The Calcutta High Court has refused to suspend the life sentence of Arnab Dam, one of the convicts in the 2010 Silda EFR camp attack case, observing that there was “prima facie incriminating evidence” against him and that the offences involved were exceptionally grave.
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray passed the order while hearing Dam’s plea seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal.
Background of the Case
Arnab Dam and 22 other accused persons were convicted under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Arms Act. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, armed members of a banned extremist organisation attacked the Silda Camp of the Eastern Frontier Rifles in West Bengal on February 15, 2010. The attackers allegedly stormed the camp using vehicles and motorcycles, opened fire with sophisticated weapons, and killed 24 EFR personnel before fleeing with arms and ammunition.
Dam, who argued his case in person before the High Court, submitted that he had already spent around nine years in custody, including seven years before conviction. He also told the court that he had remained on bail during trial for nearly five years without violating any conditions.
The petitioner argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted and that witnesses identified him in court nearly 12 years after the alleged incident. He claimed the conviction was based on suspicion and unproven allegations.
Dam further informed the court that he was a Ph.D. scholar at Burdwan University researching forest conservation and that, although other criminal cases were pending against him, he had not been convicted in any of them.
The State strongly opposed the plea, contending that Dam was a senior leader and “think tank” of the banned Maoist organisation. The prosecution also argued that multiple witnesses had identified him in court and that he had been arrested with AK-47 rifles and ammunition.
The State further submitted that several criminal cases involving serious offences were pending against him and that the evidence on record clearly demonstrated his role in the attack.
The Bench examined the testimony of prosecution witnesses, including injured personnel posted at the Silda camp during the attack. The court noted that at least three prosecution witnesses, including two injured eyewitnesses and one independent witness, had identified the petitioner during trial.
Rejecting the argument regarding delayed identification, the Bench observed,
“It is not unusual or improbable that the injured eye witnesses would remember the faces of some of the miscreants involved in such a major terrorist attack on a police camp.”
The court also held that absence of a Test Identification Parade was not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case in the facts of the matter.
Refusing to suspend the sentence, the High Court said the offences were of an “exceptional gravity” involving the deaths of 24 police personnel and injuries to others. The Bench observed that the appeal had been filed only in 2024 and there was no undue delay in its hearing that would justify bail on constitutional grounds.
The court ultimately dismissed the application for suspension of sentence. However, considering the petitioner’s claim that he was pursuing doctoral research, the Bench directed prison authorities to provide reasonable facilities to enable him to continue his academic work from the correctional home.
Case Details
Case Title: Arnab Dam v. The State of West Bengal
Case Number: CRA(DB) 123 of 2024 with CRAN 1 of 2024
Judges: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Decision Date: May 12, 2026
