-
by Admin
06 December 2025 2:16 AM
Allegations So Grave They Shake the Conscience of the Court" — In a strong rebuke to the leniency shown by the High Court in a case of violent post-election reprisal, the Supreme Court set aside bail orders granted to politically influential accused persons involved in a gruesome assault and attempted sexual violence. The case stemmed from post-poll violence in West Bengal targeting political opponents.
Calling the incident a “grave attack on the roots of democracy”, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the facts of the case, the reprehensible nature of the attack, and the accused's non-cooperation with the trial necessitated immediate cancellation of bail and custody of the accused.
The incident occurred on May 2, 2021, the day Assembly election results were announced in West Bengal. The complainant, a supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party and a member of a religious minority in his village, was allegedly targeted by a mob of 40-50 armed assailants led by Sekh Mahim, a local leader of the ruling party.
According to the FIR, the complainant's home was attacked, bombs were thrown, property looted, and the complainant’s wife was stripped and sexually assaulted. The family barely escaped with their lives. When they approached the Sadaipur Police Station, the officer-in-charge refused to lodge the complaint, advising them to flee the village.
It was only after judicial intervention through the Calcutta High Court’s order dated August 19, 2021, that the CBI was directed to investigate such politically-motivated crimes. Consequently, FIR No. RC0562021S0051 was registered on December 16, 2021, and a chargesheet was filed against the accused, including the present respondents.
Despite the gravity of the charges under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 326, 354, 376 read with 511 and 450 IPC, the Calcutta High Court granted bail to the accused on January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023—orders now overturned by the Supreme Court.
The principal question before the Court was whether the High Court erred in granting bail in a case involving grave charges, political influence, and obstruction of justice.
The Court emphasized that the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different, but in cases where the allegations are of such gravity that they "shake the conscience of the Court," cancellation is not only justified but necessary.
"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.” [Para 14]
Suppression of FIR and Politically Shielded Accused:
The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over initial police inaction and the complainant's forced displacement from the village.
“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…” [Para 14]
It noted that the FIR was registered only after judicial directions, and CBI too faced obstacles from local authorities during its investigation.
“Even the officers of the CBI were not receiving the required cooperation from the local police…” [Para 16]
A Grave Threat to Democracy and Rule of Law:
The Court minced no words in recognizing the attack as politically vengeful and undemocratic: “The concerted attack… was launched on the day of election results with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance… The reprehensible manner… shows the vengeful attitude… to subdue the supporters of the opposite party into submission.” [Para 17]
“The dastardly offence was nothing short of a grave attack on the roots of democracy.” [Para 17]
The accused were not mere participants but part of an unlawful assembly, and prima facie materials established their involvement in disrobing and molestation, only halted by the victim’s desperate threat of self-immolation.
Another key reason for revoking bail was the accused's continuous non-appearance and obstruction of trial, even after the chargesheet was filed in 2022.
“The trial has not budged an inch… This delay is mostly attributable to non-cooperation by the accused persons…” [Para 19]
“There is no possibility of a fair and impartial trial being conducted, if the accused respondents are allowed to remain on bail.” [Para 20]
The Supreme Court, exercising its extraordinary powers, cancelled the bail and ordered immediate surrender of the accused within two weeks, failing which the trial court must initiate coercive steps.
“The bail granted to the accused respondents by the High Court is accordingly cancelled… Upon surrendering/being arrested, the accused respondents shall be remanded to custody.” [Para 21]
Furthermore, the Court:
Directed the trial to be completed within 6 months
Ordered the State's Home Secretary and DGP to provide full protection to the complainant and witnesses
Held that any violation may be directly reported to the Supreme Court
Vacated any stay orders previously granted
“The Home Secretary and Director General of Police, State of West Bengal shall ensure that proper protection is provided to the complainant and all other material witnesses so that they can freely appear and depose…” [Para 22]
In a powerful reaffirmation of judicial commitment to protect victims of politically-motivated crimes, the Supreme Court’s ruling in CBI v. Sekh Jamir Hossain & Ors. demonstrates that democratic integrity cannot be sacrificed at the altar of political influence.
By cancelling bail, rebuking police inaction, and fast-tracking the trial, the Court has reminded the nation that rule of law must prevail over partisan intimidation.
“The allegations are so grave… releasing the accused would create fear and terror amongst the society… Such prosecution, if thwarted by bail, amounts to a travesty of justice.” [Para 14 & 20]
Date of Decision: May 29, 2025
