Calcutta HC Sets Aside Single Judge's Order Reviving Criminal Proceedings Against Anisur Rehman, Remands Back Matter

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order of a Single Judge reviving criminal proceedings against erstwhile West Bengal BJP leader Anisur Rehman without granting him an opportunity of being heard and remanded the matter back for being considered afresh.Rehman was arrested in the October 2019 murder of Trinamool Congress functionary Kurban Shah. Rehman had defected to the BJP from the TMC ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. Reportedly, Rehman had recently announced his decision to quit the BJP and ally with the Trinamul again.On Tuesday, the bench of CJ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee was considering an appeal against the March 2 order by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya on a writ petition filed by Shah's nephew Jahar Sha against the proposal of the State Government to initiate action in terms of Section 321 of the CrPC for withdrawal of the criminal cases pending against the appellant, Rehman. The bench noted that the appellant, was not made a party in the writ petition. However, the Single Judge quashed the order that was passed by the Trial Court under Section 321 by virtue of which the criminal charges against the appellant stood withdrawn."The appellant stands accused in several criminal cases. At the hearing, it was submitted by the learned Advocate General representing the State that an order under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had already been passed by the concerned Trial Court. Mr. Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that quashing of the order under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without hearing the appellant amounted to clear and flagrant violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. The order, which conferred substantial benefits on the appellant, could not have been set at naught without giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing", recorded the bench.The bench was in agreement with the Counsel that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice in this case. "On that count alone, we set aside the order impugned under appeal. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for being heard afresh", said the bench."Needless to say that by reason of this order, the status that prevailed on the day when the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, shall stand restored, whatever the effect thereof be", the bench further directed.The bench requested the Single Judge to hear out and decide the writ petition as soon as the business of his Court permits. It may be noted that on March 26, the Supreme Court had granted interim relief to Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee's election agent SK Supian in relation to matter of revived FIRs against him in the Nandigram violence case.In February 2020 and June 2020, the public prosecutor had filed applications in these cases for withdrawal of prosecution. The Calcutta High Court in two PILs Dipak Misra v. State of West Bengal & Ors., and Nilanjan Adhikary v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reversed the decision to discharge and acquit him. A division Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Krishna Murari has ordered an ad-inetrim stay on the High Court's order dated 5 March 2021. On Tuesday, the division bench of the Calcutta High Court also directed status quo as regards the applicants before itself in these PILs, co-terminous with the order of stay granted by the Supreme Court of in order dated 26.03.2021. The order of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court of March 2 on Jahar Sha's writ petitionIn the impugned order, Justice Bhattacharya recorded that the petitioner, Jahar Sha, the de facto complainant, had lodged a complaint against several persons regarding alleged murder of the petitioner's uncle. On the basis of such complaint, a First Information Report was registered and investigation had commenced. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was filed and the criminal trial had started.The Single Judge noted that the charge-sheet indicates that grave offences were alleged against the accused persons, including Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the accused persons applied separately for bail before the High Court, but were refused on all such occasions."It is relevant to mention here that in all of such orders refusing to grant bail, passed by Division Benches of this Court, it was recorded that the Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail. However, by the impugned order dated February 26, 2021, when the trial was about to reach culmination upon direction for expeditious hearing by a co-ordinate Bench, the Legal Remembrancer and Ex-officio Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, apparently on the direction of the Governor, instructed the concerned Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case, under the provisions of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure", Justice Bhattacharya noted.Upon considering the submission of both sides, the Single Bench opined that the Supreme Court categorically has...

Calcutta HC Sets Aside Single Judge's Order Reviving Criminal Proceedings Against Anisur Rehman, Remands Back Matter

Mehal Jain

Tags