Two appeals of Central Bureau of Investigation v/s Sekh Jamir Hossain & Others., challenging bail orders issued by the Calcutta High Court on January 24, 2023, and April 13, 2023. The appeals concern an FIR (No. RC0562021S0051) registered by CBI/SCB/Kolkata on December 16, 2021, for offenses including unlawful assembly, rioting, mischief, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and attempt to rape, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case originates from an incident on May 2, 2021, following the announcement of West Bengal Assembly election results. The complainant, a Hindu and supporter of the Bharatiya Janta Party, alleged that a gang of 40-50 heavily armed miscreants, led by Sekh Mahim, attacked and vandalized his house, looted articles, and assaulted his family. The complainant's wife was reportedly disrobed and molested; she averted sexual assault by threatening self-immolation with kerosene. The local Sadaipur Police Station initially refused to register the complaint, advising the family to leave the village for their safety.

Following numerous similar incidents and writ petitions, the Calcutta High Court on August 19, 2021, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate cases involving murder or crimes against women (rape/attempt to rape). Consequently, the CBI registered the FIR in this case.

The accused respondents were arrested on November 3, 2022, and a charge-sheet was filed against them for offenses including Sections 34, 148, 149, 326, 354, 511 read with 376D and 450 of IPC. However, the High Court subsequently granted them bail.

The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, argued that the bail was granted on extraneous considerations, citing the respondents' political influence which allegedly prevented earlier FIR registration and is now impeding the trial. It was also submitted that the accused have frequently failed to appear in the trial court, delaying charge framing. The complainant and victim had specifically named the respondents.

The respondents' counsel, Mr. S. Hariharan, contended that the High Court's bail orders were well-reasoned and that no specific role was assigned to the respondents in the FIR or witness statements.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the established principle that bail cancellation requires different considerations than bail grant, found that the allegations were grave enough to "shake the conscience of the Court". The Court noted the initial refusal by local police to register the FIR, indicating the accused's significant local influence. The delay in investigation, partly due to alleged non-cooperation from local police, also contributed to the gravity.

The Court determined that the concerted attack, launched after election results with vengeance, was a "grave attack on the roots of democracy". It found prima facie material to establish that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, vandalized the house, and that the complainant's wife was assaulted. The ongoing trial delay, primarily attributed to the accused's non-cooperation, further led the Court to conclude that a fair trial was impossible with the accused remaining on bail.

Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's bail orders, cancelling the bail granted to the accused respondents. The respondents are directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive measures will be taken. The trial court is ordered to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial within six months. The Home Secretary and Director General of Police, West Bengal, are instructed to provide protection to the complainant and witnesses. The appeals were allowed on these terms.