The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday (11 August) questioned whether Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee could still be considered sufficiently influential to interfere with police investigations, particularly after the change in the political situation in West Bengal.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya was hearing Banerjee's plea seeking quashing of FIRs registered against him. The Court extended the existing interim protection from coercive action in three FIRs till August 31 or further orders, while reserving its decision on whether the protection should continue during the pendency of the main proceedings.
Background Of The Case
Banerjee's plea concerns FIRs which, according to his case, were registered after the change in political circumstances in the State. During Tuesday's hearing, his counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, submitted that the number of FIRs involving Banerjee had now risen to 16.
He also pointed out that only the first pages of the FIRs were available online and sought complete copies along with the complaints. The Court accepted the request and directed the concerned police authorities to supply copies of all FIRs connected with the existing criminal prosecutions, along with the complaints.
Court Questions Influence Argument
A key issue during the hearing was the State-side contention that Banerjee remained politically influential and that granting him further protection could affect the investigation or discourage witnesses from coming forward.
The Court questioned whether that argument could still be sustained in view of the changed political circumstances in West Bengal.
Referring to demolition proceedings involving a property being used as Banerjee's MP office at Amtala, Justice Bhattacharyya asked,
“If he is so influential, how his office in Amtala is being demolished?”
The Court noted that a coordinate bench had earlier intervened to halt the demolition proceedings. It observed that the incident did not appear to support the contention that Banerjee continued to exercise the level of influence being alleged.
State Opposes Further Protection
Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra disputed the claim that the property belonged to Banerjee and also questioned its alleged connection with Leaps and Bounds.
Counsel appearing for one of the complainants maintained that Banerjee remained influential and argued that his protection from arrest could hamper the investigation.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju opposed interim relief, submitting that where an FIR discloses a cognisable offence, it should not ordinarily be quashed at the threshold. He also argued that Banerjee had not demonstrated a prima facie case for the relief sought.
Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya raised concerns about whether Banerjee would meaningfully cooperate with the investigation if protection continued.
The Court, however, responded,
“Then you approach the Court. Let us not anticipate.”
Court Extends Interim Protection
After hearing the submissions, the Calcutta High Court extended the existing interim protection restraining coercive steps against Banerjee in connection with three FIRs until August 31 or further orders.
The Court also reserved its decision on whether the protection should continue until the final adjudication of Banerjee's plea seeking quashing of the FIRs.
The matter is next scheduled to be heard on August 25.
-300x169.webp)
