Kolkata, July 15 -- Trinamool Congress national general secretary and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee on Wednesday appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's (ACJM) Court in Bidhannagar to provide his voice sample in connection with an investigation into his alleged inflammatory remarks during election campaigns held between April 27 and May 3, 2026.
The appearance came in compliance with a Calcutta High Court direction asking Banerjee to cooperate with the investigation. He reached the court around 11:50 am amid heavy security and spent nearly one-and-a-half hours completing the legal formalities.
The voice sample was recorded before the ACJM in the presence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) expert and will be matched with recordings of his campaign speeches.
Banerjee had earlier been granted interim protection from coercive action after assuring the court of his cooperation. However, he skipped two earlier dates for providing the sample, following which the Special Public Prosecutor sought summons under Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Security was tightened around the court premises, with Bidhannagar Police and Rapid Action Force personnel restricting access to the entry gate used by the TMC leader.
The present case stems from a complaint lodged by social activist Rajib Sarkar at Baguiati police station. The FIR invokes Sections 192, 196, 351(2) and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 123(2) and 125 of the Representation of the People Act. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Calcutta High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to submit a comprehensive report on all criminal cases pending against Banerjee.
The matter, heard by the single bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, will be taken up again on July 22.
Banerjee's counsel submitted that he was aware of around eight FIRs against him but did not know the total number of pending cases, alleging that the cases were politically motivated and filed after the 2026 Assembly elections.
The state opposed the claim, contending that the FIRs were registered on the basis of specific complaints.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.