New Delhi: Supreme Court dismissed West Bengal govt’s appeal against Calcutta HC’s March 5 order directing a CBI probe into Sandeshkhali sexual assault cases in which Trinamool Congress functionary Shahjahan Sheikh is the main accused, but provided a face saver to the Mamata Banerjee govt by expunging the HC’s strictures on the state police’s alleged lethargy from the records.
For Bengal, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta argued that the state police had suo motu registered an FIR against unknown persons after an Enforcement Directorate team was violently attacked by a mob when it had gone to search Shahjahan’s house on Jan 5. ED had allegedly found Shahjahan involved in money laundering in relation to the ration scam case, in which TMC minister Jyotirmoy Malik has already been arrested.
This was opposed by additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for ED, who pointed out that Bengal police had first filed an FIR against the ED team, which was attacked by a mob mobilised by Shahjahan and could not enter his house, accusing them of molesting women. He said Shahjahan, with 42 FIRs against him, was not arrested and continued to be patronised by the local police and political party.
CBI gets custody of Shahjahan
Meanwhile, the tug-of-war between state and central agencies for custody of Shahjahan who was arrested by the state CID in connection with Sandeshkhali violence. The CID finally hand him over to CBI, a day after dodging the first deadline set by Calcutta high court.
CBI took Shahjahan, recently suspended from his party, to its regional headquarters at Kolkata’s Nizam Palace under CRPF escort, capping a jurisdictional and legal battle that saw all three agencies involved - including CID and ED - approach the courts.
Responding to advocate general Kishore Datta's request to postpone hearing ED’s contempt plea in HC against the state on the ground that a special leave petition was pending in Supreme Court, Justice Harish Tandon said, “It does not absolve a party of the charge of violating the court order or postponing its implementation in the garb of challenging the order in a higher court. There is no reason for keeping the order in suspended animation. The order is binding on the parties.”