ASHISH MAHATA vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
(Appellate Side)

CRA(DB) 123 of 2024

With

CRAN 1 of 2024

Arnab Dam
v.
The State of West Bengal


Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
&
The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray


For Petitioner : Mr. Arnab Dam (in-person),

For the CID. : Mr. Neguive Ahmed, Spl.P.P.
Ms. Trina Kundu, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Chowdhury, Adv.

Judgment On

:

12.05.2026

Arijit Banerjee, J.:-

1. The petitioner and 22 other accused persons were convicted under
Sections 121/121A/122/302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, Sections 16(1)(a)/18/20/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under
Section 25 (1AA) and 27 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and were sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life. The petitioner says that he is in custody for about
9 years, for 7 years pre-conviction and 2 years post-conviction. He was

2

granted bail on April 11, 2019. He was again taken into custody upon being
convicted on February 27, 2024. He prays for suspension of sentence.
2. The petitioner who appears in person, submits as follows:
(i) No Test Identification Parade was held. The petitioner was sought
to be identified in Court 12 years after the alleged incident.
(ii) The conviction is based on untrue allegations is against made
against the petitioner without such allegations being proved.

(iii) The conviction is based on conjectures and suspicion.
(iv) The petitioner was on bail for 5 years during trial. It is nobody’s
case that he misused the privileged of bail. Twice the conditions
of his bail were relaxed.
(v) The petitioner is a Ph.D Scholar. He is registered with the
Burdwan University. He is doing research on Conservation of
Forest and Forest Resources in India.
(vi) Although other criminal cases are pending against him, he is
on bail in all such cases. In no criminal case has he been
convicted as yet.
(vii) The learned Trial Judge himself has admitted that the evidence
against the petitioner is weak in nature.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, the petitioner contends that
he has made out an arguable case in support of his defence. Hence, he should
be granted bail pending disposal of the appeal upon suspending his sentence.
4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the petitioner’s prayer. He
says that on February 15, 2010, at about 5.10-5.15 p.m., the petitioner and
70/80 other persons belonging to the banned extremist group CPIML

3

(Marxist), in a preplanned manner, to wage war against the State, armed with
sophisticated weapons, hand grenade, bombs etc. stormed into the Silda
Camp of Eastern Frontier Rifle in Bolero Cars, Pick Up Vans, Motorcycles etc.,
killed 24 EFR personnel, looted arms and ammunition from the camp and left
shouting anti Indian and CPIML (Terrorist) Slogans.
5. Learned State Counsel further says that at least 4 prosecution
witnesses identified the petitioner in Court. He is a renowned leader of the
banned Maoist organization, Secretary of BJOBRC and functioning as a think
tank for the banned organization. He was arrested with AK 47 Rifles and other
ammunitions in his possession. He is facing trial in at least 15 other criminal
cases filed under various provisions of law including Sections 120B/121 /
121A / 122 / 123 / 124A / 147/148/149 /302 /307/ 379/ 384/395 /436
of the IPC, Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Section 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act.
6. Learned Counsel submits that the evidence on record prima facie
demonstrates that the petitioner is the King Pin and member of the Terrorist
Organization CPIML. He and other convicts directly played a pivotal role in
the act of waging war against the State. He submits that considering the
grave and heinous nature of the offence, the criminal antecedents of the
petitioner against whom 15 cases are pending, the fact that the petitioner is
a senior functionary of a banned extremist organization and the overwhelming
nature of the evidence on record, based on which the charges have been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner’s prayer for suspension of
sentence should be rejected in the interest of justice and to preserve the
morale of the security forces.

4

7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties.
8. The offences are very grave. The more serious of the offences are as
follows:
(i) Section 121 IPC: Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting
waging of war, against the Government of India. This offence is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
(ii) Section 121A IPC: Conspiracy to commit offences punishable
under Section 121. This offence is punishable with imprisonment for
life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten
years.
(iii) Section 122 IPC: Collecting arms, etc., with intention of
waging war against the Government of India. This offence is
punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding ten years.
(iv) Section 302 IPC: Murder- Punishable with death or imprisonment
for life.
(v) Section 16(1)(a) of UAPA, 1967: Commission of terrorist Act
resulting in the death of any person. This offence is punishable with
death or imprisonment for life.
(vi) Section 18 of UAPA: Punishment for conspiracy to commit a
terrorist act or any Act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act.
This offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which will not be
less than 5 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
(vii) Section 20 of UAPA: Being a member of a terrorist gang or a
terrorist organization which is involved in terrorist acts. This offence is

