The West Bengal Government challenged the decision, arguing that Lahri, a leader of the Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj, led a violent march to the state secretariat on August 27 while pretending it was a peaceful protest.
![[Breaking] Another Setback To Bengal Govt, SC Rejects Plea Against Release Of Student Sayan Lahri Linked To Kolkata Rape-Murder Protests](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-2024-09-02T145432.424.png?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: On Monday(2nd sept), the Supreme Court upheld the relief granted to Sayan Lahri, a prominent organizer of a student protest following the rape-murder of a trainee woman doctor at RG Kar Medical College in West Bengal.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said “prima facie” a case for bail was made out in the case.
Justice Pardiwala stated,
“This is a bail case; there’s no doubt about that. The main question is whether quashing is appropriate in this instance.”
The Court inquired
“why Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra, representing Lahiri, did not file the bail petition in the Sessions Court”.
Luthra noted that the writ petition before the High Court was aimed at quashing the FIR, and the Court asked how many FIRs were involved. Luthra replied that there are 11 FIRs.
When Justice Pardiwala asked
“if Lahiri was a doctor, Luthra clarified that Lahiri is an MBA student who had previously been affiliated with a political party but later changed his affiliation“.
The West Bengal Government challenged the decision, arguing that Lahri, a leader of the Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj, led a violent march to the state secretariat on August 27 while pretending it was a peaceful protest.
The Government contended that it had not been given a fair chance to contest the court’s order granting protection to Lahri and criticized the Calcutta High Court’s decision as flawed.
Earlier, on Friday, the Calcutta High Court had granted bail to Lahri. The Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj, an unregistered student group, was one of the organizers of the August 27 ‘Nabanna Abhijan’.
Earlier, Justice Amrita Sinha ruled that Sayan Lahiri had been in custody since August 27.
The High Court observed,
“Had the RG Kar incident not occurred, the Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj might not have emerged. The protest rally saw thousands of ordinary people join in. The significance of the protestors transcended all barriers, and it cannot be definitively said that the massive turnout was solely due to the petitioner’s son. The demonstrators were on the streets seeking justice.”
The Court noted that while the petitioner’s son may have been more active and vocal, this does not automatically make him the leader responsible for any offenses during the rally. The Court criticized the State administration and police for not handling the issue sensitively, stating that the ongoing protests were a form of social outcry against the RG Kar incident and should be managed maturely rather than by suppressing protestors.
The Court highlighted that the Supreme Court had explicitly stated that peaceful protests should not be disrupted and that the State was barred from taking rash actions against peaceful demonstrators.
It added, “The petitioner’s son has been in custody since August 27, 2024, and the police should have recorded his statements by now. There is no need for further custodial interrogation. He is to be released from custody by 2 p.m. on August 31, 2024.”
Lahri was arrested on the evening of August 27 for his role in leading the rally, which the police reported had turned violent, resulting in damage to property and assaults on police officers.
She noted, “The police must have recorded his statement by now. There is no need for further custodial interrogation for the charges against him.”
She also ordered that the police be restrained from taking any coercive action against Lahiri in connection with the case for which he was arrested or any other related FIRs without the court’s permission.
However, Justice Sinha clarified that these observations were made in the context of granting interim protection to the accused.
The judge directed the state to file an affidavit in opposition by September 20, with any replies due by October 4. She also permitted the parties to request a hearing of the writ petition before the regular bench.
Advocate-General Kishore Datta opposed Lahiri’s bail plea, arguing that as an organizer, Lahiri should be held accountable for the disruptions caused during the rally. Datta claimed that Lahiri violated the Police Act of 1851 by not applying for permission for the rally, despite requests to do so.
He also noted that the Supreme Court did not prevent the state from exercising its regulatory powers in protest rallies.
Justice Sinha responded that it would be improper to use regulatory powers as a pretext for making indiscriminate arrests that instill fear and intimidate protesters.
In response to a plea from Lahri’s mother, Anjali, seeking to quash the proceedings against him and secure his bail, the Calcutta High Court ordered his release from police custody on Saturday. Lahri was subsequently released by the Kolkata Police.
The incident that sparked the protests involved the rape and murder of a woman post-graduate trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, which led to widespread outrage across the country.
