Latching on to his position as the Birbhum district chief of the Trinamul Congress seemed to have backfired on Anubrata Mondal on Wednesday after Calcutta High Court rejected his bail application in the cattle smuggling case citing that the accused “continues to wield considerable influence and had misused it to intimidate witnesses and/or subvert the process of investigation”.

A Division Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ajay Kumar Gupta brushed aside Mondal’s counsel Kapil Sibal’s argument that the petitioner was “singled out and arrested out of political vindictiveness” and stated in their order that “further investigation with regard to the illegitimate wealth amassed by the petitioner through wrongful gain is continuing. To release the petitioner on bail at this stage would adversely affect the morale and confidence of witnesses and seriously impact the collection of evidence during further investigation”.

Mondal has already remained in custody for 146 days. In the wake of the high court order, he will continue to do so as of now.

The CBI argued in court that Mondal continues to intimidate witnesses through his men and agents, even directly threatening them over phone from jail. A key witness in the case, Manoj Sana, has already gone missing, the agency maintained.

Sibal’s retort that none of those allegations could be traced back to his client seemed to have little impact on the Bench.

“Paramount influence of the petitioner as a political heavy weight and materials collected showing misuse of such power to influence witnesses and derail the investigation places him in a unique position in comparison to others who are on bail. Enlargement of the petitioner on bail would have an ominous impact not only on the witnesses but on the smooth administration of criminal justice in the case,” the court order stated.

With regard to the Bengal Police taking Mondal in custody, right in the aftermath of Enforcement Directorate securing a production warrant of the accused in Delhi, in connection with the Dubrajpur assault case which took place a year and a half ago, the court found the action “an overzealous and unjustified exercise for reasons not far to seek”.