The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of four men accused of assaulting a BJP worker and forcibly undressing and molesting his wife following the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections, saying the “dastardly offence was nothing short of a grave attack on the roots of democracy.”
In its order on Thursday, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reversed the Calcutta High Court orders of January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023, that granted them bail and asked them to surrender within two days.
The judgment came on an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the high court order granting bail to accused Sekh Jamir Hussain, Sekh Nurai, Sekh Asraf alias Sk Rahul alias Asraf, Jayanta Dome, and Sekh Kabirul.
“Having regard to the facts…, we feel that the present one is a case wherein the allegations against the accused respondents are so grave that the same shake the conscience of the court. Furthermore, there is an imminent propensity of the accused persons adversely affecting the proceedings of the trial,” the Supreme Court said.
The incident dates back to May 2, 2021, when the West Bengal Assembly poll results were declared.
The court said, “It is undisputed that the complainant approached the Sadaipur Police Station on 3rd May, 2021 for registering a complaint in respect of incident dated 2nd May, 2021, but the officer-in-charge refused to register the FIR conveying that he and his family members should go away from the village for their own safety. Apparently, this approach of the local police lends credence to the apprehension of the complainant about the clout and influence which the accused respondents bear over the locality and even the police.”
The bench pointed out that the FIR in the case came to be registered only upon intervention by the high court vide judgment dated August 19, 2021 in a batch of writ petitions, directing the CBI to investigate all the cases where the allegations involve crime of murder and/or crime against women regarding rape/attempt to rape.
Story continues below this ad
It said that the “concerted attack on the complainant’s house was launched on the day of election results with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance because he had supported the saffron party. This is a grave circumstance which convinces us that the accused persons including the respondents herein were trying to terrorise the members of the opposite political party whom the accused respondents were supporting. The reprehensible manner in which the incident was perpetrated shows the vengeful attitude of the accused persons and their avowed objective to subdue the supporters of the opposite party into submission by hook or by crook. The dastardly offence was nothing short of a grave attack on the roots of democracy.”
The judgment further said, “There is prima facie material to establish that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and launched a concerted attack on the house of the complainant vandalising the same and looting away the household articles. The complainant’s wife was viciously pulled by the hair and was disrobed. The accused persons were about to assault her sexually when the lady gathered courage to pour kerosene on her body and gave a threat of self- immolation on which the accused persons including the respondents herein fled away from the complainant’s house.”
The Supreme Court also noted that though the chargesheet in the case was filed in 2022, the trial has not budged an inch to date.
“The prosecution has alleged that this delay is mostly attributable to non-cooperation by the accused persons including the respondents herein which fact is palpably established from record. In this background, we feel that there is no possibility of a fair and impartial trial being conducted, if the accused respondents are allowed to remain on bail. Thus, on both counts, i.e., (i) the nature and gravity of the offence which is nothing short of an attack on the roots of democracy and (ii) the imminent likelihood of the accused adversely affecting a fair trial, the bail granted to the accused respondents has to be cancelled,” the Supreme Court said.
Story continues below this ad
It also asked the trial court to expedite the proceedings and try to conclude the trial within six months from the date of its order.
“In case, any stay orders have been passed on the proceedings before the trial court by any higher forum including the high court, the same shall be deemed to have been vacated,” the court said. It also asked the state home secretary and director general of police “to ensure that proper protection is provided to the complainant and all other material witnesses so that they can freely appear and depose at the trial without any fear or apprehension”.
It further directed that any violation of its direction may be reported to the court by the appellant-CBI or the complainant for suitable action.