The Calcutta High Court sought a response from the West Bengal government on TMC’s plea challenging the police search at Abhishek Banerjee’s residence. The Court ordered preservation of CCTV footage and police recordings, while refusing interim relief until the State files its reply.
The Calcutta High Court on Monday sought a response from the West Bengal government on a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), challenging the legality of a police search operation conducted at the residence of party leader Abhishek Banerjee in the early hours of June 13.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, while hearing the matter, also directed authorities to preserve all CCTV footage from Banerjee’s residence along with any audio-visual recordings available with the police relating to the search and seizure operation.
The Court stated that since the petition questioned the legality and propriety of the police action, it was not appropriate to grant any interim relief at this stage. The matter will be considered further after the State submits its reply and the TMC files its response to the same.
The Court ordered:
“Since propriety of search and seizure operation conducted on June 13 is questioned in this writ petition, there is no scope of passing any interim order today. Let affidavit In opposition to this writ petition be filed three weeks from date, affidavit in reply thereto if any 2 weeks after. Parties shall be at liberty to mention the matter before the appropriate bench for hearing after the time fixed herein for exchange of affidavits,”
The dispute arises from a police raid conducted at the Kalighat residence of Abhishek Banerjee, a senior TMC leader and Member of Parliament. According to reports, the police carried out the search operation in connection with an investigation involving Banerjee’s close aide, Sumit Roy, who has been accused in an alleged land fraud case.
The investigating agency claimed that mobile tower location data indicated Roy’s presence at Banerjee’s residence, following which the police team reached the premises to trace him. The raid, however, triggered political controversy, with the TMC questioning the manner in which the search was carried out, particularly the timing of the operation and the alleged entry of police personnel into a private residence.
Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for the TMC, clarified that the party was not objecting to the investigation itself but was challenging what it described as an excessive use of police powers.
He argued that investigative powers cannot be exercised in a manner that violates personal liberty and privacy, especially when a search is conducted at a leader’s residence during late hours.
Senior Advocate Datta submitted,
“I am not questioning the investigation, I am not ipso facto against the search and seizure. I am against the misuse of powers by the police. In the name of investigation, you cannot go to somebody else’s house in the middle of the night in a case (concerning allegations from) May 2021,”
During the hearing, the Court questioned the State regarding the timing of the operation and asked, “Why dead at night?“
Responding to the query, Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumder argued that the situation was not as portrayed and stated that police officials had attempted to contact the occupants before proceeding.
Mazumder told the Court,
“It was not dead at night. They were knocking on the door. Persons were confined from 12 AM,”
The State government defended the police operation, stating that there were concerns that the accused person being searched for could escape if immediate action was not taken. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the police had followed the required legal procedure and conducted the search under the powers provided by Section 44 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The State maintained that the search was part of an ongoing investigation and that the police acted within the framework of law.
During the hearing, the TMC sought directions for preservation of all available recordings related to the search operation, including CCTV footage and any police-held visual records.
The State responded that CCTV recordings from the premises would already be available with Banerjee, as the residence belonged to him. However, Senior Advocate Datta argued that any body-camera footage or other recordings maintained by police personnel should also be secured.
Following the submissions, the High Court directed preservation of all audio and video material connected with the June 13 search and seizure operation.
The State also informed the Court that it intended to place on record certain aspects relating to the entry of former Chief Minister and TMC leader Mamata Banerjee into the premises during the incident.
Additional Advocate General Mazumder said,
“We shall also place on record that ex-Chief Minister entered. That cannot be done. Similar situation is pending before Supreme Court,”
The Court has kept the matter pending and will hear further arguments after completion of the exchange of affidavits between the parties.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
