The Supreme Court of India has granted temporary protection from arrest to Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Nisith Pramanik, in connection with an attempt to murder case dating back to 2018. The bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, clarified that this protection will remain in effect until the Calcutta High Court circuit bench hears the case.

During the court proceedings, senior advocate PS Patwalia, representing Pramanik, emphasized that they were seeking interim protection until the circuit bench at Jalpaiguri reviews the case on January 22. The West Bengal government, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, assured the court that Pramanik would not be arrested in this particular case. However, Sankaranarayan noted that Pramanik is an accused in 13 other cases.

The bench, after hearing arguments from both sides, stated, "No coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner until the matter is heard by the high court." The court further requested an expedited hearing and resolution of the case on the same day it is listed before the circuit bench.

Nisith Pramanik, who currently serves as the Member of Parliament representing the Dinhata constituency in Cooch Behar, holds the portfolios of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs and Minister of State for Youth Affairs and Sports in the Government of India.

The case in question involves allegations of attempted murder, causing grievous hurt, wrongful restraint, and violations of the Arms Act, among others. The complaint, filed in August 2018 at the Dinhata Police Station, named Pramanik as one of 37 accused individuals. In his plea before the Supreme Court, Pramanik asserted that despite no evidence connecting him to the alleged crime, he had been wrongly charge-sheeted.

Pramanik claimed that he faced an imminent risk of arrest due to an issued warrant and had approached the High Court for relief. However, the High Court adjourned the case. His plea argued that the investigating agency had haphazardly implicated him without presenting any evidence to substantiate his involvement in the alleged crime.