Calcutta HC Grants Interim Bail To BJP’s Piyali Das Accused Of Taking Signatures Of Victims In Sandeshkhali On Blank Papers
The Calcutta High Court granted interim bail to the BJP worker Piyali Das who was accused of taking signatures on blank papers of several women in the North 24 Parganas, Sandeshkhali which was later filled up as complaints against Trinamool Congress Leaders (TMC).
The Court also observed that prima facie the only non-bailable charge of Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code was not made out against Das, therefore, it stayed the proceedings so far as the charge of Section 195A was concerned.
Das filed an application, inter alia, seeking to quash the criminal case pending before Sandeshkhali Police Station under Sections 195A, 448, 341, 323, 325, 509, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench of Justice Jay Sengupta observed, “It does not appear that the only non-bailable charge of Section 195A of the Penal Code is even prima facie made out as no applicable allegation has been leveled in terms of such provision, especially when read in the light of decision in Salib’s Case (supra). Yet, the petitioner was taken into custody on the basis of such allegation and is still languishing in custody…In such exigent circumstances, this Court intends to exercise its exceptional power to release the petitioner on interim bail in connection with the case…In view of the above discussions, the impugned proceeding shall remain stayed so far as Section 195A of the Penal Code is concerned.”
Advocate Rajdeep Mazumder appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate General Kishore Dutta and Senior Standing Counsel Amitesh Banerjee appeared for the Respondents.
Counsel for Das submitted that notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. never mentioned the offence under Section 195A, subsequently, it was added later. Thinking that the case was only under the bailable provisions as mentioned in the notice, Das went to the concerned Court to surrender and obtain bail. On April 14, 2024, when she surrendered based on a notice under Section 41A, she was told that Section 195A of the Penal Code was also there. Although the case diary was not produced at that time, she was taken into custody and remanded.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State of U.P. and Ors (2023) held, “However, it is now a settled position of law that in view of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim (supra), Section 195A of the Penal Code would apply only in case there is an allegation that a witness or a complainant was threatened to give false evidence in a court of law. It was also made clear there that it would not apply to a case where, for instance, a complainant is threatened to withdraw his or her case…This decision has been relied upon by this Court on so many occasions to stay proceedings under Section 195A of the Penal Code. Yet, the police does not seem to have noted the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.”
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 had clarified that there is no interim order of stay of the arrest of Sheikh in any case before the court and 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. The Court had 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.
On April, 10, 2024, the Calcutta High Court had ordered that an impartial enquiry is required to be done by an agency which has the power to probe the criminal angle stated to be involved. Therefore, the Court opined that that it was necessary in the interest of justice and fair play, and for expeditious considerations of various complaints and allegations, an impartial enquiry was required to be conducted.
Accordingly, the Court released Das on interim bail and stayed the proceedings so far as Section 195A IPC was concerned. Further, the Court directed that the investigation should continue, albeit, under the supervision of the concerned Superintendent of Police of the District, however, no report in final form should be filed without leave of this Court.
Cause Title: Piyali Das@Mampi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Rajdeep Mazumder, Moyukh Mukherjee, Pritam Roy and Sagnika Banerjee
Respondents: Advocate General Kishore Dutta, Senior Standing Counsel Amitesh Banerjee and Advocate Debangshu Dinda
