The Calcutta High Court has officially extended the interim bail of Milan Pradhan, an individual currently facing serious criminal charges linked to the 2007 Nandigram violence, until November 25, 2026. Justice Partha Pratim Roy, presiding over the criminal miscellaneous jurisdiction, granted this extension following a specific directive from the Supreme Court of India, which had previously disposed of a Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the initial interim relief. Under the terms of this extended order, the petitioner is required to surrender before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, on November 27, 2026.

This development marks a significant procedural progression in a long-standing case registered at the Nandigram Police Station in 2007. The proceedings concern multiple severe allegations under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including sections related to rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, causing hurt, attempt to murder, theft, extortion, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house, and murder. Furthermore, the charges incorporate provisions under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, reflecting the gravity of the incident that occurred during the political turmoil in West Bengal nearly two decades ago.

Procedural Context of the Bail Extension

The legal trajectory of this matter involves a series of orders beginning with a decision from a coordinate bench of the Calcutta High Court on September 29, 2026. That order initially provided relief to the petitioner, allowing him to furnish a personal bond of ₹20,000 alongside two sureties of ₹10,000 each, provided that one of the sureties maintained local residency. The initial relief was restricted to a three-week window, mandating a surrender date of October 21, 2026. However, the State of West Bengal challenged this relief by approaching the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 18996 of 2026.

On October 7, 2026 , the Supreme Court disposed of the State’s petition, opting not to interfere with the underlying merits of the bail at that stage but instead providing the petitioner with the procedural liberty to approach the High Court for further relief. As noted in the records of the case, "The Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 7th October, 2026 disposed of the aforesaid application by granting liberty to the respondent for extension of interim bail , or seeks his enlargement of regular bail before the Hon’ble High Court and the same will be considered by the High Court in accordance with law." Armed with this judicial mandate , the petitioner moved the current application before Justice Roy, seeking an extension of the temporary reprieve initially granted on September 29.

Judicial Oversight and Continued Conditions

During the proceedings on October 20, 2026, the petitioner’s legal counsel emphasized the necessity of the extension, confirming that proper intimation had been served upon the State’s representative. The Court reviewed the case records, including the original decision rendered by the coordinate bench, and acknowledged that the relief was initially premised on a thorough evaluation of the materials presented at that juncture. By upholding the previous decision while adjusting the dates, the High Court ensured continuity in the legal conditions imposed on the accused.

Justice Partha Pratim Roy, in his order, stated, "In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court , this Court is of the considered view that the interim bail which was granted till 20th October, 2026 be extended till 25th November, 2026 with the condition as imposed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29th September, 2026." This decision maintains the requirement that the petitioner remains under the same bond conditions as previously mandated, ensuring that the jurisdictional integrity of the trial court in Haldia is preserved throughout the process.

Implications for the Pending Trial

The decision highlights the ongoing nature of the legal accountability surrounding the Nandigram incident, a case that has spanned nearly two decades and involved extensive litigation across various tiers of the Indian judiciary. By setting a specific surrender date of November 27, 2026, the High Court has effectively created a timeline that governs the petitioner's movements until the end of the year, while keeping the door open for further judicial review of his bail status.

The court’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s recent directions serves to streamline the proceedings, allowing for the potential of regular bail to be sought in subsequent hearings. As it stands, the petitioner remains under the active oversight of the High Court, with the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Haldia retaining jurisdiction over the physical compliance of the surrender order. The matter is currently finalized regarding this specific application, with all prior stipulations concerning sureties and bonds remaining in full force as the case moves toward the next scheduled date of compliance in late November. The state’s continued involvement and the petitioner's adherence to these strict time-bound orders illustrate the court's cautious approach to managing long-pending, high-stakes criminal trials.