BREAKING: Calcutta High Court Directs CBI To Not Take Any Coercive Action Against TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal In WB Post Poll Violence Case

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not take any coercive measures against Trinamool Congress Birbhum district president Anubrata Mondal without the leave of the Court. Mondal had moved the High Court seeking protection from arrest pursuant to the issuance of a CBI notice directing him to appear before its investigating team for the ongoing probe into the West Bengal post poll violence cases. He had been summoned by the CBI as a witness at the NIT camp office in Durgapur in neighbouring Paschim Bardhaman district at 11am on Thursday in connection with a murder case at Alambazar in Birbhum which is alleged to have a connection with the post-poll violence in West Bengal.It may be noted that a 5 judge Bench of the High Court vide order dated August 19, 2021 had handed over to the CBI the investigation of the cases related to murder, rape and crime against women in connection with the violence in the State of West Bengal that had allegedly taken place in May 2021 soon after the declaration of the assembly election results. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha directed the petitioner to appear before the CBI at its Durgapur office and corporate with the ongoing investigation and further observed, In the event of any such fresh notice, the petitioner shall appear and cooperate in such investigation. However, no coercive measures shall be taken by the CBI against the petitioner without the leave of this Court.While dictating the order, the Court further noted that the instant petition had become infructuous since the impugned notice issued by the CBI had directed the petitioner to appear on Thursday at 11am. However, it was observed that the notice issued under Section 160 CrPC by the CBI is still at large as such a notice has not been withdrawn by the CBI. Accordingly, Justice Mantha observed that the CBI is entitled to fix any other time for investigation and accordingly directed the CBI to issue notice afresh if necessary and call upon the petitioner for questioning at its Durgapur office. The Court rejected the contention of the CBI that the petitioner should have preferred an anticipatory bail application owing to the availability of alternative remedies. The Court underscored that jurisdiction of a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be ousted in so far as rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are involved and a prayer has been made of invasion of such rights. Reliance was placed on the Calcutta High Court judgment in Shyamali Adhikari v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation in this regard. It was further held that it is a well settled law that each case must be looked at on its own facts and that ratio cannot be made de hors the facts. "The facts and circumstances of the instant case indicate that the petitioner apprehends infringement of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution", the Court noted further. The Court proceeded to further observe that protection under Article 226 of the Constitution is granted to even the worst offenders. Justice Mantha also took into consideration that the petitioner is not the principal accused in the FIR registered but is merely a witness. Furthermore, the Court also dismissed the contention of the CBI that the territorial limitations as envisaged under Section 160 CrPC does not apply to a CBI investigation. "This Court is of the view that given the object and purpose of the Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. it must apply even to the investigations of the CBI. The fact that the CBI acts under its own manual and under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 will not deprive a citizen of this Country, much less a person who not even the principal accused of the fairness and due process of law, which have been mandated and engraved into Section 160 of the CrPC", the Court underscored further. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner Advocate Sandipan Ganguly appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been summoned to appear as a witness in a case registered by the CBI pertaining to the West Bengal post poll violence. The Court was apprised that the highest charge in the concerned case is that of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court was also informed that notices had been issued to the petitioner by the CBI under Section 160 of the CrPC.The first such notice had been issued on January 27, 2022 and thereafter, the petitioner had responded on January 28, 2022 stating that due to his various ailments, he will only be able to appear before the CBI after 8 weeks. Subsequently, without addressing the averments made by the petitioner in his reply, the CBI issued another notice seeking appearance on January 28, 2022 itself. The counsel argued that under Section 160 CrPC, the police officer issuing notice thereunder must be the person within whose territorial limits the noticee must reside. He argued that in the instant case, the petitioner is a resident of Bolpur which...

BREAKING: Calcutta High Court Directs CBI To Not Take Any Coercive Action Against TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal In WB Post Poll Violence Case

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

BREAKING: Calcutta High Court Directs CBI To Not Take Any Coercive Action Against TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal In WB Post Poll Violence Case

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers