JUDGMENT :

SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J

1. The above noted analogous appeals have been preferred against a common order dated 6th of September, 2021 in the writ petition, being WPA 11803 of 2021, passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench.

2. The Writ Petitioner in WPA 11803 of 2021, i.e. the Writ petition on which the common order dated 6th September, 2021 of the Hon’ble Single Bench came to be passed, is the Respondent No. 1 in two of the above noted analogous appeals being MAT 993 of 2021 and MAT 970 of 2021(respectively MAT-I and MAT-II). The writ petitioner is a political leader presently owing allegiance to a political party which is in opposition to the present ruling party of the State. The writ petitioner originally owed allegiance to the present ruling party and, inter alia, alleges that upon shifting his allegiance to the party presently in the opposition, at least six First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed against him in four different police stations of the State. The writ petitioner alleges victimization and harassment by the State machinery as a counterblast to the change in his political allegiance.

3. The prayers in the writ petition are primarily protection from the vexatious criminal proceedings launched against the Writ petitioner and, in the alternative, since the writ petition has lost faith in the impartiality of the State machinery, to transfer investigation of the FIRs registered against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

4. By the order impugned, the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to notice and record the details of the FIRs pleaded in the writ petition. Upon recording the details, the Hon’ble Single Bench found the writ petition to be maintainable and, was prima facie satisfied that in the series of FIRs complained of in the writ petition, the State machinery acted over-zealously and maliciously. Upon further recording of reasons for its prima facie satisfaction, the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to observe that the writ petitioner deserves invocation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for protecting him from implication in false criminal cases.

5. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to direct as follows:

“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 State shall furnish information as regards any further FIR registered against the petitioner. The State shall also obtain leave of this Court before 20 arresting the petitioner or taking with any coercive action against the petitioner in all such cases. The Investigating Authorities shall, as far as possible, considering the public responsibilities of the petitioner, accommodate him, if he is required to give any statement, from a place and time convenient to him. Learned Advocate General prays for stay of operation of the aforesaid order Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for stay is considered and refused. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter. Liberty to mention after completion of pleadings.”

6. The appellants in the appeals, being respectively first the de facto complainant in one of the FIRs (MAT 993 of 2021) and the State of West Bengal represented by its prosecuting arm (MAT 970 of 2021) and (MAT 840 of 2021 - MAT-III), came under the legal obligation to answer the demurrer raised by Mr. Patwa