Not for CJP protest, Aishe Ghosh was picked up in a 2021 case after repeated court no-shows: How the Left twisted the narrative
· OpIndia
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
The non-bailable warrants were issued by the court after Ghosh failed to appear before the court during the last hearing of the case. Advocates KN Jayasankar and Subhash Chandran KR, representing Ghosh, moved an application before JMFC Rathore, stating that she could not appear on the last date of the hearing due to unavoidable circumstances. Subsequently, Ghosh was granted relief by the court.
However, the Communist cabal distorted the facts, as usual, and grabbed the opportunity to cast aspersions on the Delhi police and the Modi government, claiming that the police action was motivated by Ghosh’s involvement in the recent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests. Despite the Delhi Police’s clarification that the investigating officer showed up at the CPI-M office to execute court-issued non-bailable warrants in the 2021 case, the CPI-M alleged that the police targeted Ghosh for supporting the student protests.
The CPI-M posted a video of the incident on X and described the police action as a “brazen intrusion”. The party portrayed a completely valid police action as illegitimate and unlawful and misrepresented it as an attempt by the Modi government to stifle students’ voices.
The police came in a private vehicle, some without uniform and left when questioned.
— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) July 28, 2026
This brazen intrusion into a political party office and the continuing witch hunt against student protesters expose the Modi government's escalating assault on democratic rights. Instead of…
What is the case against Aishe Ghosh?
The case relates to an agitation held by the SFI and the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) members on February 12, 2021, outside Banga Bhawan in Chanakyapuri. The agitation was organised against an alleged police crackdown on student unions and youth protestors in Kolkata for opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens (CAA-NRC).
According to police, the protest was held in a prohibited area in violation of prohibitory orders. The police said that the protesters raised slogans and blocked the road, refusing to disperse despite clear directions. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the police at Barakhamba Road Police Station against Aishe Ghosh and 15 others, under sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 34 (common intention), and 447 (criminal trespass) of the Indian Penal Code, the same day. The case arising from the FIR is being heard at the Patiala House Courts complex. OpIndia accessed court documents related to the case. FIR in the case was not publicly available.
Multiple non-bailable warrants issued by the court against Ghosh
The case has been going on for about six years and has not yet reached the stage of final judgment. Multiple bailable and non-bailable warrants have been issued by the court against Ghosh since the commencement of the trial to secure her presence on the hearing dates. A total of six bailable warrants and four non-bailable warrants have been issued by the court so far.
A court issues bailable warrants after an accused repeatedly fails to appear and respond to court summons. It is issued by the court when an accused fails to appear before the court, but the court does not yet consider detention necessary. A bailable warrant is a less coercive way than a non-bailable warrant of securing the appearance of an accused before the court. It allows the police to arrest the accused but allows the person to be released on bail after fulfilling the conditions specified in the warrant, without having to be produced before the court first.
However, if the accused does not respond to bailable warrants, the court then goes on to issue non-bailable warrants. A non-bailable warrant directs the police to arrest the accused without giving them the discretion to release the accused on bail without being produced before the court. The accused, however, can file an application requesting the court to cancel or withdraw the non-bailable warrant. This is what Aishe Ghosh has been repeatedly doing. She has been ignoring the court’s summonses and bailable and non-bailable warrants. Whenever the court issues non-bailable warrants against Ghosh, she appears before the court and requests cancellation.
The non-bailable warrants that the Delhi police went to execute at the CPI-M office were issued by the court on April 11, 2026, after noting that the warrants issued against her on December 12, 2025, had been returned without being executed. The reason the warrants were returned to the court is that Ghosh was not found at her given address, even though she was informed on a call about the date of the hearing. Subsequently, the court went on to issue the warrants against her through the Deputy Commissioner of police.
A perusal of the court records shows that Ghosh and her counsel have not appeared before the court since August 2024. The court has issued multiple bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants against Ghosh due to her non-cooperation in the trial. She has repeatedly failed to appear on the dates of hearing, causing delays in the trial of the case.
The Leftist modus operandi of delaying trial
What Aishe Ghosh has been doing in her criminal trial is a classic leftist tactic for delaying court proceedings. We have seen this happen in the case of Delhi anti-Hindu riots accused like Umar Khalid, who engineered delays and indulged in forum shopping to secure bail.
Umar Khalid’s applications were rejected by both the District Court and the High Court. After a gap of six months, he approached the Supreme Court requesting bail. His bail hearing was adjourned 14 times, out of which 7 times it was Umar Khalid and his legal team (Kapil Sibal) who had requested the adjournment.
Subsequently, Kapil Sibal withdrew Umar Khalid’s SLP from the Supreme Court, citing a ‘change in circumstances’, saying that he would “try his luck” in the Sessions Court. The Delhi High Court, while rejecting Khalid’s bail plea, saw through his tactics and refused to allow the legal procedure to be exploited and misused.
Khalid had been delaying his own trial while his lawyers kept blaming the slow pace of the proceedings for his prolonged incarceration. One wonders why a person languishing in jail would delay his own trial while claiming innocence before the court. Why would an accused who is sure of his innocence want to delay the judgment in his case, which could acquit him and set him free? This is only possible when the accused has a guilty conscience and is aware that his acts will be laid bare and he will have to face justice once the judgment is delivered.