Supreme Court Takes Strong Stand : No Bail for Accused in Vengeful Mob Attack

Facts Of The Case:

The incident in question occurred on May 2, 2021, following the announcement of the Assembly election results in West Bengal. The complainant, a follower of the Hindu religion and a supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleged that he and his family faced threats and violence from supporters of the ruling dispensation in his village, Gumsima, where they were a minority. A bomb was thrown at his tea stall before the elections. On the evening of May 2, 2021, a group of 40-50 heavily armed miscreants, led by Sekh Mahim, attacked and vandalized the complainant’s house, assaulting him and his family. The complainant’s wife was allegedly grabbed by her hair, her clothes were snatched, she was forcibly undressed, and molested. She averted further assault by threatening self-immolation.The complainant and his family fled the village and attempted to lodge a complaint at Sadaipur Police Station the next day, but the officer-in-charge refused to accept it and advised them to leave the village for their safety. Numerous similar incidents were reported where local police refused to lodge FIRs. The High Court at Calcutta intervened, directing the CBI to investigate cases involving murder and/or crimes against women regarding rape/attempt to rape. Consequently, FIR No. RC0562021S0051 was registered by CBI/SCB/Kolkata Police Station on December 16, 2021, for offenses under various sections of the IPC. The accused respondents were arrested on November 3, 2022, and a charge-sheet was later filed against them. The High Court granted bail to the respondents on January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023, which were subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court.

Procedural History:

The incident took place on May 2, 2021, and the complainant attempted to lodge an FIR at Sadaipur Police Station on May 3, 2021, but the police refused to register the complaint. Subsequently, numerous writ petitions were filed in the High Court at Calcutta due to the common grievance of local police refusing to lodge FIRs. The High Court, by an order dated August 19, 2021, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate all cases involving allegations of murder and/or crime against women regarding rape/attempt to rape. Following this direction, FIR No. RC0562021S0051 was registered at CBI/SCB/Kolkata Police Station on December 16, 2021. The accused respondents were arrested on November 3, 2022, and after investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet against them. The respondents applied for bail in the High Court, which granted their applications via orders dated January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023. These bail orders were then challenged before the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2880 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10538 of 2023) and Criminal Appeal No(s). 2881 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 15160 of 2023). The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated May 29, 2025, reversed the High Court’s orders, cancelled the bail, and directed the accused respondents to surrender.

READ ALSO :Supreme Court Exposes False Allegations, Quashes FIR in Sexual Assault Case

Court Observation:

The Supreme Court observed that considerations for granting and cancelling bail differ, with bail typically not being revoked unless obtained fraudulently, the allegations are gravely impactful on society, or the accused might abscond or tamper with evidence. In this case, the Court found the allegations against the accused respondents sufficiently grave to shake its conscience , noting an imminent likelihood of them adversely affecting trial proceedings. The initial refusal of the Sadaipur Police Station to register the FIR on May 3, 2021, and their advice for the complainant and family to leave the village, lent credibility to the apprehension of the accused’s influence over the locality and police. The FIR was only registered after the High Court’s intervention on August 19, 2021. The Court found little basis to distinguish the respondents’ case from others accused of disrobing the complainant’s wife, highlighting the concerted attack on the complainant’s house after election results as an act of vengeance for supporting an opposing political party. This attack demonstrated a vengeful attitude and an objective to subdue political opponents, constituting a grave assault on democracy. Prima facie material indicated the accused formed an unlawful assembly, vandalized the house, and attacked the complainant’s wife, who narrowly escaped sexual assault by threatening self-immolation. The Court also noted the significant delay in the trial since the 2022 charge-sheet, attributing it to the non-cooperation of the accused. These factors led the Court to conclude that a fair and impartial trial was improbable if the accused remained on bail.

Final Decision & Judgement:

The Supreme Court reversed the impugned orders of the High Court dated January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023. Consequently, the bail granted to the accused respondents by the High Court was cancelled. The accused respondents were directed to surrender before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of the Supreme Court’s order (May 29, 2025); failing which, the trial Court was instructed to adopt coercive measures to secure their presence. Upon surrendering or being arrested, the accused respondents are to be remanded to custody. The trial Court was further directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of the order. Any stay orders on the proceedings before the trial Court by a higher forum, including the High Court, were deemed vacated. The Home Secretary and Director General of Police, State of West Bengal, were mandated to ensure proper protection for the complainant and all other material witnesses to allow them to depose freely without fear. Any violation of this direction could be reported to the Supreme Court by the appellant-CBI or the complainant for suitable action. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations and those of the High Court would not prejudice the trial. The appeals were allowed in these terms, and any pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: