The Calcutta High Court has rejected a bail plea filed by Maulana Sahajahan Ali (alias Moulana Sahajan Ali), an Indian Secular Front (ISF) candidate, in connection with a violent incident at Mothabari in West Bengal. The incident allegedly threatened the safety of judicial officers deputed for the Special Summary Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. A division bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi denied the bail on May 18, observing that case diary materials, including electronic evidence and witness statements, prima facie indicate the appellant’s involvement in gravity-laden offences currently being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Background of the Case
The matter originates from a complaint registered at the Mothabari Police Station on April 2. The First Information Report (FIR) invoked several severe provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 121 (waging war), Section 132 (abetment of mutiny), and Section 351(2) (criminal force), alongside provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The incident drew immediate judicial attention due to its direct impact on the safety and security of judicial officers who had been deputed to oversee the Special Summary Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. Taking suo motu cognisance of the security threats faced by these judicial officers, the Supreme Court of India intervened. By an order dated April 6, 2026, the apex court entrusted the investigations of the various FIRs lodged regarding the Mothabari incidents to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Following the transfer of the probe, the appellant, Maulana Sahajahan Ali—who was an ISF candidate from the Mothabari assembly constituency in Malda district—was arrested by the local police and subsequently taken into custody by the NIA. Ali then moved the Calcutta High Court seeking bail.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions
Representing the appellant, Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya challenged the prolonged detention of his client. He raised a jurisdictional contention, submitting that the Supreme Court had directed the NIA to undertake the investigation even though the alleged offences do not fall within the scheduled offences of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Furthermore, the senior counsel argued that further incarceration of the appellant was unwarranted. He asserted that the investigations were effectively over, and in any event, the nature of the alleged offences did not justify the prolonged custody of the appellant.
NIA’s Submissions
Opposing the bail plea, Special Public Prosecutor Arun Kumar Maiti, appearing alongside other counsels for the NIA, emphasized the extraordinary context of the case. He submitted that the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance specifically because the safety and security of judicial officers deputed for electoral roll work in West Bengal, along with ancillary security issues, were compromised.
The prosecution highlighted that by an order dated May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court had permitted the NIA to conclude its investigation at the earliest, preferably within a period of two months, and submit its report before the court of competent jurisdiction. The NIA argued that since the investigations are still actively underway and the final report is yet to be submitted, the appellant should not be released on bail.
Court’s Analysis and Evidence
Upon examining the case diary, the division bench found substantial material linking the appellant to the scene of the crime. The court noted the following key evidentiary points compiled by the investigators:
- Witness Identifications: Two protected witnesses recorded statements identifying the presence of the appellant at the place and time of the violent occurrence.
- Police Identification: One police personnel recorded a statement identifying the appellant as being present at the place and time of the incident.
- Specific Roles described: Both the protected witnesses and the police personnel described the active involvement of the appellant in the incidents.
- Electronic and Technical Evidence: Electronic evidence in the case diary placed the appellant at the time and place of the occurrence, corroborating the statements of the witnesses and the police officer.
- Call Details Recording (CDR): CDR data established that the appellant was in constant contact with the co-accused around the time of the incident.
Emphasizing the seriousness of the matter, the High Court observed:
“Incidents relate to the safety and security of Judicial Officers deputed for work relating to the SIR of electoral rolls in the State of West Bengal. The appellant was arrested by the police and was taken into custody by the NIA subsequent to the NIA taking over the investigations. Materials in the case diary suggest involvement of the appellant in the offences alleged and being investigated by the NIA.”
The Decision
Refusing to grant bail to the ISF candidate, the Calcutta High Court took into account the exceptional gravity of the charges, the clear indications of the appellant’s involvement as found in the case diary, the duration of his custody, and the crucial fact that the federal agency’s investigation is still in progress.
Accordingly, the division bench dismissed the bail application, pending the completion of the NIA’s investigation.
