The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to senior Trinamool Congress leader and MLA Paresh Paul (aged 79) and two other party members in connection with a case relating to the post-poll violence that followed the West Bengal Assembly elections of 2021. The case concerns the death of a young man who was allegedly assaulted by a group of miscreants.

 

According to the prosecution, on May 2, 2021, around 7–8 persons went to the complainant’s house in search of her son, alleging that he had illegally occupied railway quarters. An altercation broke out, during which the complainant was assaulted, and her younger son was brutally attacked. He later succumbed to his injuries.

 

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which took over the probe following Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court directions on post-poll violence cases, alleged that Paresh Paul and the co-petitioners were linked to the incident through speeches and statements made at public gatherings, which allegedly instigated hostility towards the victim.

 

Appearing for the accused leaders, Senior Counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay argued that:

• The petitioners were not named in the FIR nor cited as accused by the State police.

• The evidence now being relied upon by the CBI was available in 2021, when the agency filed its first supplementary chargesheet, yet the petitioners were not implicated then.

• Despite multiple rounds of further investigation over four years, the CBI made no move to arrest them until 2025, raising questions over the timing of their inclusion.

• The allegations of conspiracy were tenuous, as they were based merely on political speeches that did not amount to instigation or abetment to murder.

• Co-accused who surrendered before the trial court were taken into custody despite only being summoned, a practice the Supreme Court had already disapproved.

 

The defense emphasized that political speeches on local issues, even if critical or provocative, cannot automatically be linked to subsequent acts of violence unless there is direct evidence of instigation.

 

Opposing bail, the CBI submitted that:

• The case involved a “most gruesome murder” connected to post-poll violence.

• Paresh Paul had delivered a speech against the deceased in the presence of the other petitioners, voicing intent to oust him.

• The deceased himself had recorded video clips naming the petitioners prior to his death, which constituted strong evidence.

• While these materials existed in 2021, the agency was conducting a careful, phased investigation, leading to the filing of the second supplementary chargesheet in 2025.

• Given the seriousness of the crime and the influential status of the petitioners, custodial interrogation was justified, and anticipatory bail should not be granted.

 

Justice Jay Sengupta noted that:

• The CBI had access to the relevant evidence since 2021, yet chose not to name the petitioners in its earlier chargesheet.

• The petitioners had cooperated fully with the investigation, and summons—not warrants—had been issued earlier, indicating no immediate need for custodial interrogation.

• Some co-accused, despite being similarly placed, were taken into custody upon surrender, but in the petitioners’ case, no such necessity was demonstrated.

 

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to protection from arrest and granted anticipatory bail, directing their release when they appear in response to the summoning order.