Calcutta High Court: Sumit Roy Denied Urgent Relief

• The Calcutta High Court declined to grant urgent interim relief in a plea concerning Sumit Roy, an aide to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee.
• Roy's wife, Sushmita Ghosh, alleged that police threatened her husband with a fake encounter to force a confession about storing ₹1.02 crore.
• The cash was reportedly seized from the TMC's former office in Diamond Harbour, and Roy was allegedly forced to pose with it.
• Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the petition to be heard by a regular bench after the court vacation, citing Roy's custody and ongoing investigation.
• The State, represented by the Advocate General, confirmed Roy's custody and the active investigation.

This ruling from the Calcutta High Court sets a notable precedent regarding the threshold for urgent judicial intervention in cases involving allegations of police misconduct, particularly when an individual is already in custody and an investigation is underway.

The Calcutta High Court recently considered a petition filed by Sushmita Ghosh, wife of Sumit Roy, an individual identified as a close associate of Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee. Ghosh's plea brought forth serious accusations against the State police, claiming that her husband was subjected to coercion and threats while in custody. The core of her complaint centered on allegations that police officials attempted to compel Roy into falsely confessing to storing a significant sum of money.

According to the petition, Mr. Roy was allegedly threatened with a 'fake encounter' if he did not admit to possessing approximately ₹1.02 crore. This substantial amount of cash had reportedly been seized by law enforcement from what was described as the TMC's former office located in Diamond Harbour. The plea further detailed a disturbing sequence of events, asserting that Roy was taken to the premises where the cash was found. There, he reportedly witnessed police personnel organizing and counting bundles of currency notes. Subsequently, he was allegedly forced to don a black mask and pose for photographs alongside the seized funds, with an Additional Superintendent of Police (Zonal) reportedly present during these events.

On Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, chose not to grant urgent interim relief in the matter of Susmita Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Ors. The court's decision means that the immediate protection sought for Sumit Roy, who is currently in police custody, was not provided on an expedited basis. Instead, Justice Bhattacharyya directed that the petition, which expressed apprehension that Roy might be falsely implicated in the ongoing investigation, be scheduled for a hearing by a regular bench once the current court vacation concludes.

The court's decision to defer the matter was significantly influenced by the submissions made by the State government. Represented by Mr. Mitra, the Learned Advocate General, the State informed the court that Sumit Roy was already in custody and that the investigation into the cash seizure and related matters was actively ongoing. This crucial detail appears to have been a determining factor for Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, who noted the existing custody status and the active investigative process.

The court explicitly stated that in light of these facts, the petition should be heard by a regular bench following the reopening of the court. This approach underscores a judicial preference for allowing ongoing investigations to proceed, particularly when the accused is already detained, before considering urgent interventions based on allegations of coercion or threats. The Abhishek Banerjee aide investigation remains active, and the court's directive ensures that the legal challenge to police conduct will be addressed in due course rather than through immediate judicial action.

This ruling from the Calcutta High Court sets a notable precedent regarding the threshold for urgent judicial intervention in cases involving allegations of police misconduct, particularly when an individual is already in custody and an investigation is underway. The court's decision highlights a high bar for granting immediate relief, even when serious claims such as police custody forced confession India and threats of extrajudicial violence are brought forward. It suggests that the judiciary may prioritize the orderly progression of criminal investigations over immediate disruption based on such allegations, opting for a more deliberative review by a regular bench.

For legal practitioners and individuals facing similar circumstances, this outcome signals that obtaining Calcutta High Court Sumit Roy urgent relief in cases alleging police coercion and fake encounter threats is challenging. The court's emphasis on the ongoing investigation and existing custody indicates a cautious approach to intervening prematurely. This case, Susmita Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, thus provides insight into the judicial temperament concerning allegations of police excess within the context of active criminal proceedings, particularly those with political undertones.

This ruling highlights the Calcutta High Court's reluctance to grant urgent interim relief in cases alleging police coercion and fake encounter threats, particularly when an investigation is ongoing and the accused is already in custody. Lawyers representing clients in similar situations should note the court's preference for matters to be heard by a regular bench after vacation, indicating a high bar for immediate judicial intervention in such allegations.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet