Back
Expresses Surprise Over Police Conduct, Protects Milan Pradhan in Case
The on Thursday stepped in to protect Congress candidate Milan Pradhan from further police action in a criminal case dating back to , expressing astonishment at the State's failure to disclose the pendency of the case during an earlier hearing. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed that no steps be taken against Pradhan in connection with the case until , and that he shall not be shown as arrested in that matter. The order came after the Court learned that Pradhan had been implicated in yet another case despite the State's earlier assurance that only five cases were subsisting against him.
The development unfolded during a hearing on Thursday, following the Court's order where it had recorded the State's submission that Pradhan was in custody in connection with five criminal cases, and that out of six other cases, five were not subsisting and he was not wanted in the remaining one. The Court had proceeded on that premise. However, Pradhan's counsel, , alleged that the State had "brazenly" added another case despite that order, and that Pradhan remained in custody until , just one day before the Nandigram by-election was scheduled.
Background of the Order
The Court's earlier proceedings had sought to clarify the exact number of pending cases against Milan Pradhan, a candidate for the Congress party in the Nandigram constituency. At that time, the State had represented that five cases were active and that Pradhan was in custody in those matters. The Court had recorded that the remaining six cases were either not subsisting or that Pradhan was not wanted in them. This representation formed the basis for the Court's order, which implicitly provided some measure of protection by ensuring that no new cases would be sprung upon the petitioner.
However, during Thursday's hearing, it emerged that Pradhan had been arrested in a case on itself—three days before the hearing. The State argued that a had been issued and that Pradhan was already in custody in connection with that case. The Court was visibly taken aback by this revelation, noting that the State had not disclosed this fact during the earlier hearing.
Court's Observations on
Justice Bhattacharyya recalled the State's submissions from
, stating,
"I remember that you submitted that these were the only matters and other matters were not alive."
The State attempted to rely on a report dated
and an order of the
to show that Pradhan had been arrested on
. However, the Court pointed out that the report was not before it when the earlier order was passed.
"That report is not with me. We proceeded on your submission. No report was filed,"
the Court observed.
The Court then pressed the State on where it had disclosed that Pradhan had been apprehended in the additional case before the
order.
"Where is that disclosure? Show me from the record,"
Justice Bhattacharyya demanded. The State maintained that Pradhan had been tagged in the case on
, but Pradhan's counsel submitted that this development had not been disclosed to the Court. The Court noted that had the case been brought to its notice during the earlier hearing, it could have taken it into consideration.
"In the earlier hearing it was not surfaced before this court that another criminal prosecution was pending,"
the Court said while dictating its order.
The Controversy
The State also contended that a
in the
case was subsisting. However, the Court could not find any document from which it could be concluded that the warrant had been executed.
"Therefore, State contention regarding execution of
is negated at this stage,"
the Court held. This finding was crucial, as it undermined the State's argument that Pradhan was already lawfully in custody under that warrant.
The Court further expressed surprise over the timing of the police action. The criminal prosecution originated in , yet the investigating officer had made a prayer on , 2026 (a typo in the source, likely 2024) for treating Pradhan as "" in the case. The Court questioned what the investigating officer had been doing for nearly 19 years if a warrant had been issued as far back as . The State explained that the cases had earlier been sought to be withdrawn by the previous government in but were subsequently revived in following a , after which warrants were issued. The Court, however, remained unimpressed, observing that the investigating officer's prayer appeared to reveal a different position.
Court's Intervention and Final Order
At one stage, the Court directed the State that, in view of its
order,
"whatever the cases are pending, if any other are pending don't take any steps."
The State assured the Court that no steps would be taken in the cases. The Court then clarified that while Pradhan had already filed bail applications in four cases, no steps should be taken in the remaining six cases.
Pradhan's counsel sought protection until the next date of hearing, pointing out that his custody was stated to continue till
, while the election was scheduled for
. The Court ultimately directed that the police shall not take any steps till
in connection with the
case and that Pradhan shall not be shown as arrested in connection with the said case.
"Police is directed not to take any steps till 12th October in connection with this case and petitioner shall not be shown as arrested,"
the Court ordered.
The Court concluded the matter with a pointed observation:
"Allow him to contest,
, allow him to contest."
This remark underscored the Court's view that the police action appeared to be aimed at disrupting Pradhan's electoral prospects.
Legal Analysis and Implications
The case raises significant issues regarding the duty of the State to make to the court, especially when a party is in custody and facing multiple prosecutions. The 's strong reaction to the serves as a reminder that courts rely on the representations of counsel and government advocates, and any failure to disclose material facts can lead to .
From a legal perspective, the Court's invocation of its under , or its general supervisory jurisdiction, is noteworthy. Although the order did not explicitly cite a statutory provision, the Court's direction to stop police action effectively operates as a stay on further proceedings in the case. This is akin to an order, but with a broader protective sweep.
The timing of the case, just before a by-election, also brings into focus the intersection of criminal law and electoral politics. The Court's observation that the investigating officer had been inactive for 19 years, only to spring into action just before the election, suggests a potential misuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes. The 's role in the revival of the case was briefly mentioned by the State, but the Court did not dwell on it.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, this judgment underscores the importance of meticulous record-keeping and timely disclosure. Advocates representing the State must ensure that all pending cases against an accused are brought to the court's attention, especially when the court is considering the quantum of custody or the validity of arrests. Failure to do so may result in the court nullifying subsequent police actions, as seen here.
The case also highlights the need for investigating officers to act promptly. A delay of nearly two decades in executing a warrant, followed by a sudden rush to show an accused as arrested, invites judicial scrutiny and may lead to the court ordering a . The State's explanation of a withdrawal and revival of cases may be valid, but the court's skepticism suggests that such explanations must be backed by clear documentary evidence.
Conclusion
The 's order in is a significant intervention that protects a political candidate from what the court perceived as a late-stage, non-disclosed criminal prosecution. By directing the police to take no steps until and ordering that Pradhan not be shown as arrested in the case, the court has ensured that the electoral process is not unduly hampered. The case serves as a cautionary tale for state authorities about the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings and the consequences of .
As the Nandigram by-election approaches, this ruling may have broader implications for how courts balance the rights of accused persons with the state's interest in prosecuting crimes, particularly when the timing of the prosecution raises suspicions of ulterior motives. The court's final plea—"Allow him to contest"—echoes the democratic principle that every candidate deserves a fair opportunity to seek the mandate of the people.
