SC seeks WB govt's reply on union minister Nisith Pramanik's anticipatory bail plea, hearing tomorrow

New Delhi [India], January 11 : The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will hear the anticipatory bail plea of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs and West Bengal BJP MP Nisith Pramanik on January 12.
A bench of justices, Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said that it will hear the matter tomorrow. The court asked the petitioner to serve a copy to the respondent.
The Supreme Court has also sought the West Bengal government's response to the anticipatory bail plea of Pramanik in connection with an attempt to murder case.
Pramanik's counsel said it is a political case after he shifted from TMC to BJP.
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia with Bansuri Swaraj and advocate-on-record Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal appeared for the petitioner.
The senior advocate apprised the court that the political situation in West Bengal is volatile.
Pramanik's lawyer sought interim relief from the Supreme Court.
Pramanik is a Member of the Parliament representing the constituency of Dinhata, Cooch Behar and is currently holding the portfolio of the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs and Minister of State for Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India.
The petitioner is named as accused in the case under charges dealing with an alleged attempt to murder, causing grievous hurt, wrongful restrain, and under provisions of the Arms Act among others.
The complaint was lodged before Dinhata Police Station in August 2018 against 37 accused persons including the Petitioner.
In his application, he said, "In furtherance of political animosity aimed at damaging the Petitioner's reputation, he has been casually named accused in a criminal case under Sections 341,326,307,120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1A), 27, 35 of the Arms Act, 1959."
"Without a single allegation against the petitioner in the complaint he has been listed as an accused along with 36 others. As is clear from the Charge-sheet even during the course of the investigation, no evidence has been found to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime. Despite the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner has been wrongly charge-sheeted in connection with the above offences," the petition said.
Pramanik said that there is an apprehension of arrest as in the aforesaid case a warrant of arrest on March 5, 2023 has been issued against the petitioner. As soon as the petitioner gained knowledge of the same he approached the High Court.
The petitioner said that his application for the third time vide order dated January 4, 2023, simply adjourned the hearing till the next circuit bench commences. As a result, due to the impugned order, the petitioner is now left in a miserable vacuum for an indefinite period without interim protection.
"That to the Petitioner's dismay, despite having no material to charge the petitioner for the offences mentioned in the charge sheet, the State Investigating Agency straight away requested for issuance of an arrest warrant to secure his attendance. A non-speaking order on March 5, 2023, the Ld. The Trial Court was pleased to pass a direction for the execution of the warrant till the next date," the petition said.
"Without first submitting on the illegality of the Order dated 05.03.2023, it is submitted that the unjustified action of the investigating agency clearly reveals that the sole purpose of seeking a warrant of arrest to secure the attendance of the Petitioner without making any attempt to summon the Petitioner first, is to attack the Petitioner's liberty and to harm or humiliate the Petitioner in the public eye," the petition said.
Due to the facts and circumstances, the liberty of the Petitioner is at risk due to the apprehension of arrest and the Impugned Order has put a mechanical hindrance to the Petitioner's chance of seeking protection for his personal liberty, the plea said.
The investigating agency has cursorily charge-sheeted the Petitioner without placing any evidence which could prove his role in the commission of the alleged crime, the plea said.
The petition said that the Petitioner who is a man of repute, with deep roots in the society is ready and willing to join the trial without committing any unlawful activity which could hinder the trial.