The Supreme Court on October 7 refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s order granting interim bail to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan in six criminal cases arising from the 2007 Nandigram land-acquisition agitation. The relief had enabled Pradhan to contest the Nandigram Assembly bypoll and participate in the election process.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana noted that polling had already concluded and that counting was scheduled for October 9. The Court accordingly declined to disturb the interim arrangement.
Background
Pradhan was arrested in September 2026 in connection with cases dating back to 2007. The proceedings include allegations relating to murder, rioting and other offences. He had filed his nomination for the Nandigram bypoll before his arrest.
On September 29, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh of the Calcutta High Court granted him interim bail for three weeks, allowing him to campaign and participate in the election. He was directed to surrender before the Haldia court on October 21. The High Court had taken note of the considerable age of the cases while granting the temporary relief.
The West Bengal government challenged that order before the Supreme Court, arguing against the grant of interim bail in cases involving serious allegations.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court considered the fact that the election had already taken place and that the interim bail had been granted specifically in the context of the election.
The Bench recorded:
"We are informed the polling is over for the same and voting took place yesterday and counting is on October 9. The cases indicate certain serious offences but the exact idea of the order is to contest elections and take part in counting and surrender on October 21.
In such circumstances, we don't deem to intervene in the impugned judgment. If (an) application is made for extension of bail or made into regular bail, then all contentions of State shall remain open. No opinion expressed on merits."
The Court therefore made it clear that its decision was confined to the interim relief and did not amount to any determination on the allegations or merits of the underlying criminal cases.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s interim bail order and closed the State’s challenge.
It further clarified that if Pradhan later seeks an extension of the interim bail or regular bail, the West Bengal government would remain free to raise all its objections.
