'Bias And Malicious Prosecution Cannot Be Ruled Out': Calcutta HC Stays Three Cases Registered Against BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari, Orders No Coercive Action

The Calcutta High Court on Monday has extended interim relief to BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition in West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari in the context of Crime Investigation Department (CID) summons in connection with the probe into the death of his bodyguard Subhobrata Chakraborty. Earlier today Adhikari had been summoned by the CID to its headquarters in Bhabani Bhawan in connection with the death case of his bodyguard but he had refused to turn up for the questioning citing that he was busy. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha on Monday issued a stay order on proceedings initiated against Adhikari in respect of cases registered at Contai police station and the Nandigram police station on March 18, 2021. "There shall be a stay of proceedings in respect of the Contai Police Station Case No. 248 of 2021 dated July 7, 2021 and the Nandigram Police Station Case No. 110 of 2021 dated March 18, 2021. The investigation into the other two Police Station cases i.e. Manicktala Police Station Case No. 28 of 2021 dated February 27, 2021 and Tamluk Police Station Case No. 595 of 2021 dated July 19, 2021, the investigation may go on but no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigations. Panskura Police Station Case No. 375 of 2021 and 376 of 2021 shall also remain stayed."The Court further directed that the State must take the Court's leave before initiating any coercive action against Adhikari. "The State shall furnish information as regards any further FIR registered against the petitioner. The State shall also obtain leave of this Court before arresting the petitioner or taking with any coercive action against the petitioner in all such cases." The concerned investigating authorities were also instructed to consider the public responsibilities of the BJP MLA and accordingly accommodate him if he is required to give any statement from a place and time convenient to him. Justice Mantha further observed that in the instant case there exists a reasonable apprehension that the State police machinery is being misused to initiate malicious prosecution against Adhikari. "Bias and malicious prosecution cannot be ruled out in the instant case since the petitioner is being persecuted at four different police stations by four different sets of individuals. A careful scrutiny of the complaints and the FIRs registered against the petitioner naming him directly or indirectly would indicate that the allegation of abuse of State police machinery cannot be completely ignored", the Court opined. The Court further added that a transfer of investigation can be sought even by an accused and such a relief is not restricted only to the victim of a crime. "This Court is of the view that a prayer for transfer of investigation cannot be restricted, to be sought only by a victim of a crime. An accused can equally be prejudiced by a biased investigation or malicious prosecution and can, therefore, seek transfer of investigation", the Court noted. In respect to the case registered at the Contai Police Station against Adhkiari pertaining to the death of his bodyguard, the Court observed, "This Court finds that the Contai PS did not even bother to enquire as to what cause the delay of 3 years in the victim's wife to register a complaint of murder that was originally treated as suicide. Mere nonclosure of UD case is neither enough nor would it ipso facto entitle the Contai PS to register the FIR." The Court further placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar wherein the Supreme Court had held that the power of arrest must be used sparingly by the police authorities. "It was held that arrest has the consequence of social stigma and lowering the image and dignity of a person in the eye of society. Guidelines came to be laid down under Section 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C for the Police to mandatorily comply with", the Court noted while recollecting the dictum in Arnesh Kumar. Justice Mantha further opined that there seems to have been a scheme devised to 'entrap' the petitioner and accordingly observed, "Prima facie there appears to be an attempt at implicating and victimizing him in criminal cases and mala fides, malice and collateral purpose in registering the FIRs against the petitioner and his associates. A scheme and or conspiracy and or pattern and or stratagem appear to have been devised to entrap the petitioner and his associates to ensure their incarceration and custody inter alia to embarrass them" Enumerating upon the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution in safeguarding the rights of an accused against arbitrary arrests, the Court observed, "Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the most vital rights that a citizen of this country is required to be secured with. The rights under Article 21 and importance thereof cannot be overemphasized. The rights under Article 21 are so very basic and fundamental...

'Bias And Malicious Prosecution Cannot Be Ruled Out': Calcutta HC Stays Three Cases Registered Against BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari, Orders No Coercive Action

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags