Calcutta High Court denies bail to West Bengal poll candidate who ‘attacked’ judges during SIR drive | Legal News

Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta were hearing a bail plea of an ISF candidate in connection with an NIA investigation regarding attack on judges during SIR drive.

The Calcutta High Court denied the bail, considering the gravity of the offences and the involvement of the appellant as transpiring from the materials in the case diary, the period of custody of the appellant and the fact that the investigations are still in progress.

Calcutta High Court findings

• By an order dated April 6, the Supreme Court entrusted the investigations of various FIRs lodged with regard to incidents occurring at Mothabari.
• Two protected witnesses recorded statements identifying the presence of the appellant at the place and time of the occurrence.
• One police personnel recorded a statement identifying the appellant as being present at the place and time of the occurrence.
• Protected witnesses, as well as the police personnel, described the involvement of the appellant in the incidents.
• Electronic evidence in the case diary also places the appellant at the time and place of occurrence.
• Electronic evidence in the case diary corroborates the statements recorded by the protected witnesses, as well as the police personnel.
• Call Details Recording (CDR) establishes that the appellant was in constant contact with the co-accused.
• Considering the gravity of the offences, the Supreme Court directed an investigation by the NIA.
• The order dated May 11 permitted NIA to conclude the investigations preferably within a period of two months and submit its report before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
• Investigations are yet to be over. NIA is yet to submit its report before the court of competent jurisdiction.

Case of attack on judges during SIR

The case originated from a complaint registered at Mothabari Police Station on April 2, involving several Sections of the BNS, including Section 121 (waging war), Section 132 (abetment of mutiny), and Section 351(2) (criminal force), alongside provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

The investigation was subsequently taken over by the NIA following directions from the Supreme Court. The apex court had taken suo motu cognisance of the safety and security of judicial officers who were deputed for the SIR of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The petitioner Moulana Sahajahan Ali, a candidate of the Indian Secular Front (ISF) from the Mothabari assembly constituency in Malda district, filed a bail plea in respect of investigations undertaken by the NIA.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya submitted that the Supreme Court directed NIA to undertake the investigations, although the offences concerned do not fall within the schedule of the Act of 2008.

He submitted that further detention of the appellant is not required in view of the fact that the investigations are over. He argued that, in any event, the nature of the offence does not require prolonged incarceration of the appellant.

NIA’s stand

Representing NIA, the special public prosecutor, Arun Kumar Maiti, along with others, submitted before the Calcutta High Court that the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the safety and security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to the SIR of electoral rolls in the State of West Bengal and ancillary issues.

They submitted that, by the order dated May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court directed NIA to complete the investigations at the earliest, preferably within a period of two months and submit its report before the court of competition jurisdiction.