41A of CrPC for any offence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, but the provision was added later.

It was stated that thinking that the case was only under the bailable provisions as mentioned in the notice under Section 41A of the Code, the petitioner went to the Court to surrender and obtain bail.

However, when she surrendered it was stated that she was told that Section 195A of the Penal Code was also added. Although the case diary was not produced, she was taken into custody and remanded. 

It was stated that this was a complete abuse of process as Section 195A of IPC was clear that it would only apply when a complainant or witness was threatened during trial to give false evidence.

It was argued that neither the police nor the magistrate had adhered to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2020).

Advocate General representing the State submitted that for challenging an order passed by a regular Criminal Court, there are other means and that ordinarily, the Writ Court should not entertain such a challenge. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioner on the allegations levelled and notice was given under Section 41A of the Code, but was not complied with, it was stated.

However, the Court clarified that in the present case, the initial investigation was under available sections, and thus the petitioner had gone to court to surrender in connection with the same.

It was stated that the petitioner was surprised to find that a charge of Section 195A of the IPC was also added. However, the Court noted that it was a settled position of law that Section 195A of the Penal Code would apply only in case there is an allegation that a witness or a complainant was threatened to give false evidence in a court of law.  

The question of bail and remand should be considered with due care and caution. In fact, remanding an accused cannot be an empty formality. It does not appear that the only non-bailable charge of Section 195A of the Penal Code is even prima facie made out as no applicable allegation has been levelled in terms of such provision. Yet, the petitioner was taken into custody on the basis of such an allegation and is still languishing in custody.

Accordingly, the court stayed the proceedings under Section 195A and ordered the petitioner's release.

Case: Piyali Das @ Mampi Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: WPA 14205 of 2024

Click here to read order