Calcutta High Court Judge recuses from Sujit Bose bail plea after alleged attempt by counsel and secretary to access case records after judgment was reserved.
The judge took serious exception to the alleged attempt to access the case record from her chamber after the bail matter had been reserved for judgment.
The Calcutta High Court has recused itself from hearing former West Bengal Minister Sujit Bose’s bail application after the Judge raised concerns over an alleged attempt by one of the counsel appearing for Bose, accompanied by the Judge’s private secretary, to access the case record from her chamber.
The matter relates to a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with the Enforcement Directorate’s proceedings against Bose. The bail matter had already been heard and was reserved for judgment on August 17, 2026.
According to the order passed by the Judge on August 19, the alleged incident took place on August 18, when the Judge was in the courtroom. One of the lawyers appearing for the petitioner allegedly went to the Judge’s chamber along with her private secretary and asked the staff present outside the chamber to bring out the case record.
The court staff reportedly refused to produce the record. The lawyer and the private secretary allegedly thereafter attempted to enter the chamber and insisted on seeing the case record. The staff again resisted the attempt.
The Judge took serious exception to the alleged conduct, particularly because the case had already been reserved for judgment. The order recorded that the alleged attempt was seriously deprecated and observed that it appeared to “smell of an oblique motive”. In view of what the Judge described as a deliberate attempt to access the record, she considered it appropriate to release the matter from her consideration.
Bail Plea Now To Be Placed Before Another Bench
The recusal does not amount to any decision on the merits of Bose’s bail application. The order only removes the matter from the concerned Judge’s docket, meaning that the bail application will have to be placed before another Bench in accordance with the Calcutta High Court’s roster and administrative directions.
The bail proceedings are being contested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Senior Advocate Saybasachi Banerjee appeared for Bose, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi, Senior Advocate Zoheb Hussain and other counsel appeared for the ED.
Bose’s case has been pending before the Calcutta High Court in connection with the ED proceedings. Earlier court records show that Bose approached the High Court in relation to proceedings involving the Enforcement Directorate, while the present criminal matter concerns a bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Section 483 of the BNSS provides the High Court and Court of Session with powers concerning bail in cases involving persons accused of offences and corresponds broadly to the bail jurisdiction earlier exercised under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The latest development, however, concerns the conduct surrounding access to the judicial record rather than the substantive grounds for Bose’s release on bail.
Case Reserved Before Alleged Incident
The timing of the alleged incident was a significant factor in the Judge’s decision. The bail application had already been heard and the matter was reserved for judgment on August 17. The alleged attempt to obtain access to the case record from the Judge’s chamber therefore occurred while the matter was awaiting a judicial decision.
Judicial records remain part of the formal court process, and access to records during the period between reservation of judgment and pronouncement is subject to the Court’s established procedures. The Judge’s order specifically connected the alleged conduct with the fact that the matter had already been reserved.
The order does not record any finding that Bose himself directed or participated in the alleged attempt. The observations relate to the conduct allegedly involving one of his counsel and the Judge’s private secretary. Therefore, the recusal should not be construed as a finding against Bose on the merits of his bail plea.
The incident has nevertheless brought questions of professional conduct, judicial propriety and access to court records into focus. The High Court’s decision to release the matter from consideration also ensures that the bail plea can now be examined afresh by another Bench without the original Judge continuing to hear a matter in which she has expressed serious reservations about the circumstances surrounding access to its record.
The development is likely to attract attention within legal circles, particularly because the alleged incident occurred after the conclusion of arguments and reservation of judgment. The next Bench will ultimately decide the pending bail application on its merits and in accordance with law.
For more updates on the Calcutta High Court, Supreme Court and major national legal developments, readers can follow The Legal Observer and its National News section. Further legal updates are also available through The Legal Observer’s YouTube channel.
