Read Time: 09 minutes

The Supreme Court today reserved its orders in the plea by Mamta Banerjee's election agent and Trinamool Congress leader SK Supian @ Sheikh Sufiyan, accused of killing a Bhartiya Janta Party Supporter Debabrata Maiti at Chillogram in Nandigram after the results were declared.

Supian has challenged the Calcutta High Court order dismissing his anticipatory bail application in the post-poll violence case.

Today, a bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao and Abhay S Oka was told by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Supian, that as per the statement recorded of a witness where it was said that he 'heard' that Supian was the leader of this violent group, amounted to mere hearsay.

Referring to another S. 164 statement of one Manoj Kumar Behra, Sibal submitted that he had not been relied upon by the CBI, and there was no reason stating how he got in touch with the CBI, he was not included in the list of witnesses, and his version was different from the other witnesses.

Sibal further told court that this witness lived 5 kms from the place of incident i.e., chillogram village.

The Court was further told that the appellant was not present at the location, no PW mentioned his name.

"There is case against me from 2007 when I was fighting for the Nandigram farmers, they have taken those out to say I have a history...", added Sibal.

Sibal  also relied on Gurbaksh Singh judgment to say that it aplty applied to the present case.

Refuting the testimony of another witness, one, Sulekha Bogri Sibal argued that she said knives were used to stab the deceased, but all other witnesses say iron rods were used. "There is a clear discrepancy", he said.

To this, the Court said that it cannot go into evidentiary value at this stage.

ASG Aman Lekhi commenced his submission by telling the bench that this was a proceeding for anticipatory bail which attracts Sec 41 CrPC wherein action can be taken under suspicion.

Lekhi added that the law was clear that the FIR does not have to name everyone. He added that after interim protection was granted to Supian on October 27, 2021, despite this on being called to appear he did not appear before the CBI.

"November 1 , 5, 11, 13 and 17, 2021, on the service of notice, there was no appearance...", he said.

Arguing that politics is being used to evade the law, Lekhi argued that as far as the chargesheets were concerned, there were 12 to 13 people apart from the petitioner, and two of them who were granted bail originally, none of them were on bail presently and were in custody, which showed that a case existed and occasion to proceed in the matter also existed.

Referring to Sibal's reference to a videotaping, Lekhi submitted that this videotape was proof that incident in fact took place, and they were entitled to investigate the matter.

Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia, appearing for wife of deceased told the court that this being an application for anticipatory bail in a S. 302 matter, the appellant being a well connected and powerful person in West Bengal, should not be granted bail.

"Recently 3 cases of murder against him were withdrawn. They were stayed by the High Court. Why should he get an extraordinary concession in a 302 matter? Statement veracity will be considered later....", argued Patwalia.

Referring to the High Court's order denying bail to Supian, Patwalia submitted that the reasoning to deny anticipatory bail was absolutely valid.

“Let him go and join investigation, he has remedy before courts then..”, he added.

At this point, Senior Advocate Sibal intervened to add that courts never give concession, they go by the records.

"He(Patwalia) is not concerned with the Nandigram incidents, why is he arguing, he should be concerned about his clients' husband’s death...", said Sibal.

Justice Rao then told the parties concerned that the court would pass orders.

On the last hearing, the Supreme Court had ordered the Union to provide copies of recorded statements to the petitioners in the matter. 

Also, a division bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai had recently granted interim protection to Supian after remarking that the court can hear the matter only after the statements are placed on record.

Case Title: SK Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan Vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation