Last Updated:
During the hearing, senior advocates representing the accused argued that their clients were being targeted for political reasons ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
The High Court acknowledged the seriousness of the case but said custodial interrogation was not justified at this stage. (File pic)
The Calcutta High Court on August 21, 2025 granted anticipatory bail to ruling party MLA Paresh Paul and three others in connection with a murder that occurred during the post-poll violence following the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections.
The case, probed by the CBI, has been politically charged, with allegations that senior leaders of the state’s ruling party were behind the killing.
Recommended Stories
The order came in two anticipatory bail pleas – one by Paul and two Kolkata Municipal Corporation councillors, Swapan Somaddar and Papiya Ghosh, and another by Rajdip Singh, a party activist. All four were named in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI earlier this year, nearly four years after the incident.
The violence in question dates back to May 2, 2021, when a mob allegedly stormed into the house of the complainant in Narkeldanga, assaulted the family and fatally injured her son. The case was initially investigated by local police but was later handed over to the CBI following a Calcutta High Court directive in response to a public interest litigation on post-poll violence.
During the hearing, senior advocates representing the accused argued that their clients were being targeted for political reasons ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. They stressed that none of them had been named in the original FIR, nor were they arrested in the four years since the CBI took charge of the investigation. “The same evidence was available in 2021 when the first supplementary chargesheet was filed, yet the agency waited till 2025 to implicate them,” counsel submitted.
The CBI, however, opposed bail, describing the killing as a “most gruesome murder” committed in front of the victim’s aged mother and brother. It relied on two pieces of evidence: a speech delivered by Paul 12 days before the incident, in which he allegedly vowed to drive the victim out of the locality, and videos recorded by the victim himself shortly before his death, naming Paul and Somaddar as those harassing him. Singh was also implicated later by the victim’s brother, though his defence claimed this was an afterthought.
The High Court acknowledged the seriousness of the case but said custodial interrogation was not justified at this stage.
Justice Jay Sengupta observed that the accused had cooperated with the investigation, were never arrested during the four-year probe, and had now been summoned only after the chargesheet was filed. Citing Supreme Court rulings, court reiterated that arrest should not be ordered merely because a chargesheet is filed.
Accordingly, court directed that all four be released on bail if taken into custody, subject to conditions. These include furnishing bonds of Rs 1 lakh each, refraining from entering the victim’s neighbourhood in Narkeldanga, not leaving India without permission, and attending court regularly. Paul has been specifically barred from making provocative speeches about the victim’s family.
In Singh’s case, the court noted allegations that he threatened the victim’s brother during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, court ordered that a separate proceeding under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita will be initiated against him for good behaviour.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
Loading comments…
Read More