5

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
(viii) Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908: Unlawfully and
maliciously causing, by any explosive substance, an explosion of a
nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property. This
offence, whether any injury to person or property has been actually
caused or not, is punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous
imprisonment of either description which will not be less than ten years.
If the explosion is caused by any special category explosive substance,
the punishment will be death or rigorous imprisonment for life.
(ix) Section 4 Explosive Substances Act: attempt to cause explosion or
making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property. This
offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years whether or
not any explosion takes place and whether or not any injury to person or
property has been actually caused. If special category explosive
substance is involved, the punishment may be rigorous imprisonment
for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years.
(x) Section 25 (1AA) of the Arms Act, 1959: Possessing prohibited arm
or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7, for sale,
transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof. This offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which will not be less than 7 years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life.

6

(xi) Section 27(3) of the Arms Act: Using prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition or doing any act in contravention of Section 7 resulting in
death of any other person. This offence is punishable with death. (There
are seems to be some confusion. For the commission of this offence
Arnab has been sentenced to suffer three months imprisonment).
9. The petitioner has been identified by at least three prosecution
witnesses as being a part of the group which attacked the SILDA camp. P.W.
30, Gobinda Shil, on recall, identified the petitioner in Court. P.W. 30 was an
independent witness. He had been taken to a meeting of the Maobadi group
for indoctrination and joining the group.
10. P.W. 34, Bishnu Sing Chettri was posted at the SILDA camp on the
relevant date. He deposed that on the relevant date Maoist persons attacked
the SILDA camp with bombs and guns. At that time he was in the camp. He
received fire injury in his right leg. His batch mate Kanteshwar Basumatari
and Arindra Rava also received fire injury on their bodies. The
attackers/miscreants trespassed into the camp and looted fire arms and
ammunitions. 24 EFR persons were killed 3 were injured including himself.
He identified the petitioner and another accused Lochan Singh Sardar on
dock.

11. Another injured eye witness is P.W. 39, Lalbahadur Pradhan. He
nd
deposed that he was a constable in the 2 Ballalion and was posted at Silda
Camp on the relevant date. He was on gate duty. At 4.50/5.00 P.M. during
duty change time the Camp was attacked by a Maoist group. Several
miscreants fired from their fire arms from 3 sides of the camp. He was hit by
AK 47 bullets on his right knee and left leg. The miscreants looted arms and

7

ammunitions from the camp. He saw the miscreants when they entered the
camp. He identified the present petitioner on dock.
rd
12. The 3 Investigating Officer, S.K. Sekh Taj Muhammad who deposed as
P.W. 65, identified this petitioner and stated in his evidence that this
petitioner is a renowned leader of the banned Maoist organization and
functioning as a Think Tank. He was arrested with AK 47 rifles and other
ammunitions.

13. We therefore see that at least prima facie there is sufficient
incriminating evidence against this petitioner. The fact that TIP was not held
is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. At least two injured eye
witnesses and one independent witness identified the petitioner on dock.
14. The petitioner argues that the injured witnesses could not have been
identified in twelve years after the incident. We do not agree with him. It is
not unusual or improbable that the injured eye witnesses would remember
the faces of some of the miscreants involved in such a major terrorist attack
on a police camp. In fact, an injured witness is more likely to remember the
details of the incident and the faces of the people involved therein.
15. In view of the prima facie incriminating evidence against the petitioner
and the exceptional gravity of the offences which the petitioner has been found
to have committed causing death of 24 police personnel and injuring three
persons, we are not inclined to allow this application for suspension of
sentence. It cannot also said that there is undue delay in the disposal of the
appeal preferred by the petitioner and therefore Article 21 of the Constitution
comes into play. The appeal is of 2024. It is expected that the appeal will be
heard within a reasonable period of time.

8

16. CRAN 01 of 2024 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. We
clarify that the observations made in this judgement and order are prima facie
and only for the purpose of disposing of the present application. None of the
observations will have any bearing on the hearing of the petitioner’s appeal.
17. We further clarify that since the petitioner says that he is a Ph.D
Scholar, the superintendent of the concerned Correctional Home shall ensure
that all reasonable facilities are made available to the petitioner to enable him
to pursue his research work from the correctional home.
18. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

I agree.

( Apurba Sinha Ray, J. ) ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )