‘Dreaded by all’: Why Calcutta High Court refused to free ‘mastermind’, brother after 800-strong mob attacked ED officials

Deserve no bail: Court

• The petitioners do not deserve a favourable order at this stage.
• Accordingly, the prayer for bail of both the petitioners – Sk Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh (Shahjahan Sheikh) and Sk Alomgir – is rejected at this stage.
• Sufficient incriminating material has transpired against both petitioners in the course of investigation which prima facie suggest their leading role in the alleged offence.
• Several complaints were lodged by women in and around the locality where the petitioners live.
• In dealing with the said complaints, the National Commission for Women visited the locality.
• The commission members interacted with the complainants/victims affected by the action of the first petitioner and his associates.
• The commission has recommended urgent action, including further investigation of the complaints.
• Several witnesses have talked about their threat perception at the behest of the petitioners.
• The witnesses have raised serious allegations, including land grabbing, intimidation and torture against the petitioners.
• The petitioners are in custody for a considerable period of time.
• The courts have frowned upon prolonged detention of the accused without trial, and have insisted that such detention should not turn punitive.

No parity with co-accused

• Rejecting arguments of parity, the court clarified that the other accused granted bail were not similarly placed, as the petitioners were central figures in the alleged conspiracy.

Bail rejected

• Concluding that it was not a fit case for relief, the court dismissed both bail pleas, making it clear that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Mob mobilised, officials attacked

• The case stems from a January 5, 2024, incident in which ED officials, accompanied by personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), arrived at Sahajhan’s residence to conduct searches linked to a money laundering probe arising out of alleged irregularities in the public distribution system (PDS).
• According to the prosecution, instead of cooperating, Sahajhan allegedly used his phone to summon supporters.
• Within an hour, a mob of nearly 800-1,000 people gathered, armed with weapons, and launched a coordinated attack on the officials.
• The mob allegedly assaulted ED and CRPF personnel, pelted stones and bricks, damaged and torched official vehicles, snatched personal belongings and equipment, and forced officials to flee for their lives.
• The violence was replicated at the accused’s office premises, where officials faced similar attacks.
• Several officers sustained grievous injuries and required hospitalisation.

Call records, witnesses point to conspiracy

• The high court noted that call detail records showed Sahajhan made multiple calls around 30 between 7 am and 9 am, coinciding with the mob mobilisation.
• Witness statements, including that of his wife, prima facie placed him at the scene and suggest that he directed associates to assemble, addressed the mob after the attack, and instructed them to remain “incognito”.
• The court also recorded that co-accused Alomgir played an active role in mobilising the crowd and was linked to the storage of firearms recovered during the investigation.

CBI flags influence, threat perception

• Senior advocate Dhiraj Trivedi, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), and advocate Amajit De, appearing for the CBI, argued that both the accused were highly influential and had already attempted to interfere with the investigation.
• The agency cited complaints of threats to witnesses, allegations of orchestrated violence even after arrest, recovery of firearms linked to the accused network and pending investigation involving additional accused.
• The court took note of a complaint alleging a staged road accident that killed a witness’s son, as well as findings of the National Commission for Women, which flagged serious allegations against the accused and recommended further action.

Defence’s submissions

• Senior advocate Avik Ghatak, along with advocates Sandipan Ganguly, Arkadeb Bhattacharya and Soham De Dhara, submitted that the preliminary allegation against the petitioner is that he refused to open the gate of his house and did not co-operate with the investigating agency.
• The counsel said that alleged non-cooperation cannot be a ground for the arrest of a person.
• No evidence has been collected by the CBI to establish that the petitioner was at home at the relevant time, the counsel argued.
• The tower location of his mobile phone does not pinpoint his exact location and it can at best be said that the mobile phone was inside the house and not the petitioner, submitted the counsel.
• The counsel submitted that no illegal arm was recovered from the petitioner.
• They informed the court that there is no material to show that the petitioner led or instigated the mob or assaulted the CBI or CRPF personnel.