'Reduced Investigation To A Mockery': Calcutta HC Orders CBI Probe Into Haldia Dock Extortion Case, Rejects State's Plea For SIT Probe

The Calcutta High Court on Monday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into alleged extortion of truckers at Haldia Port and observed that "syndicates" have a stranglehold on most businesses and commerce in the state.

The Court thus stayed the ongoing investigation by the State police and furthermore rejected the State's plea to allow a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be entrusted with the investigation.

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, 

"The investigation is being carried out in a perfunctory manner. The faith of the public at large in such investigation could be eroded. There is therefore strong and prima facie case made out for transfer of the case from the State to the CBI."

The Court directed the CBI to collect all the case material including case diary and all evidence from the Haldia Police and commence investigation. However, the Court ordered that final report shall not be filed by the CBI without the leave of this Court.

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decisions in State of West Bengal v. Committee for the protection of Democratic Rights, Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Pooja Pal v. Union of India to contend that the Court is of the  prima facie view that the investigation needs to be transferred from the Haldia Police to the CBI. 

The Court also rejected the government pleader's request for an SIT probe by observing, 

"The Government Pleader, Mr. Ray, has prayed that instead of CBI, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) may be entrusted with the investigation. This cannot be acceded to because the Haldia Port attracts traffic from many countries and has a huge hinterland comprising in many states in eastern India."

Pertinently, the Court opined that 'syndicates' dominate most businesses in the State and accordingly remarked,

 "Syndicates" have a stranglehold on most businesses and commerce in the State, be it in the trade of Construction material or as in the instant case the loading and unloading of cargo, moving in and out of the Haldia Port."
 

Background 

On July 12, 2021, an extortion case was registered at Haldia police station in which a person named Shyamal Adak was named the principal accused and the writ petitioner  Rajib Paul was named as the co-accused.

The complainant Sk. Mobarak Ali had alleged that sometime in the year 2018, Shyamal Adak used to collect by extortion a sum of Rs. 100 per truck to allow loading of coal at the Haldia Dock Complex. The payment was received and recorded in a slip issued by Adak and his associates inside the trade union office of the dock complex.

On one such instance, the petitioner had failed and refused to make payment, following which he was not allowed to load his truck with coal. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to load his truck only after paying the sum of Rs. 100. Due the pressure and intimidation by Shyamal Adak and his associates, the consignees stopped hiring the complainant which crippled his transport business.

Subsequently, the F.I.R. was registered at 10.35 pm about 2 and half years after the incident. The date of occurrence was not mentioned in the FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for bail the Magistrate and the same was allowed on the July 19, 2021. 

Thereafter, on July 28, 2021 the Investigation Officer (IO) applied for cancellation of bail stating that the petitioner was threatening witnesses. Accordingly, the petitioner's bail was cancelled on July 28, 2021 by the concerned magistrate. 

The order of cancellation of bail was challenged before the Sessions Court who initially passed an order of stay. The Sessions Court also expressed deep dissatisfaction at the manner in which the IO has conducted the investigation. However, later the order of stay was vacated and the order of the concerned Magistrate dated July 28, 2021 was confirmed.

In the meantime, the principal accused Shyamal Adak, filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the said proceedings and seeking transfer of the said proceedings. By orders dated September 14,  2021 and November 25, 2021, Shyamal Adak was granted protection of this Court against any coercive action. The interim order was challenged by the State before the Supreme Court and by  an order dated January 10,  2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the State and remanded the matter back to this Court

Subsequently, on February 20, 22 a Coordinate Bench of this Court expressed displeasure about the manner in which the concerned Magistrate had granted bail in the first place on July 19,  2021. The Coordinate bench accordingly  refused to extend the interim order of stay and released the matter to be heard with the instant writ petition. 

Observations

At the outset, the Court came down heavily on the State police for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Opining that such delay throws up serious questions regarding the motives behind the investigation, the Court underscored, 

"As already noticed by the Sessions judge and the Coordinate benches, the delay in lodging of the FIR is curiously stark and blatant. The crime in the form of extortion by "Syndicate" (mafia) Operations was going on unabated since 2018 if not earlier. Such Syndicates operate in every nook and corner of the State. The selective cognizance in this case and the delay of two and half years in lodging of the FIR and the timing thereof i.e. particularly after the Assembly elections in the year 2021, throws up serious questions as regards the motives behind the investigation."

The Court further stated that there is absolutely no evidence  that the petitioner is threatening or intimidating any witnesses. A blank statement by the IO cannot compel the Court to infer anything that the complainant might want, it was stated further. It was also noted that the IO had not expressed any apprehension that the accused might abscond. It was further noted that notice under Section 41A of the CrPC was never issued to the petitioner which is in direct violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. 

The Court further noted that on December 13, 2021 a Coordinate Bench had refused extension of the interim order at about 12.00 pm and on the very same day the petitioner had been arrested from his house at 1 pm. The Court accordingly observed that the real motive of the State police is to otiose all orders of stay that had been extended as any as 6 times by different benches.

"The turn of events indicated above and the timing are rather curious and betray the real purpose and motive behind the proceedings, i.e. to keep the accused in custody, by hook or by crook...Prima facie, therefore, the conduct of the IO and the State in obtaining the order to include additional charges is suspect", the Court observed further. 

Justice Mantha further stated that the State machinery has been 'acting casually' and that investigation into such a serious matter is not being conducted effectively. It was also noted that the main accused is enjoying protection from coercive measures and has not been interrogated effectively till now. 

Coming down heavily on the concerned IO and the concerned magistrate for reducing the investigation into a mockery, the Court remarked further, 

"The accused has not been interrogated for over 7 months since 17th of July, 2021. The sudden need for custodial interrogation is therefore suspiciously vague and motivated. The IO only appears to be over-zealous in taking the accused into custody. The need for interrogation of the other accused is not indicated by the State. The IO and ACJM have reduced the investigation to a mockery."

Accordingly, the Court ordered the petitioner to be released from custody on the condition that he would not leave Haldia town without the leave of the Court. Furthermore, the Court directed the affidavit in opposition to be filed within a period of 4 weeks and reply, if any, within 2 weeks thereafter.

The matter is slated to be heard after 6 weeks. 

Case Title: Rajib Paul v. The State of West Bengal and Anr

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 49 

Click Here To Read/Download Order