New Delhi: In a rare order, the Supreme Court has cancelled bail given to four persons who are accused of rioting and attempt to rape during the 2021 post-poll violence in West Bengal.
It gave a two-week deadline to the accused with links to the ruling party to surrender, failing which the trial court would take coercive measures against them.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta overturned two orders of the Calcutta High Court—of February and April 2023—Thursday while observing that the nature and gravity of the offence “is nothing short of an attack on the roots of democracy.”
Severely critical of the West Bengal police that took no steps to protect the complainant and his family, the judgement took into consideration that the FIR was registered on the HC’s intervention.
The bench took into account the accused background and their alliance with the Trinamool Congress, the ruling party, and that it is likely to adversely affect a fair trial, if they are allowed to remain on bail.
The top court took serious note of the “reprehensible manner in which the incident was perpetrated” with the “avowed objective to subdue the supporters of the opposite party into submission by hook or crook.”
There was prima facie evidence to show that the concerted attack on the complainant’s house was because he supported the “saffron party” (BJP), the court observed in its bail cancellation order.
It went on to say that the sole objective behind the attack was to wreak vengeance on an opposite party’s worker. “This is a grave circumstance which convinces us that the accused persons including the respondents herein were trying to terrorise the members of the opposite political party whom the accused respondents were supporting,” the court held.
It is uncommon for courts to interfere with their own or a lower court’s bail order unless there are valid reasons or circumstances that warrant the intervention. Bail is often considered to be a constitutional right, which stems from Article 21 that promises the right to liberty. The idea behind bail jurisprudence is that no one should be detained unnecessarily in jail.
The circumstances that could make the court to cancel a bail are if there is fraud or misrepresentation in procuring bail; the allegations are so grave that bail adversely impacts the society or shakes the court’s conscience; release of the accused is likely to create a sense of fear and terror, or the accused, while on bail, may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence
The SC order came on two appeals filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging two orders of the Calcutta HC by which it released four men, identified as Sheikh Jamir, Sekh Nurai, Sekh Asraf @ Sk Rahul @ Asraf, Jayanta Dome and Sekh Kabirul.
The quartet are accused of attacking the complainant, destroying his house and attempting to rape his wife. on 2 May, 2021, just after the announcement of the Bengal election results.
In its appeal, the CBI claimed the complainant–Gumsima–is a Hindu and is a minority in his village. Those who belong to the other community are supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation, the CBI said, attributing its arguments to Gumsima’s allegations.
Despite being in small numbers, Gumsima and other Hindu members gathered the courage and started campaigning for the BJP prior to the polls, the CBI submitted. This, it alleged, drew the wrath of the supporters of the ruling party.
The accused targeted Gumsima and were part of the crowd that gathered outside his house. Armed with sharp weapons, the accused assaulted Gumsima, vandalised his house and then grabbed his wife’s hair before forcibly undressing her.
To save herself, Gumsima’s wife poured kerosene and threatened to set herself ablaze following which the accused left the spot. When the complainant approached the police, he was advised to leave the accused to save his and his family’s life.
CBI counsel, additional solicitor general Vikramjit Banerjee, told the court that the accused were arrested with great difficulty on 3 November, 2022. The HC granted them bail on extraneous considerations, he told the bench, raising doubts over the possibility of a fair trial in the state, given that the accused were politically influential.
Delayed filing of the FIR, that too on the HC’s intervention, was a reflection of the accused connections in the system, Banerjee argued.
Even the trial court, he added, was struggling to frame charges due to failure of the accused to appear before it. This showed the propensity of the accused to adversely affect the trial and their ability to tamper with evidence, he submitted.
But senior counsel N. Hariharan defended the bail saying that the FIR against his clients was belated and none of the witnesses had made specific allegations. In the absence of a specific role assigned to them, he said, there was no justification for entertaining the appeals and interfering with the HC orders.
Taking cognizance of the CBI’s concern that the accused were deliberately delaying the trial, the SC said: “Having regard to the facts enumerated above, we feel that the present one is a case wherein the allegations against the accused respondents are so grave that the same shake the conscience of the Court. Furthermore, there is an imminent propensity of the accused persons adversely affecting the proceedings of the trial.”
“The reprehensible manner in which the incident was perpetrated shows the vengeful attitude of the accused and their avowed objective to subdue the supporters of the opposite party into submission by hook or by crook. The dastardly offence was nothing short of a grave attack on the roots of democracy,” it added.
The SC directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and try to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of its order copy.
It vacated all stay orders, if any, passed on the proceedings before the trial court and directed West Bengal’s Home Secretary and the Director General of Police to ensure that proper protection is provided to the complainant and all other material witnesses.
The top court also gave liberty to the CBI to come back to it, if there is any violation of its orders.
(Edited by Tony Rai)