Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Former Sandeshkhali CPM MLA Nirpada Sardar
The Calcutta High Court has granted interim bail to former Sandeshkhali CPM MLA Nirpada Sardar who was taken into custody based on a police report and was in custody for 17 days.A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi held:Complaint is dated February 10, 2024 while the first information report is dated February 9, 2024 and the police claims that they received the...
The Calcutta High Court has granted interim bail to former Sandeshkhali CPM MLA Nirpada Sardar who was taken into custody based on a police report and was in custody for 17 days.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi held:
Complaint is dated February 10, 2024 while the first information report is dated February 9, 2024 and the police claims that they received the written complaint on February 9, 2024 at 22:10 hours. Advocate for the State is unable to answer as to how such discrepancy appears in the case diary. It is shocking that a citizen of India is taken into custody on the basis of such police compliant. Police apparently received a compliant of February 10, 2024 on February 9, 2024 when the formal first information report was registered. We grant interim bail to the petitioner and to be released forthwith.
It was submitted that the petitioner was in custody for 17 days, and he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Sandeshkhali.
It was argued that the petitioner was granted bail by the trial court, but immediately after getting bail, the police took him into custody.
It was argued that the complaint was dated 10th February, while the FIR was dated 9th February, and the police claimed they received the complaint on the 9th itself.
Counsel for the State referred to the materials in the case diary, including the seizure list and the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
The attention of the State counsel was drawn to the contents of the case diary where the discrepancy in dates between the complaint and the police FIR was present.
Court noted that the State was unable to answer the discrepancy.
Accordingly, it granted bail to the petitioner and directed the SP of the concerned district to submit a report on the contents of the case diary and particularly the discrepancies highlighted in the order.
Case: In the matter of Nirpada Sardar
Case No: CRM (DB) 594 of 2024