Calcutta HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to TMC Leaders, Cites CBI's 4-Year Delay in Post-Poll Violence Case

Kolkata, India – In a significant ruling that scrutinizes investigative timelines and the grounds for pre-trial detention, the Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLA Paresh Paul and two other party members. The three were recently named as accused in a supplementary chargesheet related to a gruesome murder that occurred during the post-poll violence following the 2021 West Bengal Assembly Elections.

Justice Jay Sengupta, presiding over the single-judge bench, anchored the decision in the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) four-year delay in formally accusing the petitioners, despite possessing the core evidence since 2021. The Court determined that the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation and the procedural history of the case warranted the grant of pre-arrest bail.

---

Background of the Case: Murder and Political Undertones

The case stems from an incident on May 2, 2021, when a group of assailants allegedly attacked the home of a political opponent. The victim’s mother, the de facto complainant, alleged that 7-8 individuals came to her house, inquired about her son, and accused him of illegally occupying railway property. An altercation ensued, during which her younger son was brutally assaulted and later succumbed to his injuries.

The investigation was eventually transferred to the CBI, which filed its first supplementary chargesheet in 2021. Notably, the current petitioners, including the 79-year-old MLA Paresh Paul, were not named as accused at that stage. It was only in a second supplementary chargesheet, filed in 2025, that they were implicated, prompting their application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The timing of this legal development is underscored by the broader political context. The source material references a recent move by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form a committee to investigate ongoing post-poll violence in West Bengal, indicating that the political tensions from 2021 continue to reverberate.

Arguments Before the High Court

The proceedings saw a sharp clash between the defense's focus on procedural fairness and the prosecution's emphasis on the gravity of the crime.

Petitioners' Submissions:

Senior Counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay, representing the petitioners, built his case on several key pillars:

1. Investigative Laches: The central argument was the CBI's "inordinate and unexplained delay." Bandopadhyay stressed that the evidence the CBI now relies upon—primarily video clips of a speech and a statement by the victim—was available to the agency when it filed its first chargesheet in 2021. He questioned why the CBI chose not to name the petitioners then and made no effort to take them into custody during the prolonged "further investigation" that spanned nearly four years.

2. Apprehension of Unjust Custody: The defense expressed a strong apprehension that the petitioners would be taken into custody upon surrendering to the trial court, even though they were appearing in response to a summons, not an arrest warrant. Counsel cited the precedent of other co-accused in the same case who were remanded to custody upon surrender and reminded the court that "the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of taking custody of accused when they appear pursuant to issuance of summons."

3. Remoteness of Alleged Conspiracy: The defense vehemently challenged the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. It was argued that a political speech by Paul, which allegedly threatened the victim's eviction from a property, could not be construed as instigation or abetment to murder. "Political figures do make speeches including on local issues," Bandopadhyay argued. "But, if an unfortunate incident takes place, which has not even a remote connection with the speech, and which is quite distant in point of time, the maker of such speech cannot be hauled up." He insisted on the need for corroborative evidence, which he claimed the CBI had failed to produce.

CBI's Opposition:

The CBI, opposing the bail plea, painted a picture of a calculated and politically motivated crime.

1. Gravity of the Offense: The agency characterized the murder as a "most gruesome" act, part of a wider pattern of post-poll violence perpetrated by the "political dispensation in 2021."

2. Clinching Evidence: The prosecution highlighted two key pieces of evidence: a "provocative speech" by Paresh Paul in the presence of the other two petitioners that allegedly targeted the victim, and video clips recorded by the victim himself before his death, in which he purportedly names two of the petitioners.

3. Justification for Delay: While conceding that the evidence existed in 2021, the CBI counsel submitted that further investigation was a complex process of "carefully assessing" different aspects of the facts. This necessity, they argued, explained why the second supplementary chargesheet was filed only in 2025.

4. Influence of the Accused: The CBI contended that the influential positions held by the petitioners made them a flight risk or capable of tampering with evidence, thus warranting the denial of anticipatory bail.

---

The Court's Rationale for Granting Bail

In his decisive order, Justice Jay Sengupta meticulously weighed the competing arguments and focused on the principles governing pre-arrest bail. The court's reasoning, as articulated in the order, provides a clear framework for analyzing such cases.

The Court held: "Considering the materials available in the case diary as discussed above, the fact that although most of the evidence against the present petitioners were available to the CBI at the time of filing of the first supplementary charge sheet...the CBI had chosen not to make the corresponding petitioners accused in the said charge sheet...due the fact that the petitioners had co-operated with the investigation in the meantime, that summons was issued upon a finding by the Court that no case for issuance of warrant of arrest was made out, the fact that inspite of similar stand taken in case of some other co-accused, they were taken into custody upon surrender and the alleged roles ascribed to each of the present petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail when they appear in response to the summoning order."

The judgment effectively elevates several factors in the bail calculus:

• Unexplained Delay as a Mitigating Factor: The CBI's failure to act on available evidence for four years weakened its argument for the necessity of custodial interrogation now.
• Past Cooperation: The petitioners' record of cooperating with the investigation demonstrated that they were not evading the legal process.
• Judicial Discretion in Summons: The trial court's initial decision to issue a summons rather than a warrant was interpreted as an indication that immediate arrest was not deemed necessary.
• Protecting Liberty: The Court recognized the petitioners' legitimate fear of being taken into custody upon surrender, a practice frowned upon by the Supreme Court, and used its power under Section 438 CrPC to pre-empt it.

Legal and Political Implications

This order carries significant implications for both legal practice and the ongoing political friction in West Bengal. For criminal law practitioners, it reinforces the principle that investigative agencies cannot sit on evidence indefinitely and then use it to seek custody years later without a compelling justification. The judgment serves as a powerful citation in bail matters where investigative delay is a prominent feature.

Politically, the grant of bail to senior ruling party leaders in a high-profile post-poll violence case will inevitably be viewed through a partisan lens. While the court's decision is based purely on legal and procedural grounds, it will likely be interpreted by the ruling TMC as a vindication against politically motivated prosecution and by the opposition BJP as a setback in the quest for justice for victims of political violence.

The case of Paresh Paul & others (CRM (A) 2487 of 2025) thus becomes a critical study in the delicate balance between the gravity of an alleged offense, the rights of the accused, and the accountability of investigating agencies.