The Supreme Court on Friday granted Union minister Nisith Pramanik protection from arrest in a 2018 attempt-to-murder case in West Bengal and requested the circuit bench of the Calcutta high court to take up his bail plea expected to come up on January 22.

A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said, “No coercive steps shall be taken (against the petitioner) till the matter is heard by the high court.”

The Court was dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed by Pramanik who challenged a January 4 high court order refusing to grant him protection from arrest.

The top court had on Thursday issued notice on the petition and sought a response from the West Bengal government.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the state and informed the Court that he had instructions to state that no coercive steps will be taken by the police till the case is heard on January 22.

However, Pramanik’s lawyers sought the undertaking to be recorded in the order.

Senior advocate PS Patwalia who represented the minister said, “He holds the position of a Union minister. It will be very embarrassing if he is arrested. He has to keep visiting West Bengal and he is afraid he will be arrested.”

Also Read:SC seeks Bengal govt’s response to Union minister Pramanik’s anticipatory bail plea

Sankaranarayanan said, “There are 13 cases against him. He could be arrested in any case. The petitioner could have approached the HC chief justice and mentioned it. But they have chosen to come directly to this Court. This order granting protection should not impede the high court from applying its mind.”

The bench clarified, “We clarify we have not expressed any view on merits. The high court may decide the case on merits.”

Pramanik, who is member of Parliament from Cooch Behar in West Bengal is a minister of state in two ministries – home affairs and youth affairs & sports.

He approached the HC challenging the March 5, 2023, arrest warrant which is conducting trial in the 2018 case.

He informed the top court that the HC had adjourned the matter thrice and on January 4, no interim relief was granted while posting the matter for hearing to January 22.

Patwalia said, “I am willing to go before the HC on January 22, but I need to be protected till then.”

On Thursday, the senior counsel stated, “Situation in West Bengal is very volatile. This is a political case since I have shifted from Trinamool Congress (ruling party in the state) to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). I am not named in the charge sheet and have not been called once since the complaint was filed in August 2018.”

The Court in its order further stated, “Let the matter (bail plea of Pramanik) be listed before the circuit bench at Jalpaiguri, if not already listed, on January 22. We request that the same day, the application be disposed.”

The state accepted that the petitioner had a right to be heard after the Court remarked, “This case is of 2018 and on three occasions, the matter has been adjourned by the high court.”

The present complaint where Pramanik is one of the 36 persons named as accused by the WB police related to an attempt to murder of one Fajlu Munshi, a resident of Cooch Behar.

It was alleged that some men tried to restrain him on a public street and when he raised an alarm, two persons came to his help following which the accused persons fired shots at them.

A case was lodged at Dinhata police station under attempt to murder (Section 307), causing grievous hurt (Section 326), wrongful restraint (Section 341) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) under the Indian Penal Code and other provisions of Arms Act.

In his petition filed through advocate Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Pramanik said, “The liberty of the petitioner is at risk due to the apprehension of arrest and the order (of HC) has put a mechanical hindrance to the petitioner’s chance of seeking protection for his personal liberty.”

The petition stated that the charge sheet submitted in October 2022 made no reference to guilt of the petitioner in the alleged crime.

“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.”

The minister further questioned the arrest warrant that was issued without resorting to summons or bailable warrants to secure presence of the accused.

The plea alleged that the “unjustified action” of the investigating agency clearly indicated that the purpose of getting an arrest warrant issued was to attack Pramanik’s liberty and to humiliate him in the public eye.