The Supreme Court today dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against Calcutta High Court's order granting bail to Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj Leader Sayan Lahiri, who was alleged to be involved in the protests against the state in relation to the Kolkata rape and murder that occurred in R.G. Kar Hospital on August 9, 2024.

The Court was hearing the West Bengal Government's Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Calcutta High Court's order granting bail to one of the organisers of the August 27 march to the state secretariat to protest against a trainee woman doctor's rape and murder.

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed the Order.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State of West Bengal, submitted that the case before the High Court was for quashing of the FIR, the High Court has followed the Arnab Goswami decision, which is on a different footing.

Justice Pardiwala said, "It is a case of bail; there is no doubt about it, prima facie, the only point is whether, under this case, quashing should be sought."

The Court asked the Senior Counsel appearing for Lahiri why he did not file the bail petition before the Sessions Court.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for Lahiri.

On perusal of the Writ Petition filed before the High Court, the Court noted that it is a quashing of the FIR petition. The Bench asked Luthra how many FIRs are of subject matter in the writ petition.

Luthra submitted that there are 11 FIRs.

"Is your client a doctor?" Justice Pardiwala asked Luthra.

To this, Luthra submitted that he is an MBA student. "He was a part of the political party, then affiliation changed," Luthra submitted.

The Bench said that today the Court is only concerned whether it should take the person (Lahiri) back in custody or not. The Court told Gupta, "The first objection you may raise (before the High Court) is that separate Section 482 petitions be for each of the FIRs, today we are only concerned whether he should be taken back into custody or not, that's all...court has kept it open, you seek the leave of the court."

Gupta further submitted, "The mother said he was not an organiser. We have put on record that this rally was orchestrated, there was one mastermind, the question is, did he do it by himself or on order of someone." The Senior Counsel submitted that the Apex Court has given permission to take action against protestors in case, it turned violent.

"It's alright. Dismissed," the Court ordered. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the SLP.

Pertinently, on August 30, the Calcutta High Court granted bail to the Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj Leader. The Bench had observed, “It is common knowledge that it does not take much time for a peaceful protest to turn violent. There may be various factors for such a change in the nature of protest. It is always open for the police to take steps to regulate the protest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the police to exercise their regulatory powers. It will be absolutely improper if in the guise of exercising regulatory power, indiscriminate arrests are made to create fear and terrorize the protestors by keeping them behind bars.”

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case had noted, “Had the RG Kar incident not occurred, there would not have been the existence of the Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj. Thousands of common people joined the protest rally. The status of the protestors cut through all barriers and boundaries. It cannot be said with certainty that it is only at the call of the son of the petitioner there had been such huge turn out on the public streets/ roads and thoroughfares. The agitators and the protestors were out in the streets seeking justice.” The Court had added that the son of the petitioner may have played an active role and may have been a bit more vocal than the other protestors and the same does not ipso facto mean that he is the leader of the rally that took place throughout the State and that he ought to be held responsible and made accountable for any offence which took place at the site of the rally.

“The protests are going on continuously from the very next date of the incident. The State administration including the police is well aware of the same. The authorities ought to have handled the issue in a more sensitive manner rather than target the protestors to prevent them from continuing their agitation. The authorities ought to appreciate that the protests are more in the form of a social uproar against the unfortunate incident at RG Kar. Such type of public dissent is required to be dealt with in a matured manner and not by unleashing force upon the protestors”, it had further emphasised.

The Court had taken note of the fact that the Apex Court categorically made it clear that the peaceful protest should not be disturbed or disrupted and the State was restrained from taking any precipitate action against the peaceful protestors. “The son of the petitioner is already in custody on and from 27th August, 2024. The police must have recorded his statements by now. … I am of the opinion that there is no requirement of any further custodial interrogation of the charges leveled against him. The son of the petitioner is directed to be released from custody positively by 2 p.m. on 31st August, 2024”, it had said.

Cause Title: The State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Anjali Lahiri & Ors. [SLP(Crl) No. 11938/2024, Diary No. 39697/2024]

Justice JB PardiwalaJustice Manoj MisraRG Kar Hospital Rape caseDoctorProtests

Sukriti Mishra