The Supreme Court on May 29 set aside the bail granted to two accused in a 2021 West Bengal post-poll violence case [Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sekh Jamir Hossain & Ors.]. .The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that the allegations of sexual assault and communal targeting had the effect of undermining democratic foundations and the Calcutta High Court erred in granting bail to the accused despite the gravity of the allegations and their alleged attempts to obstruct trial proceedings.“The allegations against the accused respondents are so grave that the same shake the conscience of the Court. Furthermore, there is an imminent propensity of the accused persons adversely affecting the proceedings of the trial,” the bench said..The case arose from a first information report (FIR) filed by a Hindu resident of Gumsima village in West Bengal, who alleged that after campaigning for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during the state elections, he and his family were attacked by a mob affiliated with the ruling Trinamool Congress party. The complaint stated that on the evening of May 2, 2021, around 40 to 50 armed assailants vandalised their house, looted valuables and sexually assaulted the complainant’s wife..According to the FIR, the complainant’s wife was dragged by her hair, forcibly undressed and molested. In a desperate attempt to stop the attack, she poured kerosene over herself and threatened self-immolation, prompting the mob to flee. The family later fled the village and attempted to file a complaint the next day. However, the local police allegedly refused to register the FIR and advised them to leave for their own safety..On being apprised that several such incidents had occurred in the aftermath of the election, the Calcutta High Court on August 19, 2021 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register FIRs in all cases involving murder or sexual assault..The FIR in the present case was registered on December 16, 2021 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 143 (Punishment for being member of unlawful assembly), 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 376 (Punishment for rape) read with 511(Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment), and 34 (criminal conspiracy). The accused were arrested in November 2022 and a chargesheet was filed naming them.In 2023, the High Court granted them bail by orders dated January 24 and April 13, which were challenged before the Supreme Court by the CBI..Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee submitted that the bail was granted on “totally extraneous considerations” and that the accused were using political influence to delay trial proceedings and intimidate witnesses..Banerjee pointed out that the FIR was not registered until the High Court’s intervention and even after the CBI took over, its officers received little cooperation from the local police. He said it took over a year to file the chargesheet and that the accused had been avoiding court appearances..In response, the counsel for the accused argued that the High Court had correctly distinguished their case and that no specific roles had been attributed to them in the FIR or witness statements. He submitted that the allegations were vague and that the Supreme Court should not interfere with a reasoned order of bail..The Court rejected this argument, observing that the allegations in the FIR “shake the conscience of the Court” and that the accused could seriously jeopardise a fair trial if allowed to remain on bail.“The complainant approached the Sadaipur Police Station on 3rd May, 2021… but the officer-in-charge refused to register the FIR conveying that he and his family members should go away from the village for their own safety. Apparently, this approach of the local police lends credence to the apprehension of the complainant about the clout and influence which the accused respondents bear over the locality and even the police,” the Court said..It noted that the FIR was registered only because of the High Court’s directions in a batch of writ petitions.The Court further observed that the attack on the complainant’s home was clearly motivated by political vengeance, meant to terrorise supporters of the opposing political party.“This is a grave circumstance which convinces us that the accused persons including the respondents herein were trying to terrorize the members of the opposite political party whom the accused respondents were supporting,” the bench said..It described the assault on the complainant’s wife as an “attack on the roots of democracy” and noted that the trial had not progressed despite the charge sheet being filed in 2022, allegedly due to non-cooperation by the accused.“The complainant’s wife was viciously pulled by the hair and was disrobed. The accused persons were about to assault her sexually when the lady gathered courage to pour kerosene on her body and gave a threat of self-immolation on which the accused persons including the respondents herein fled away,” the Court recorded..The bench held that on both counts — the seriousness of the offence and the likelihood of interference with trial — the High Court’s bail orders could not be sustained.Consequently, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks.“The accused respondents shall surrender before the trial Court within two weeks from today, failing which, the trial Court shall adopt coercive measures to secure their presence. Upon surrendering/being arrested, the accused respondents shall be remanded to custody,” the Court ordered..It also directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months and asked the West Bengal Home Secretary and DGP to ensure protection for the complainant and key witnesses.“In case, any stay orders have been passed on the proceedings before the trial Court by any higher forum including the High Court, the same shall be deemed to have been vacated,” the Court clarified..The CBI was represented by ASG Banerjee along with advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Srishti Mishra, Abhishek Singh, Shubhendu Anand, Veer Vikrant Singh and Raman Yadav. The accused was represented by advocate Bhavana Duhoon. .[Read Judgment]
