KOLKATA: The West Bengal government on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Congress-nominated Nandigram Assembly bypoll candidate Milan Pradhan in six criminal cases registered against him in 2007.
The apex court agreed to hear the Suvendu Adhikari government’s plea on October 5.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. “He is granted interim bail for elections,” Mehta told the bench, while urging it to list the matter.
The CJI said the plea would be heard on October 5.
Milan Pradhan, after coming out of jail on Wednesday, made serious allegations against the police and told the media, “Police had created pressure on me to withdraw candidature from Nandigram. Police had also made some fabulous proposals to me.”
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday granted interim bail to the arrested Congress-nominated candidate, Milan Pradhan, from the high-voltage Nandigram Assembly constituency for the upcoming bypoll on October 6, for three weeks, till October 21, in six criminal cases lodged in 2007.
With the interim court order, the Congress candidate can contest the bypoll in Nandigram while staying out of jail.
On Tuesday, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh passed the order while hearing Milan’s interim bail plea so that he could contest and campaign in the Nandigram bypoll.
The court will hear the case again on October 21.
The court noted that the contestant was not in custody when he filed his nomination papers and was arrested thereafter. It further observed that the state had not produced any material to substantiate that he was wanted in connection with any offence after 2007.
The court further pointed out that in none of the cases relied upon by the state had a person been arrested after filing nomination papers. It observed that the police had more than sufficient time to execute the warrants in cases which were nearly 19 years old.
The court also imposed several preconditions after passing the interim order.
Milan will have to surrender before the Haldia court after the election process is over. He will also have to report to investigating police officers of the concerned police station twice daily, at 8.30 am and 9.30 pm, according to the preconditions set by the court.
The court also considered the fact that the elections were approaching and relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case concerning former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal while taking a holistic and libertarian view of the circumstances.
Earlier, on Friday, he was denied bail by the court. Hearings in connection with bail petitions in four cases were held in the High Court, while the remaining two cases in which he had also appealed for bail were pending for hearings.
The court on Thursday had asked the state government to allow Milan to contest the upcoming bypoll from the high-voltage Nandigram seat in Purba Medinipur district and directed the state police not to take any steps against him in a 2007 criminal case till October 12.
The court had verbally asked the state to allow him to contest the Nandigram by-election. Justice Ghosh on Thursday had observed, “Allow Milan Pradhan to contest the election. I am giving him an interim bail so that he can take part in the election. The remaining matter will depend on the case lying with the court.”
Seeking his bail, Milan’s lawyers on Wednesday had moved the court. They had urged the court to allow them to file a petition and thereafter sought an urgent hearing for their client Milan Pradhan, who is a contestant for the Nandigram bypoll. The court had allowed them to file a bail petition for him.
Meanwhile, a High Court division bench on Friday had set aside a single-bench order granting relief to the Congress candidate from coercive action in a 2007 criminal case, expressing surprise over the directive since he was in judicial custody in the matter.
The division bench, led by Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge, had held that in criminal law, there was no provision for such interim protection for an accused. It had said an accused can apply for anticipatory bail if he is apprehensive of arrest or can seek bail after being held.