BAIL IS NOT EXONERATION: BENGAL BJP CHIEF WARNS AGAINST EQUATING COURT RELIEF WITH INNOCENCE IN RG KAR CASE
October 17, 2026
KOLKATA, OCTOBER 17, 2026 — The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to former RG Kar Medical College and Hospital principal Sandip Ghosh has triggered a fresh political reaction in West Bengal, with state BJP president Samik Bhattacharya asserting that judicial relief does not establish innocence or settle questions surrounding the allegations against him.
Bhattacharya, speaking on Saturday, acknowledged that those associated with the ‘Abhaya’ movement, which emerged following the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9, 2024, might feel disheartened by the development. However, he stressed that the legal system could not operate according to public emotion and that bail remained a legal right.
The BJP leader argued that the grant of bail should not be interpreted as proof that Ghosh was innocent or had no connection with the alleged wrongdoing. He also suggested that legal and technical considerations could have influenced the court’s decision, emphasising the distinction between being granted release during proceedings and receiving a final determination on the allegations.
The Supreme Court granted Ghosh bail on Thursday in a case involving alleged financial irregularities at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital and the alleged manipulation of merit scores to favour undeserving candidates. The court cited the nearly two years he had spent in custody and the slow progress of the trial while granting relief.
Ghosh had earlier approached the apex court after a special Central Bureau of Investigation court rejected his bail pleas and the Calcutta High Court dismissed his petition. His continued detention in the financial irregularities case had therefore remained a separate legal issue even after he received bail in the rape-and-murder case.
In December 2024, a Sealdah court had granted him bail in the rape-and-murder case after the CBI failed to file a chargesheet within the mandatory 90-day period. However, he remained in custody in connection with the alleged financial irregularities, preventing his release at that time.
The West Bengal government sanctioned his prosecution in the corruption case on May 18, 2026. The latest Supreme Court order concerns the financial irregularities case and comes against the background of prolonged proceedings and questions over the pace of the trial.
Bhattacharya’s remarks sought to separate the legal meaning of bail from the public debate surrounding the RG Kar tragedy. He maintained that the court’s decision did not, by itself, establish Ghosh’s innocence. At the same time, his comments acknowledged that bail is a legal entitlement and that judicial decisions must be understood through legal principles rather than emotional responses.
The case remains politically sensitive because of its association with the 2024 rape and murder of the trainee doctor, which provoked widespread protests and demands for accountability. The ‘Abhaya’ movement became a focal point for public anger and calls for justice, with the handling of the case and the conduct of institutions facing intense scrutiny.
Ghosh’s bail in the financial irregularities case has consequently reopened debate over the relationship between judicial procedure and public expectations. For those who have followed the protests, the release may raise concerns about whether accountability will ultimately be secured. Legally, however, bail is not a final verdict on guilt or innocence, and the allegations must be assessed through the judicial process.
Bhattacharya’s central message was that the Supreme Court’s decision should not be mistaken for a declaration that Ghosh was innocent. The distinction is significant: bail addresses whether an accused person may remain out of custody while proceedings continue, whereas a determination of guilt depends on the evidence and the outcome of the legal process.
As the case proceeds, the focus will remain on the allegations, the evidence presented before the court and the progress of the trial. The Supreme Court’s decision has granted Ghosh relief from custody in the financial irregularities case, but it does not, by itself, resolve the underlying allegations or determine the final outcome of the proceedings.
