The cash worth Rs 1,02,79,000, which was recovered by the police from a party office of the Trinamool Congress at Sarisha under Diamond Harbour Police district in South 24 Parganas district of West Bengal, was actually planted by the police administration, alleged the party’s general secretary and Lok Sabha member Abhishek Banerjee.

The Diamond Harbour Police had claimed that they got information about the huge cash at the Sarisha party office during the interrogation of Abhishek Banerjee’s aide, Sumit Roy, who is currently in police custody in relation to a multi-crore soil-theft case registered at Kalitala-Ashuti Police Station under the jurisdiction of the same police district.

However, rubbishing the police’s claims, Banerjee issued a social media post late Wednesday night claiming that the cash was planted deliberately at the said party office, which was allegedly vandalised by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-backed goons six months back.

“The deliberate planting of fake and fabricated evidence at a property vandalised six months ago by BJP goons, which subsequently became a scene of crime under police investigation, is a brazen attempt to subvert justice, manipulate the investigation and misuse the machinery of law,” claimed the Diamond Harbour MP in his social media post.

In his social media post, Abhishek Banerjee cautioned that those responsible for this alleged conspiracy of planting the cash at the property will ultimately be held accountable. “Let this be an unequivocal warning to those orchestrating this sinister conspiracy and those acting at their behest: You will be held personally accountable for every act of fabrication, manipulation and abuse of authority,” said Banerjee.

He also warned the police administration not to mistake political patronage, official position or the misuse of police powers for immunity from prosecution.

“The law will catch up with every individual involved, regardless of rank, position or political affiliation. Prepare yourselves to face the full force of the law. There will be no compromise, no retreat and no escape from legal accountability,” Banerjee added.

On Monday, although the Diamond Harbour Police District confirmed that the party office — where the cash was recovered — belonged to the Trinamool Congress, it did not clarify who was actually responsible for running the office.

It is still unclear why this huge amount of cash was kept in the Trinamool Congress party office and where it came from.

The police are trying to gather more information about the source of this money.

However, the police’s initial probe has found that it is related to the case of soil theft registered at Kalitala-Ashuti police station.

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have been summoned by the Delhi Police to appear for questioning on Thursday in connection with the Jantar Mantar protest case.

The CJP members have been asked to appear before the Delhi Police Crime Branch office in Rajouri Garden at noon.

Das and Ranka had been summoned by the Delhi Police earlier in October as well. However, they skipped the summons and later sought more time to appear before the Crime Branch for questioning.

The protest cases against the CJP leaders were transferred to the Crime Branch in October. The cases are in connection with the incident on October 13, when Das, Ranka and Ajinkya Shinde, along with 11 others, trespassed into Jantar Mantar, which has been de-notified as the designated protesting site.

All were detained by the Delhi Police. While Shinde was released on bail bond, Das and Ranka remained in judicial custody for a week.

The CJP members were protesting against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

On October 21, Das and Ranka were released from Tihar Jail following a week in judicial custody, after submitting written undertakings before a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), assuring that they would maintain peace and refrain from calling for protests at Jantar Mantar until the site is de-notified in accordance with law.

SEM Ritu Raj directed the release of the two activists after they furnished personal bonds and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each until the conclusion of the inquiry in connection with the Jantar Mantar trespassing case.

In their written undertakings, both activists promised not to commit any breach of peace and expressed full faith in the judiciary and all its instruments, including the SEM court.

The SEM court observed that the immediate measures required under Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to prevent a breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity could be adequately secured through the execution of bonds, supported by the written undertakings.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a Magistrate begins from the moment of actual detention, when the person’s liberty is curtailed, and not from the time of formal arrest recorded by the police.

The judgment came on appeals filed by four persons challenging a Tripura High Court decision denying them bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the period of 24 hours prescribed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution must be calculated from the date and time when a person is actually detained, and not from the time when the investigating agency formally records the arrest.

Article 22(2) mandates that every person arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court. It further prohibits detention beyond this period without the authority of a Magistrate.

Rejecting the distinction between detention and formal arrest for computing the constitutional deadline, the Justice Bhuyan-led Bench said that treating the period of 24 hours as commencing only after the completion of search and seizure and from the time of arrest formally recorded by the arresting authority was “not only unsustainable in law but is entirely unconstitutional”.

The Supreme Court further clarified that if a person’s detention continues beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate, the person must be released forthwith. It said that while computing the period, no time can be excluded except that which is necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.

The Justice Bhuyan-led Bench also stressed that compliance with the 24-hour constitutional limit alone would not automatically justify detention, as the investigating agency must ensure that the period of custody remains reasonable under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Section 58 of the BNSS provides that a police officer cannot detain a person arrested without a warrant for longer than is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate, such detention cannot exceed 24 hours, excluding the necessary journey time.

The apex court said that a Magistrate, at the time of production of an accused, is duty-bound to record the actual date and time when the person’s liberty was curtailed and independently examine whether the constitutional deadline has been complied with.

It further held that even where the detention is within the 24-hour period, the Magistrate must examine whether the duration of custody was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If the Magistrate finds that the detention has exceeded a reasonable period, he may decline to authorise further remand.

Setting aside the Tripura High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court.