The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the police not to take any further steps against Congress’s Nandigram candidate Milan Pradhan in connection with a criminal case dating to 2007, after finding that the pendency of the case had not been disclosed during an earlier hearing.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya passed the order after Pradhan approached the Court alleging that he had been “brazenly” implicated in another criminal case despite the State having submitted during the September 22 hearing that there were no other cases in which he was required.
During Thursday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, appearing for Pradhan, submitted that the petitioner was in custody until October 7, while the election was scheduled for October 6. He alleged that the 2007 case had been added against Pradhan despite the Court’s September 22 order.
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar, contended that Pradhan had already been arrested in the case on September 19, before the September 22 hearing. It submitted that a production warrant had been issued and that Pradhan was already in custody in connection with the case.
The Court, however, recalled that during the September 22 proceedings, the State had represented that the five cases in which Pradhan was in custody were the only subsisting cases against him. Of six other cases, the State had submitted that five were no longer subsisting and that Pradhan was not wanted in the remaining case.
The Court recalled the submission that these were the only active cases remaining on the docket. The State relied on a report dated September 22 and an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to contend that Pradhan had already been arrested in the 2007 case pursuant to a warrant.
The Court observed that it had issued the earlier order relying solely on counsel’s submissions, as the report in question had not yet been submitted or placed on record.
The Court asked the State to produce the record showing that Pradhan’s arrest in the additional case had been disclosed prior to the September 22 order, questioning the existence of any such formal disclosure on record.
The Court observed that had the pendency of the additional prosecution been brought to its notice during the earlier hearing, it could have taken the case into consideration.
Dictating its order, the Court remarked that the existence of another pending criminal case had not been disclosed during the prior hearing.
The Court recorded that it had proceeded on the basis of the State’s earlier submissions that Pradhan was in custody in five criminal cases and was not required in the remaining cases.
The State also contended that a production warrant in the 2007 case was subsisting. The Court, however, said it could not find any document establishing that the warrant had actually been executed.
Rejecting the prosecution’s submission for the time being, the Court held that the State’s argument regarding the execution of the production warrant could not be accepted at this stage.
The Court also expressed surprise over the fact that the prosecution originated in 2007, while the investigating officer had moved an application on September 19, 2026 seeking to have Pradhan treated as “shown arrested” in the case.
It questioned what the investigating officer had been doing for nearly 19 years if a warrant had been issued as far back as 2021.
The State explained that the cases had been sought to be withdrawn by the previous government in 2020, but were revived in 2021 following a PIL, after which warrants were issued.
The Court also examined the investigating officer’s prayer before the trial court seeking that Pradhan be treated as shown arrested, observing that the prayer appeared to indicate a different position. The State submitted that the action had been taken pursuant to an Election Commission order.
At one stage, the Court directed the State that, in view of its September 22 order, no further steps should be taken in any other pending case against Pradhan. Directing a status quo on pending matters, the Bench instructed the State to refrain from taking any steps in any pending cases, to which the State gave an undertaking to comply.
The Court subsequently clarified that while Pradhan had already moved bail applications in four cases, no steps should be taken in the remaining six cases.
Pradhan’s counsel also sought protection until the next hearing, pointing out that his custody was stated to continue until October 7, a day after the scheduled October 6 election.
The Court ultimately directed that the police shall not take any steps in connection with the 2007 case until October 12 and that Pradhan shall not be shown as arrested in the case.
Granting protection to the petitioner, the Court restrained the police from taking any steps in connection with the case until October 12 and held that the petitioner shall not be shown as under arrest.
The Court reiterated its concern over the investigating officer seeking the “shown arrested” status only on September 19, 2026 in a prosecution dating back to 2007.
Concluding the proceedings, the Court orally directed the State to allow the petitioner an opportunity to contest the case.
The hearing follows the Calcutta High Court’s September 22 proceedings concerning the criminal cases pending against Pradhan, during which the State had made submissions regarding the cases in which he was in custody and those stated to be no longer subsisting.
The post Calcutta High Court restrains police from taking steps against Nandigram Congress candidate in 2007 case appeared first on India Legal.