Days after the West Bengal government assured the Calcutta High Court that a Nandigram by-poll candidate would not be arrested in any further 2007 case, he was remanded in a sixth one. The Court expressed surprise, found that no production warrant had been served, and directed that he not be treated as arrested in that case, and that no coercive steps be taken, until October 12.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has pulled up the State of West Bengal over the arrest of Congress candidate Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the Nandigram by-election, in a sixth criminal case connected to the 2007 Nandigram land-acquisition protests, despite the State’s earlier assurance to the Court that he would not be arrested in any further case from 2007 [Milan Pradhan v. State of West Bengal].
Justice Saugata Bhattacharya was hearing Pradhan’s plea, having earlier been informed of five 2007 criminal cases in which he had been arrested weeks before the by-poll, in which he is contesting with the backing of the Mamata Banerjee-led faction of the Trinamool Congress.
The sequence of events
Pradhan had approached the Court seeking details of all such criminal cases and protection until the by-polls, having by then been arrested in five cases and remanded to judicial custody until October 3. On September 22, the Court recorded the State’s assurance that Pradhan would not be arrested in any further 2007 case, and, finding no need for interim protection in light of that assurance, adjourned his plea.
However, his counsel, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya, told the Court that, a day after that order, a trial court on September 23 remanded him to judicial custody until October 7 in yet another 2007 case, registered by the Khejuri police, which, he submitted, had neither been disclosed to Pradhan nor supported by any production warrant served on him. He described the arrest as a brazen violation of the assurance recorded on September 22.
The State’s explanation
Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar submitted that Pradhan had already been arrested in the sixth case by September 19, before the September 22 hearing, and that a production warrant had been pending in the matter since 2021. He explained that the six cases, all said to relate to murder, had been withdrawn by the earlier State government in 2020, but that a Division Bench, on a PIL, had held that the cases could not be withdrawn and had reinstated them in 2021, with arrest warrants issued that had remained pending since.
When the Court asked what the investigating officer had been doing between the issuance of the warrants in 2021 and September 2026, the AAG replied that this was a question that had struck him as well, noting that the previous dispensation had wanted to withdraw the cases. He also pointed out that the cases had been flagged by the Election Commission, as is usually done in respect of electoral candidates, ahead of the by-polls.
The Court’s order
The Court reminded the State that when a High Court passes an order based on an assurance given by none other than the AAG, that assurance must be honoured. “When [the] High Court passed an order that no other cases are pending, passed on submission by none other than [the] AAG, you have to show respect; if any other cases are pending like the one surfaced today, don’t take any steps,” the Court remarked, and the AAG assured that apart from the six cases, no further steps would be taken.
Recording that it could find no document showing that a production warrant in the Khejuri case had been served on Pradhan at the material time, the Court negated, at this stage, the State’s contention regarding the execution of the warrant, and directed the police not to take any steps against him in connection with that case until October 12, adding that he must not be treated as arrested in it. “It is surprising to note herein that said criminal prosecution is of 2007, and the investigating officer made a prayer for treating the petitioner as ‘shown arrest’ before the court below on September 19,” the Court observed. The matter will be heard next on October 12.
Why it matters
The order reflects the seriousness with which courts treat an assurance given to them by a law officer of the State. When the High Court declined interim protection on September 22, it did so relying on the AAG’s express assurance that there would be no further 2007-case arrests; an arrest surfacing immediately thereafter, in a case not disclosed at that hearing, went to the credibility of that assurance, which is why the Court reminded the State that its word to the Court must be honoured. The Court’s insistence on a served production warrant, and its refusal to treat the petitioner as arrested absent proof of service, applies the ordinary procedural safeguards that attend an arrest.
The timing lies at the heart of the petitioner’s grievance. His case is that cases from nearly two decades ago, revived and left dormant since 2021, were activated in quick succession only after he was announced as a by-poll candidate, days before polling. The State’s answer is that the warrants have been pending since the cases were judicially reinstated in 2021, and that the Election Commission’s flagging of a candidate’s antecedents is routine. The Court, without deciding those competing accounts, found the sudden activation of a 2007 prosecution on the eve of the election sufficiently surprising to warrant protective directions and closer scrutiny.
It bears emphasis that nothing has been finally decided. The underlying 2007 cases, which involve allegations of rioting and murder arising from the Nandigram land-acquisition protests, are yet to be adjudicated, and the petitioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence in each of them; equally, the Court’s protective order is interim and turns on the absence, at this stage, of proof that the warrant was served. The competing contentions on the propriety and timing of the arrests will be examined when the matter is next heard, with the by-poll scheduled for October 6.
Case Title: Milan Pradhan v. State of West Bengal
Bench: Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, High Court at Calcutta
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya for the petitioner; Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar for the State.
Status: Police directed to take no coercive steps in the sixth (Khejuri) 2007 case, and the petitioner not to be treated as arrested in it, until October 12. Underlying 2007 cases untested; presumption of innocence applies. Listed October 12; by-poll on October 6.