Justice Amrita Sinha directed the state government to provide a rejoinder addressing claims of malafide intentions behind the FIRs. The court stressed that the preliminary investigation, initiated nearly a month ago, should have concluded by now, making further police probe unnecessary at this stage.
KOLKATA: On Tuesday (2nd July): The Calcutta High Court issued an interim stay on the investigation into 47 FIRs lodged against BJP workers in West Bengal’s Purba Medinipur district. These FIRs, registered around the time of the Lok Sabha elections in Tamluk, have led to accusations of political vendetta.
READ ALSO: Calcutta High Court exempted lawyers from wearing gowns
Justice Amrita Sinha directed the state government to provide a rejoinder addressing claims of malafide intentions behind the FIRs. The court stressed that the preliminary investigation, initiated nearly a month ago, should have concluded by now, making further police probe unnecessary at this stage.
The petitioners, including Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and nine other BJP members, alleged that the FIRs, filed within a 40-day span before and after the elections, were politically motivated. They claimed that the complaints, mostly lodged by Basir Ahmed, accused them of assault and intimidation without basis.
READ ALSO: Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court Warns State Government
Adhikari and his co-petitioners have sought either the quashing of the FIRs or the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency, citing fears of biased treatment by the state police. They argue that the FIRs are a result of political rivalry between the ruling Trinamool Congress and the BJP.
The court observed that the FIRs were registered based on complaints by Basir Ahmed. It noted that the local police must have conducted a preliminary probe, adding that the continuation of the investigation would depend on the outcome of the petition.
The petitioners’ lawyers argued that the complaints of assault and intimidation of Trinamool Congress workers were false and filed with malicious intent due to political rivalry between the supporters of the ruling party and the opposition BJP.
Fearing arrest, the petitioners sought either the quashing of the FIRs or a transfer of the investigation to an independent agency other than the state police.
Advocate General Kishore Dutta, representing the state, refuted the petitioners’ allegations. He noted that Adhikari had received protection from the high court in a different case, which prevents FIRs from being registered against him without the court’s permission. Thus, Adhikari’s situation differed from that of the other nine petitioners, against whom FIRs were lodged at Nandigram police station.
Dutta argued that the petitioners had not provided sufficient grounds for transferring the investigation to another agency. He assured that the investigation was ongoing, fair, and that there were no indiscriminate arrests.
He informed the court that among the nine petitioners, only one had been arrested, while two others were on the run.
The petitioners contended that the complaints were filed just before and after the Lok Sabha elections in Purba Medinipur district, driven by political rivalry.
Dutta also contended that the petitioners had not provided substantial reasons for transferring the investigation to another agency and assured that the ongoing investigation was fair, with no indiscriminate arrests.
