The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the interim bail granted to Congress’ Nandigram bypoll candidate Milan Pradhan, saying the bail will expire on October 20 and that objections raised by the West Bengal government can be considered by the Calcutta high court if he seeks regular bail or an extension.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said that its order should not be seen as an expression of opinion on the serious charges faced by Pradhan or the fact that he faces six non-bailable warrants in the six criminal cases pertaining to murder and attempt to murder in the 2007 Nandigram anti-land acquisition agitation. The state was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who pointed out that the high court order of September 29 did not consider the gravity of the offences against him. On October 5, the court had adjourned the hearing as one of the judges on the bench with CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, had recused himself, citing personal conflict of interest in hearing the case. Mehta told the court that it was not the case where the state government should be faulted for opposing the bail in a 2007 criminal case when the facts showed how the state machinery and police all these years failed to execute the NBWs. Instead, an application was moved under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to withdraw prosecution in this case that was not allowed by the high court. The court had on the previous occasion observed, “These are 2007 FIRs. The bench said that the high court had granted bail only to enable him to contest the election that was held on October 6. Pradhan was arrested on September 18, hours after the Trinamool Congress candidate withdrew and party chief Mamata Banerjee announced support for the Congress candidate. The high court order of bail carried strict conditions, including a bail bond of ₹ 20,000 in each of the six cases.
However, if the respondent (Pradhan) seeks extension of his interim bail or regular bail, the objections raised by the petitioner state may be considered by the high court on merits. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. On an occasion when he wants to contest the elections, then suddenly you come to know. First of all, action should be taken against those police officers who failed to execute the NBWs. “This was the reason for the delay and it was only till the nomination was filed, the government of the day came to know about these facts and challenged the bail. “We are not saying that the gravity of the offences or the NBWs should be ignored. He was in judicial remand in connection with four cases registered at Nandigram police station and two more in neighbouring Khejuri, on charges including murder, attempt to murder and violations of the Arms Act. He was directed to provide his mobile number to the investigating officer, who was allowed to call him twice a day to ascertain his whereabouts.
Disposing of the state’s appeal, the bench, also comprising Justice V Mohana, said, “We do not deem it necessary to interfere with the order of the Calcutta high court. He said, “The state did nothing to arrest him. Mehta told the bench that he wanted to dispel this impression in the court’s mind. But the high court was of the view that he should not be denied to contest the elections on this ground,” the court said.
