The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the West Bengal government’s response to Union minister Nisith Pramanik’s plea for anticipatory bail in a 2018 attempt to murder case in Cooch Behar while posting the matter for hearing a day later.

Pramanik moved the top court citing the possibility of his arrest. The Calcutta high court on January 4 refused him any relief and adjourned the matter until January 22.

Pramanik cited his position as a Parliament member and a Union minister and added a judge in March 2023 issued an arrest warrant against him. He said he feared arrest as the next hearing in the high court is on January 22.

A Supreme Court bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal asked Pramanik’s lawyer PS Patwalia: “Why do you apprehend arrest? Why do not you go to the high court where the matter is pending?”

Patwalia said the situation in West Bengal is very volatile and it is a political case since his client shifted from ruling Trinamool Congress to the Bharatiya Janata Party. He added his client has not been named in the charge sheet in the case and that he has also never been called since the complaint was filed.

The case in which 36 people have been named as accused relates to an attack on Cooch Behar resident Fajlu Munshi. It was lodged under the Indian Penal Code’s sections related to attempt to murder (307), causing grievous hurt (326), wrongful restraint (341), and criminal conspiracy (120B), and the Arms Act.

Pramanik in his plea said his liberty is at risk due to the apprehension of arrest. He added the high court’s order has hindered his chance of seeking protection.

Pramanik said the charge sheet submitted in the case in October 2022 did not refer to his role in the alleged crime. “Despite having no material to charge the petitioner for the offences mentioned in the charge sheet, the state investigating agency straight away requested for issuance of an arrest warrant to secure his attendance.”

He questioned the correctness of the arrest warrant, citing Supreme Court orders requiring a trial judge to first issue summons followed by bailable warrants to secure the presence of an accused.

Pramanik said the “unjustified action” of the agency indicated the purpose of getting an arrest warrant was to attack his liberty and to humiliate him.