Today(on 17th May), The Calcutta High Court directed BJP Mandal President Gangadhar Kayl’s plea to the Chief Justice, citing the ongoing Sandeshkhali case being heard by another Bench. Justice Jay Sengupta led the proceedings, acknowledging Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya’s involvement in the main case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: Today(on 17th May), The Calcutta High Court directed that the plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Mandal President Gangadhar Kayl be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Justice Jay Sengupta, who presided over the matter, noted that the main case stemming from the incidents in Sandeshkhali was being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya.
Justice Sengupta emphasized-
“It’s a well-established legal norm that both a case and its counter case should be dealt with by the same court, including in instances of revision and writ petitions. The outcome of this plea could directly influence the ongoing investigation, and since the division bench retains jurisdiction over the matter, it’s prudent to refer it to the Chief Justice for appropriate action.”
Advocate General Kishore Datta, representing the West Bengal government, assured the Court that no coercive steps would be taken against Kayl for the time being. This assurance was noted by Justice Sengupta in his order.
ALSO READ: [Sandeshkhali Sting Operation] Plea in SC Seeks SIT Probe into YT Video
Background:
The main concern revolves around the events in Sandeshkhali, where allegations emerged of TMC leader Shahjahan Sheikh seizing villagers’ lands by force. Additionally, Sheikh and his associates were accused of sexually assaulting women in the area. The situation intensified when Sheikh, evading arrest for about 55 days, was finally apprehended by the West Bengal Police.
Following this, on April 10, the High Court transferred the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Gangadhar Kayl approached the High Court following the release of a video purportedly showing him confessing that the entire Sandeshkhali episode was orchestrated by the BJP and its leaders, particularly Suvendu Adhikari. The video, which surfaced on social media on May 4.
In his plea, filed through Advocate Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Kayl sought to quash the first information report (FIR) lodged by the State Police. He argued that the information obtained from the video could not warrant an FIR but could, at most, be considered additional information under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
Statements to police not to be signed; Use of statements in evidence:
This section prohibits the use of any statement made to a police officer during an investigation, whether written or recorded, in any inquiry or trial related to the offense under investigation at the time of the statement. However, it allows the use of such statements to contradict witnesses called for prosecution, subject to certain conditions. This provision does not apply to statements falling under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or affect the provisions of section 27 of the same Act.
Kayl further contended that the video was fake, alleging that it used a modulated version of his voice created through Artificial Intelligence. He called for a thorough investigation by the CBI to uncover the truth behind the video.
The Sandeshkhali case has been marred by multiple allegations and counter-allegations. Recently, victims of the alleged sexual assaults claimed that they were coerced by BJP leaders into filing complaints against TMC workers. This revelation added another layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about the motivations behind the complaints and the integrity of the investigation.
On May 16, the High Court refused an urgent hearing to BJP leader and Advocate Priyanka Tibrewal, who alleged that women in Sandeshkhali were being pressured to withdraw the rape cases filed against TMC workers. This refusal highlighted the ongoing legal battles and the charged political atmosphere surrounding the case.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Sandeshkhali ‘Fake’ Video | BJP’s Gangadhar Kayal Takes Issue to Calcutta High Court
Justice Sengupta’s order to place Kayl’s plea before the Chief Justice underscores the need for a coordinated judicial approach to the interconnected cases arising from the Sandeshkhali incident. The Court’s recognition of the potential impact of Kayl’s plea on the broader investigation reflects the intricate legal and factual issues at play.
CASE TITLE:
Gangadhar Kayl v. State of West Bengal