Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To TMC Leader Sheikh Sufiyan In WB Post-Poll Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Trinamool Congress leader Sheikh Sufiyan in a case relating to the murder of a BJP supporter during the West Bengal post-poll violence.

"We have granted pre-arrest bail but we have imposed several conditions", Justice Abhay S Oka said pronouncing the operative portion of the verdict. 

Last week, a bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice AS Oka had reserved orders in the special leave petition filed by TMC leader Sheikh Sufiyan assailing Calcutta High Court's order of refusing to grant anticipatory bail. 

 The Top Court on January 20, 2022 had granted interim protection from arrest to Sufiyan who was the polling agent of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram for the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections.

Sufiyan is an accused in the murder case of BJP worker Debabrata Maity. Maity was allegedly attacked by Trinamool Congress (TMC) workers on May 3, a day after the West Bengal Assembly poll results were announced. He succumbed to his injuries at SSKM Hospital in Kolkata on May 13. Sufiyan was summoned by the CBI back in September 2021 in connection with his alleged involvement in the murder case of Maity.

In the High Court's impugned order, a Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Bibahas Ranjan De had observed that, "Considering the gravity of the offence and considering the materials in the case diary and considering the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, implicating the petitioner in the incident and considering the fact that the CBI is conducting the investigation pursuant to the order passed by the Full Bench and considering the fact that the investigations are yet to be concluded, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner"

Submission Of Counsels 

Sufiyan's Name Was Not In The Statement & In The Chargesheet: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal

Appearing for Sufiyan, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the incident which took place on May 3, 2021 did not name Sufiyan in the FIR and neither his name was there in the complaint filed. He further submitted that pursuant to commencing the investigation by local police, the investigation was taken over by CBI on August 30, 2021. 

He also contended that when the first chargesheet on October 5, 2021 was filed, Sufiyan's name was not there and even in the second chargesheet filed on January 6, 2022, he was not made an accused.

During the course of hearing, Sibal also highlighted a statement made by a witness u/s 164 CrPC wherein the witness named "Manoj" had said that he "heard" that Sufiyan was the mastermind.

In this regards, Sibal said,"This case against the appellant is purely political and completely malafide on the part of authorities. Appellant was not even present at the location. The Investigating Officer has even ascertained the fact by Appellant's mobile phone that he was not there. Even the statement of Manoj does not name the appellant. Notably, Manoj even had not filed any complainant against the appellant."

In This Case, Politics Is Being Used To Evade The Law & Politics Has No Role; Co Accused With Whom The Petitioners Are Similarly Situated Are Already In Custody: ASG Aman Lekhi

Appearing for the CBI, ASG Aman Lekhi while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail submitted that there was no hurry in arrest and seeking Sufiyan's arrest. Emphasizing on the fact that Sufiyan did not appear before the CBI on various dates irrespective of granting interim protection on being called to appear, ASG said,

"In the instant case, the requirement of the occasion is what is being borne out from the record. The date is September 29 when he was called by the CBI to attend & he was requested to attend. There was reason to believe that he had some linkage with the same. CBI is not rushing & wanting the appearance. Date of interim protection is Oct 27, 2021. Despite interim protection on being called to appear, petitioner did not appear. Please look at the dates, notwithstanding interim protection & on service of notice, there was no appearance."

ASG Lekhi on Sibal's submission submitted that in this case politics had no role to play and was being used to evade the law.

"Political motivation works both ways. Politics can be used to evade the law and apply the law. In this case, politics is being used to evade the law & politics has no role. Sibal talked about the cases in 2007 suggesting that it's politically motivated & you've dug them out. Where is politics at play? It's at play in the withdrawal, ASG further contended," ASG added.

He further submitted that the charge sheet was against 12/13 people and that if the case was legitimate and the occasion to proceed existed, evasion would thwart the investigation.

"Protection is being sought to evade the process of law which is apparent from the 1st summons that were issued in 2021 itself," ASG Lekhi further added.

On the aspect of videotaping, ASG said videotaping would not end the investigation but commence it.

To further substantiate his contention, ASG said, "Very fact that videotaping is there requires investigation. There is an entitlement to investigate the matter. As far as the case of the knife is cornered, it's not unusual that it's irrelevant. As far as statements are concerned, the question is not when was the statement recorded but what does the statement say."

Arguing that the incident did take place and relying on Calcutta High Court's order of directing the CBI to conduct investigation of cases related to murder, rape and crime against women that had allegedly taken place in the aftermath of the declaration of election results, ASG said,

"The incident did take place & were of the kind which is stated, in that sense to say that its politically motivated is not right because the right to investigation flows from the incidents. The High Court just upholds the right."

To conclude his submission, ASG said, "We are not in court, we're in the stage of investigation. When we're in the stage of investigation, anything which we find relevant in the course of investigation cannot be considered as irrelevant. There is occasion to investigate & obligation to attend & in that case the interdicting would not be warranted. Right to investigation subsists. You can't say that it's after the order. It's after the order but the mandate to investigate subsists. There is no perversity in the order to warrant interference. Sec 41 of CrPC has been invoked & suggested in the proceedings. Considering the nature of the case, circumstances peculiar to the accused , interference is unwarranted."

High Court's Reasons Of Denying Anticipatory Bail Are Good & Do Not Warrant Interference: Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia

Appearing for widow of deceased BJP worker Debabrata Maity, Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia submitted that Sufiyan was very powerful. Senior Counsel also apprised the bench on the recent withdrawal of 3 murder cases against him and High Court's intervention with regards to the same.

Referring the 5 reasons based on which the High Court rejected granting Sufiyan anticipatory bail, Senior Counsel said,

"One side is Suvendhu Adhikari & one side is him. In section 302 case, why should he get anticipatory bail? HC gives 5 reasons as to why he should not get bail. I think they are good & do not warrant interference. Please don't look through the colors of politics here. The CBI is investigating. I am a victim. Today if he is being granted special concession, the impression amongst the witnesses will not be good."

Senior Counsel further argued that grant of anticipatory bail to Sufiyan in a case under Section 302 would grant him special concession. "Now if he gets Anticipatory Bail in section 302 case, he would get a special concession. Let him go & join the investigation. This extraordinary concession of Anticipatory Bail in Section 302 may kindly not be granted keeping in view the society," Senior Counsel added.

Kalpana Maiti's Statement Does Not Mention Me; I Was Not There; There Isn't Single Statement On Record Which Says That I Am In Conspiracy: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal

Objecting to the CBI referring to the 2007 Nandigram violence case, Sibal in his rejoinder submissions said, "Courts do not give concession & they consider the facts of the record. Wife is concerned with the incident that happened. Why is my friend concerned with the 2007 incident? This shows politics. Kalpana Maiti's statement was recorded & she does not mention me. I was certainly not there. I never mentioned 2007."

Senior Counsel had also drawn the court's attention to the statements made by Suvendhu Adhikari related to the arrest in which Sufiyan's name was also there. Justice Rao the presiding judge of the bench at this juncture asked as to why Sufiyan was not going for the investigation.

"Why aren't you going to the investigation? We didn't know that interim protection was given to you," asked Justice Rao from Senior Counsel.

Responding to the question posed by the bench Sibal while submitting that Sufiyan would join the same on Court's direction said, "Who says that I am in conspiracy? There isn't a single statement recorded that I am in conspiracy. None says that I am in conspiracy."

Case Title: SK. SUPIYAN @ SUFFIYAN @ SUPISAN Versus THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION| SLP(Crl) No. 9796/2021

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 146

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment