Ensure That He Does Not Exercise Powers As Zila Parishad Pradhan: Calcutta HC On Sheikh Shahjahan, Court Directs CBI To Formulate Witness Protection Scheme

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya also observed, “The learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner in CAN 1 OF 2024 in WPA 4011 of 2424 submitted that the witnesses, the eyewitnesses, to the various incidents who are still living there in the locality are required to be given adequate protection and in this regard has referred to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. Rules of the said scheme would show that in terms of Clause 5 of the Scheme, an application is required to be submitted for seeking protection.

In Clause 3, there are 3 categories of witnesses … concerned person or persons have to be classified under any one of the categories contained therein. It is suggested by the Learner Senior Advocate that since the Central Bureau of Investigation has taken over the investigation of the criminal cases…CBI can contemplate a procedure for the purpose of giving adequate protection for the witnesses who live in the locality. The CBI in their affidavit may also indicate the methodology by which the benefits of the Witness Protection Scheme can be extended to the people of the locality.”

The Counsel for the Accused Sheikh Shahjahan Shaikh submitted that he received a copy of the Petition and wishes to file his response. But, Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, who has approached the High Court as a party in person, raised a preliminary objection to such a prayer contending that the accused has no right to be heard in his case, as the prayer sought is for transfer of investigation to CBI.

The Court observed that this submission is well founded therefore they cannot give liberty to the accused to file his affidavit in the said petition, but that the accused can file his affidavit in the other petitions including the suo moto matter.

In so far as the prayer for transfer of investigation in the FIRs related to violence against villagers is concerned, the respondents i.e. State of West Bengal, the Government of India and the CBI were directed to file their respective Affidavits.

Another Petitioner appearing in person, Priyanka Tibrewal submitted before the Court, “Victims from Sandeshkhali, they came to Calcutta at a function to meet the Prime Minister. Around 80 women came from Sandeshkhali, who are victims, they have approached me and they have given me their details. They want to be added as a party in the matter, they want to bring out everything that has taken place. These are the locals of Sandeshkhali, who want to say things which are wrong with them but they want to be added as a party now.”

The Court then ordered, “The petitioner appeared in person. It was submitted by the petitioner, who is a learned member of the bar, that 80 women who are said to be affected, have approached her….they wish to be added as a party in the suo moto petition. Including 80 people as Respondents will become very cumbersome, particularly for 80 persons to come to the High Court premises for getting the affidavit. It will be a difficult task, therefore, we grant leave to the petitioner to file an application/supplementary affidavit bringing on record whatever the alleged victims wish to place before this court, the version of those victims should be properly authenticated and the identity also should be established.”

Amicus Curiae also submitted his report and it was pointed out that the lands which were grabbed from the innocent people in the locality are in the process of being returned to the respective owners/lessees by the District Magistrate and the Block Development Officer. The Court said that it is not clear as to whether in that process the land owners/lessees would be able to carry on agricultural operations. In this regard the Court directed the concerned Department of the State Government of West Bengal, dealing with agricultural operations, to file a report.

The High Court had taken suo moto cognizance in response to the newspaper reports of alleged sexual assault, violence and land-grabbing cases in Sandeshkahli, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. The Court clarified that there is no interim order of stay of the arrest of Sheikh in any case before the Court and thereafter Sheikh was arrested. The High Court had also expressed anguish and concern over the fact that in earlier cases of a similar nature, the Police Authorities took four years to file chargesheets and there was a delay in investigations/inquiries.

A Public Interest Litigation(PIL) was filed by AOR Alakh Alok Srivastava before Calcutta High Court seeking justice for the victims of the alleged violence in the area, praying for a High Court-monitored CBI/SIT enquiry into the matter, and seeking constitution of fact-finding committee, compensation for the victims, deployment of Central Reserve Police Force(CRPF) in the affected area.

Cause Title: The Courts On Its Own Motion v. State Of West Bengal and Sanjukta Samanta v. Union Of India and Ors, Priyanka Tibrewal v. State Of West Bengal and Ors. and Alakh Alok Srivastava v. State Of West Bengal And Ors.