The Supreme Court has dismissed an application seeking modification of bail conditions filed by Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman, an accused in a murder case, who sought permission to leave the city of Kolkata and enter his home district of Purba Medinipur.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih also rejected a counter-application filed by the victim’s brother seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused. Significantly, the Apex Court set aside a reference made by the Sessions Court to the Legal Remembrancer of West Bengal and expunged “scathing comments” made by the Trial Judge against the Special Public Prosecutor.
The core legal issue involved an application by the accused, Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman, to modify a bail condition imposed by the Supreme Court on January 3, 2025, which confined him to the city of Kolkata. Simultaneously, the victim’s brother, Afjal Ali Sha, filed an application to cancel the bail entirely, alleging threat to witnesses and political patronage.
The Supreme Court rejected both applications. It upheld the restriction on the accused’s movement, emphasizing the principle of finality in judicial orders and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court also addressed the conduct of the Sessions Court, specifically criticizing the Trial Judge for making unwarranted remarks against the Special Public Prosecutor and referring the matter to the state government.
Background of the Case
The case originates from Panskura P.S. Case No. 496 of 2019, registered on October 8, 2019, under Section 302 (murder) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The allegations state that the accused, Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman, conspired to eliminate his political rival, Kurban Sha. The victim was shot on October 7, 2019. Rahaman was arrested on November 16, 2019.
The procedural history of the case is marked by several significant legal turns:
- Withdrawal of Prosecution Attempt: In February 2021, the Legal Remembrancer of West Bengal instructed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case under Section 321 of the CrPC. This order was subsequently set aside by the Calcutta High Court.
- Transfer of Trial: On March 17, 2023, the Supreme Court allowed a transfer petition filed by the victim’s brother, transferring the trial from the Additional Sessions Judge, Tamluk, to the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta. The Court observed that the State had taken a “complete u-turn” to assist the accused.
- Grant of Bail: On January 3, 2025, a Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court granted bail to Rahaman, noting his custody period of over 5 years. However, the Court imposed a specific condition that the “appellant will remain confined to the city of Kolkata after his release on bail.”
Arguments of the Parties
For the Accused (Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman): Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh argued that the restriction confining the accused to Kolkata was an unreasonable restriction on his right to liberty under Article 21. He contended that Rahaman had been deprived of leading a meaningful life in his home district of Purba Medinipur and could not attend to his ailing parents or the last rites of a relative. Mr. Singh further argued that since the trial was on the verge of completion and remaining witnesses were public officials, there was no possibility of tampering with evidence.
For the Complainant (Afjal Ali Sha): Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Patwalia prayed for the cancellation of bail, arguing that Rahaman enjoys “political patronage” and that the State of West Bengal has attempted to shield him. He pointed out that witnesses were turning hostile due to fear and intimidation. Mr. Patwalia highlighted that despite being released on bail, the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur, had deputed two police personnel as security staff for the accused, without any fresh threat assessment, indicating special favor.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. On Finality of Judicial Verdicts: Refusing to modify the bail condition, the Bench emphasized the importance of the finality of judicial orders. The Court noted that the previous bench had granted bail specifically balancing the long incarceration with stringent conditions.
Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench, observed:
“Judicial orders which determine issues arising between the parties to the lis bind them and its conclusive nature ensures resolution of disputes so that justice is served… The prospect of opening up a further round of challenge before a succeeding bench, hoping that a change in composition will yield a different outcome, would undermine this Court’s authority and the value of its pronouncements.”
The Court further stated that overturning a prior verdict by a later verdict “does not necessarily mean that justice is better served.”
2. On Cancellation of Bail: Regarding the application for cancellation of bail, the Court acknowledged that the State’s conduct had at times “bordered on becoming a real facilitator for the accused.” The Court noted that while witnesses turning hostile left a “very bitter taste in the mouth,” it had not been conclusively established that the accused was directly responsible for these developments. The Court concluded that cancelling bail at this stage would serve no useful purpose.
3. On Security Provided to the Accused: Addressing the argument regarding the restriction on movement, the Court observed:
“That apart, this Court being the protector of Fundamental Rights of the people of the country cannot also perhaps overlook that Anisur has been provided security cover by none other than the Superintendent of the police force of the district of which he is a permanent resident. If indeed there is any threat perception that endangers Anisur’s life in Purba Medinipur, it would be appropriate for him not to leave Kolkata till such time the trial is concluded.”
4. Strictures Against the Trial Court (Postscript): The Supreme Court took strong exception to an order dated November 21, 2025, passed by the Sessions Court. The Trial Judge had made “scathing comments” against the Special Public Prosecutor, characterizing his approach as “torpid and indifferent” because he filed a belated application to examine additional witnesses. The Trial Judge had also referred the matter to the Legal Remembrancer.
The Apex Court termed these comments as “wholly uncalled for, thoroughly unwarranted and absolutely unnecessary.”
The Bench observed:
“To characterise the approach of the Special Public Prosecutor as torpid and indifferent amounts to unjustly criticising him for lack of initiative… The Sessions Court ought not to forget the status of a prosecutor, who has been appointed pursuant to an order of this Court.”
The Court also remarked on the Trial Judge’s use of Latin maxims:
“Reference to legal maxims could be insightful, if the context so requires, but overusing them might distract from the main issue, coming across as ostentatious rather than substantive.”
Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the applications with the following directions:
- Modification Denied: The application for modification of the bail condition restricting the accused to Kolkata is dismissed.
- Cancellation Denied: The application for cancellation of bail filed by the victim’s brother is dismissed.
- Reference Set Aside: The reference made by the Sessions Court to the Legal Remembrancer regarding the Special Public Prosecutor is set aside.
- Trial Directions: The Sessions Court is requested to prepare a schedule for recording evidence of remaining witnesses but is directed to conclude the trial in accordance with law “without being overly concerned about the previous timelines set by this Court.” The Special Public Prosecutor is encouraged to continue conducting the trial with fairness and integrity.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (with connected applications)
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 43/2025
- Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
