The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant interim protection to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLA Dilip Mondal against the registration of further FIRs and initiation of criminal proceedings, rejecting his claim that multiple cases against him were part of a politically motivated campaign.
A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee dismissed Mondal's appeal against a Single Judge's refusal to grant him interim relief. The Bench held that, with Mondal already in judicial custody and charge-sheets filed in several cases, granting a blanket order at this stage could amount to pre-judging issues pending before the Single Judge.
The court, however, clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations made by either side. The Single Judge hearing Mondal's writ petition remains free to decide all the issues independently.
The judgment was delivered on November 6 in the case of Dilip Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Others, MAT 1919 of 2026, along with CAN 1 of 2026.
Mondal alleges 37 cases registered after Assembly election results
Represented by Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, Mondal alleged that a series of criminal complaints had been lodged against him out of political vendetta following the declaration of the West Bengal Assembly election results on May 4, 2026.
According to his counsel, a police report showed that at least 37 cases had been registered against him after the election results were announced. Although another case had been registered before the results, its charge-sheet was filed only on August 21, 2026, after the election outcome, and Mondal was subsequently implicated in the matter.
His counsel also referred to a video clip submitted before the Single Judge, which allegedly showed one of the State's senior political functionaries threatening on the floor of the Assembly that Mondal would continue to remain in police custody.
Arguing that most of the FIRs contained substantially similar allegations, Mondal claimed that the cases were politically motivated and amounted to harassment. He sought an interim direction restraining State authorities from registering further FIRs, entertaining complaints or initiating criminal proceedings against him without prior permission from the court.
Counsel invokes judgments on police independence
To support the plea, Datta relied on the English decision in Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Supreme Court's judgment in Vineet Narain v. Union of India.
The arguments centred on the principle that investigating agencies should function independently of the Executive and that courts could order investigations to be monitored by them where circumstances warranted such intervention.
The appellant contended that the repeated registration of cases with substantially identical allegations required judicial intervention to protect him from further politically motivated action.
State cites pending cases and rejection of bail
Opposing the appeal, Additional Advocate General Rajeep Mazumdar, appearing for the State, produced an order dated October 15, 2026, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge of the Twelfth Court at Alipore. The order had rejected Mondal's bail application.
The State submitted that charge-sheets had already been filed in several criminal cases and that Mondal was currently in custody. It denied the allegations of political vendetta and argued that there was no pressing urgency requiring interim intervention by the Division Bench.
The Bench also noted that the Single Judge had not dismissed Mondal's writ petition at the initial stage. Instead, the petition had been admitted for hearing, and the police had been directed to furnish a list of cases registered and pending against him.
The Single Judge had also taken note of the fact that charge-sheets had been filed in certain cases and that Mondal had been taken into custody.
Court says blanket protection would be premature
While considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench acknowledged that the mere apprehension of further cases or the filing of charge-sheets did not, by itself, answer the allegations raised in Mondal's writ petition.
However, it said that his existing custody and the progress of investigations in several cases made it premature for the writ court to grant blanket protection at this stage.
"Although we agree with the contention of the appellant that mere apprehension and/or filing of charge-sheets do not mitigate the allegations made in the writ petition, at the same time, this Court is of the opinion that since the appellant is already in custody and charge-sheets have been filed in certain criminal cases, it would be premature at this stage for the Writ Court to interfere and/or to pass any blanket order, thereby pre-judging the contentions in the writ petition itself," the Bench observed.
The court consequently dismissed the appeal on contest, without passing any order as to costs. The connected application, CAN 1 of 2026, was also disposed of.
Single Judge free to decide allegations on merits
The Division Bench made it clear that its decision should not be treated as an examination of the merits of Mondal's allegations or the State's response.
It left all questions arising from the writ petition open for the Single Judge to adjudicate independently, based on the arguments and material placed before the court.
The appeal had been filed after a delay of approximately 24 days. Mondal's counsel explained that an earlier challenge had been taken directly to the Supreme Court, which disposed of the Special Leave Petition on October 30, 2026, granting him liberty to approach the High Court through an intra-court appeal. The present appeal was filed on November 4, following which the Division Bench condoned the delay.
The latest ruling, therefore, denies Mondal the blanket interim protection he sought against further criminal proceedings, but does not foreclose his challenge to the alleged political targeting. That question will remain before the Single Judge for consideration on its merits.