Calcutta High Court: In a petition filed by Kalatan Dasgupta, a prominent leader of the Democratic Youth Federation (‘DYF’), seeking immediate relief from unlawful detention and to challenge the illegal actions of the respondent authorities for arresting him in blatant disregard of procedural safeguards, a Single Judge Bench of Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. directed Kalatan Dasgupta to be released on bail and restrained the respondent authorities from taking any coercive action against him.
Background
In the present matter, Kalatan Dasgupta asserted that he had been wrongfully implicated in a politically motivated criminal case under Sections 224, 352, 353(a)(b)(2), 351(2), 196, and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).
Kalatan Dasgupta had actively participated in peaceful demonstrations opposing the State authorities’ failure to ensure safety at workplace for women. This protest gained momentum after the rape and murder of a postgraduate trainee doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital on 09-08-2024. Kalatan Dasgupta had led the movement and demanded justice for the victim as well as transparency in the investigation.
On 13-09-2024, a Sub-Inspector of the Electronic Complex Police Station received information that one Sanjib Das had spoken to Kalatan Dasgupta over the phone to organize a violent attack in Salt Lake where the protests were taking place.
The alleged attack included plans to target public servants, specifically doctors. Based on this information, call records were retrieved and a pen drive containing the conversation was also obtained. Resultantly, a case was registered against both of them.
Kalatan Dasgupta contended that the arrest was in direct contravention of legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court which prescribed strict adherence to procedural protocols for arrests in cases involving offenses punishable by imprisonment up to seven years. It was also submitted that all charges mentioned in the First Information Report (‘FIR’) apart from one were bailable and non-cognizable under BNS.
It was also submitted by Kalatan Dasgupta that the said non-bailable offence was subsequently included in the seizure list which could not have been added by the police authorities without prior permission or an order from the Magistrate.
Kalatan Dasgupta asserted that the highest alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years because of which, the police could not have arrested him without issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of BNS and that there was no credible evidence establishing the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
The respondents submitted that the arrest of Kalatan Dasgupta was lawful and in compliance with Section 35 of BNS, which empowered the authorities to arrest any person without the issuance of prior notice, irrespective of the fact that the alleged offence carried a punishment of less than seven years.
It was also submitted that credible intelligence was received by the respondent authorities that there was a potential threat to public safety as well as the possibility of a massacre during the demonstration by the junior doctors.
Analysis and Decision
The Court referred to State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 wherein the Supreme Court held that the expression ‘reason to believe’ does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction or arbitrary decision and that the decision must be based on objective grounds, with rational and credible material.
The Court said that in the present case, there was no ‘suspicion to believe’ that the petitioner was involved in any illegal activity since the FIR and the material collected in support of the same did not disclose commission of any offence.
The Court referred to Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427 wherein the Supreme Court took note of the following factors to be considered while considering application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution:
-
Nature of the alleged offence, the accusation, and severity of the punishment in case of conviction.
-
Where there is reasonable apprehension of tampering of witnesses done by the accused.
-
Possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial or likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.
-
The antecedents and circumstances that are peculiar to the accused.
-
Whether, prima facie, ingredients of the offence are made out on the basis of the allegations in the FIR.
-
Significant interest of the public or the State and other similar considerations.
In regard to the above-mentioned factors, the Court said that Kalatan Dasgupta had been booked under offences carrying punishment of imprisonment for less than seven years. It was also said that the complaint filed by the Sub-Inspector along with the remand report had procedural defects and that to uphold the faith of the public in the judiciary, Kalatan Dasgupta was liable to be released on bail.
The Court found it evident that the arrest and detention had not been carefully scrutinized to avoid unnecessary infringement on personal liberty and that Kalatan Dasgupta, having no prior criminal record, had been in custody since 14-09-2024.
Due to the absence of any further need for custodial interrogation and the minor nature of the alleged offence, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail to Kalatan Dasgupta to ensure that the legal process is upheld and to safeguard his fundamental rights.
Thus, the Court directed Kalatan Dasgupta to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 500/- with one surety of like amount and restrained the respondent authorities from taking any coercive action against Kalatan Dasgupta in connection with the present case or any other case which had been or may be registered against him without the leave of the Court.
The Court directed the investigation in the case to proceed without any impediment and stated that Kalatan Dasgupta shall not be involved further in the investigative proceedings without the leave of the Court as he had already provided his statement.
The Court further directed the affidavit-in-opposition to be filed by the State within four weeks and a reply for the same to be filed by Kalatan Dasgupta within four weeks thereafter.
The matter has been listed on 18-11-2024.
[Kalatan Dasgupta v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 8685, Decided on 19-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sujit Mitra, Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Shanti Bhowmik, Mr. Faiyaz Ahmed Khan, Mr. Arup Bhattacharya, Mr. Samim Ahamed, Mr. Aitabha Ghosh, Mr. Maloy Bhattacharya, Mr. Tapas Maity, Mr. Siuddhartha Sankar Mondal, Mr. Rajit Lal Mitra, Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Sudipta Sengupta, Mr. Chandan Hussain, Mr. Upendra Kumar Roy, Mr. Prasanta Bishal, Mr. Arnab Sinha, Mr. Sattavick Majumder, Mr. Sakya Maity, Mr. Soumya Dasgupta,,, Mr. Nazibuddin Siddiqui, Mr. Arka Maiti, Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya, Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Mr. Enamul Islam, Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Ms. Debolina Sarkar, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. Nabanita Chatterjee, Ms. Arpita Dhar, Mr. Aniket Sen, Mr. Arka Nandi, Mr. Amartya Basu, Mr. Arghya Banerjee, Ms. Anjana Mehboob, Ms. Anindita Roychowdhury, Mr. Arckajyoti Kundu, Ms. Satabdi Das, Mr. Pintu Karar, Mr. Akash Deep Mukherjee
For Respondent — Mr. Kishore Datta, AG, Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, SSC, Mr.Sirsanya Bandhopadhyay, JSC, Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Mr. Debangshu Dinda
Buy Constitution of India HERE
