Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court, in the matter of Paresh Paul & Others, granted anticipatory bail to Paresh Paul, a 79-year-old Member of the Legislative Assembly, along with two other accused belonging to the ruling political party of the State, who were implicated in a post-poll violence-related death following the Assembly Elections of 2021. The allegations arose from an incident on 2nd May 2021, when a group of seven to eight unknown individuals visited the house of the original de facto complainant, demanding the whereabouts of her son, the eventual deceased victim, citing alleged occupation of multiple rooms by the victim in a railway property. A violent altercation ensued in which the younger son of the complainant was assaulted and later succumbed to his injuries. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, highlighting that they had neither been named in the FIR nor made accused by the State police, and had cooperated fully with the investigation since the initial filing of the first supplementary charge sheet in 2021. Senior counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay argued that while political figures often deliver speeches on local matters, mere delivery of such speech, without direct instigation or abetment to murder, cannot attract liability for subsequent acts of violence. It was submitted that the CBI’s delay in including the petitioners in the second supplementary charge sheet until 2025, despite having access to the relevant evidence since 2021, demonstrated that there was no urgency or prima facie justification for custodial proceedings against the petitioners.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented by Senior Counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay, contended that the anticipatory bail was necessary as a protective measure against arbitrary arrest, particularly since previous co-accused who surrendered had been taken into custody despite Supreme Court guidelines discouraging automatic custodial detention upon compliance with summons. The petitioners emphasized that the charges amounted to an exaggerated claim of conspiracy to commit murder, asserting that their involvement was limited to political speeches that did not directly incite or abet the violent acts. Counsel argued that no corroborative evidence linked the petitioners directly to the fatal assault and that investigative authorities had not gathered any substantive proof to demonstrate complicity beyond speculative association. Additionally, the petitioners highlighted their consistent cooperation with the investigation over the four-year period, submitting to all inquiries and providing all necessary information to the investigating agency. It was submitted that the petitioners’ influential political status did not diminish their entitlement to anticipatory bail when the procedural delay and absence of immediate custodial necessity were taken into account.

Arguments of the CBI:

The Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the anticipatory bail, emphasizing the gravity and gruesome nature of the murder that occurred as part of post-poll violence orchestrated by members of the political dispensation in 2021. The CBI relied on evidence of provocative speeches delivered by Paresh Paul, with the presence of the other two petitioners on stage, allegedly indicating intent to oust the victim from the premises. Video clips recorded by the deceased victim, which purportedly named petitioners one and two, were presented as further incriminating evidence. The CBI submitted that although the evidence was available during the filing of the first supplementary charge sheet in 2021, further investigation was warranted, and the second supplementary charge sheet filed in 2025 reflected the comprehensive assessment of various facets of the case. The agency contended that the petitioners’ positions of influence increased the risk of interference with the investigation and that granting anticipatory bail could potentially obstruct the progress of justice. The serious nature of the offence, coupled with the political clout of the petitioners, according to the CBI, militated against the court granting anticipatory relief.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Jay Sengupta, while hearing the anticipatory bail application, analyzed the available materials and considered the delay in implicating the petitioners in the second supplementary charge sheet. The Court observed that despite the evidence existing since 2021, the CBI had not included the petitioners in the initial chargesheet, nor had they been taken into custody during previous phases of investigation. The Court took note of the petitioners’ full cooperation with the investigative authorities and the fact that summons issued by the Court indicated that custodial detention was not immediately warranted. In weighing the arguments, the Court considered Supreme Court jurisprudence discouraging custodial detention where the accused appear in response to summons and where no urgency or risk to investigation exists. Justice Sengupta further noted that political speeches, absent direct instigation to commit murder, cannot form the sole basis of conspiracy allegations. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail upon their appearance in response to the summons, ensuring that procedural safeguards and rights under the law were respected while enabling the investigation to proceed unimpeded. The judgment reinforced the principle that anticipatory bail serves as a shield against unwarranted custodial action, particularly where the accused have demonstrated cooperation and where investigative delays exist. The Court’s order struck a balance between the serious nature of the allegations and the protection of fundamental rights, emphasizing that bail is not a matter of absolution but of procedural fairness pending trial.