Read Time: 08 minutes

The West Bengal government has filed an appeal in Calcutta High Court challenging the order of a Single Judge granting protection from coercive action to BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari.

According to a report by News 18 media, the matter was mentioned by a state lawyer before a division bench presided over by Justice Subrata Talukdar with regard to filing an appeal against the single bench order on Tuesday.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha passed the order for no coercive action against Adhikari and prior permission of the Court before making arrest in a plea by Adhikari, complaining of abuse of State and Police machinery by the ruling dispensation in registering 6 FIRs against him in 4 different police stations.

Adhikari had approached the High Court seeking interventions in the FIRs alleging that the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government was abusing police machinery. He also sought transfer of the investigation of the said 6 FIRs to the CBI saying that he has no faith in the State police.

Finding substantial force in Mr. Adhikari’s argument, the court said that there appeared to be an attempt at implicating and victimizing him in criminal cases and mala fides.

Court observed,

“A scheme and or conspiracy and or pattern and or stratagem appear to have been devised to entrap the petitioner and his associates to ensure their incarceration and custody inter alia to embarrass them.”

Therefore, granting protection from arrest to Adhikari in two cases and staying the investigation against him in four other cases, Court stated,

“In the instant case there is prima facie evidence before this Court of abuse and or misuse of State and police machinery in registering cases for investigation based on half-truths, fiction, concoctions and non-events.”

Hinting towards political vendetta, Mr. Adhikari’s counsel alleged before the court that Mr. Adhikari’s victimisation and harassment by the State had begun immediately after he changed his political allegiance in December 2020 and intensified after the Assembly elections in May 2021.

However, the counsel for the State opposed Mr. Adhikari’s prayers arguing that in two of the FIRs, Mr. Adhikari was not specifically named and on the basis of allegations of bias, persecution, and political vendetta relief can be sought under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. implying that the petition was not maintainable.

Addressing both the contentions court observed that the maintainability of the petition should not be confused with entertainablity.

The court said that it appears from a combined reading of all six cases, the cases are directly or indirectly linked to the petitioner and/or his close associates who profess the ideology of one political party. Court added that well-over 7-8 and in some cases 13 consecutive FIRs have been registered against the associates since after the recent assembly elections.

Court also said that the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be taken away by any subordinate legislation. “A prayer for transfer of investigation cannot be restricted, to be sought only by a victim of a crime. An accused can equally be prejudiced by a biased investigation or malicious prosecution and can, therefore, seek transfer of investigation,” Court added.

Therefore, finding Mr. Adhikari’s contentions and complaints legit, the court also directed the State to obtain leave of this Court before arresting the petitioner or taking any coercive action against the petitioner in all such cases.

Earlier, the Court had directed immediate release of Rakhal Bera, close ally of BJP Leader Suvendu Adhikari, adding that the attempts to keep him behind bars pointed to “political vendetta” at behest of State machinery.

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha while passing orders of forthwith release had then added that no arrest of Bera shall be conducted without High Court’s permission.

“Considering the repeated attempts by persons to lodge one complaint after the other against the petitioner and in a planned and systematic manner and the repeated arrest after bail in one case or the other, this Court is persuaded to grant interim relief to the petitioner” the bench said.