BENGAL’S DEADLY POLICE ENCOUNTERS SPARK A FIERCE DEBATE OVER JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW

October 28, 2026

KOLKATA, OCTOBER 28, 2026 — Two men accused of serious crimes have been killed in separate police shootings in West Bengal within less than 24 hours, intensifying a political and legal debate over the use of lethal force by law-enforcement agencies and the fundamental distinction between police action and judicial justice.

The first incident occurred in Gaighata in North 24-Parganas, where Prahlad Das, accused of the rape and murder of a teenage girl, was shot dead during a police operation connected with the reconstruction of the crime. The second took place in Samserganj in Murshidabad, where Samaun Sheikh, accused of murdering a BJP worker, was killed after a similar operation. In both cases, the police maintained that the accused had seized an officer’s service firearm and opened fire, forcing the personnel to retaliate in self-defence.

The circumstances of the Gaighata case began unfolding after a Class XI student went missing following a musical programme near her home on October 24. Her body was discovered the following morning near a relative’s house. Preliminary police findings raised suspicions of rape and murder, and Das was arrested after the victim’s family lodged a complaint.

According to the police account, Das was subsequently taken to the crime scene for reconstruction of the incident. While the team was returning late on October 26, he allegedly asked to get down from the vehicle and then snatched a sub-inspector’s revolver, firing three rounds. Police said an officer sustained a minor injury and that other personnel responded by firing four rounds at Das. He was taken to a nearby health centre, where a doctor declared him dead.

The victim’s family expressed a sense of relief following the accused’s death, while acknowledging that no outcome could restore their daughter. Their grief has become part of a wider public discussion about the demand for swift and meaningful justice in cases involving violence against women and children.

West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari defended the police, arguing that officers should be permitted to act decisively when confronting serious threats. He said the police had been given a free hand in combating drug addiction and protecting women, and pledged to stand behind officers carrying out their duties. His remarks reinforced the government’s hardline position on violent crime, although the precise circumstances of the shootings remain matters requiring scrutiny.

The controversy deepened when another fatal shooting was reported in Murshidabad. Samaun Sheikh, accused of murdering BJP worker Sujit Mondal, was taken to a building in Samserganj for the reconstruction of the crime. Police sources alleged that Sheikh seized a firearm belonging to a senior CID officer, fired at him and attempted to escape. Another officer then opened fire. Sheikh sustained bullet injuries and was declared dead at a local hospital.

The striking similarity between the two incidents has raised questions about police procedures, firearm security and the circumstances under which suspects in custody are taken to crime scenes. Both shootings occurred during operations associated with crime reconstruction, and in both cases the police cited an alleged attempt by the accused to seize a service weapon and fire at officers.

Human-rights activist Sujato Bhadra questioned the police account of the Gaighata shooting and called for an independent investigation. He argued that law-enforcement agencies cannot assume the roles of investigator, judge and executioner, insisting that allegations of serious crimes must ordinarily be tested through the judicial process. He also called for the involvement of the Calcutta High Court and accountability for the officers concerned if wrongdoing were established.

The opposition response has likewise focused on the constitutional implications of the encounters. Leaders from the Trinamool Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Congress questioned the recurrence of shootings in which suspects allegedly snatch police weapons during crime-scene reconstruction. Their criticism centred on whether the incidents represented legitimate acts of self-defence or raised the possibility of extrajudicial killings. The BJP, meanwhile, defended the government’s approach, arguing that decisive police action was necessary to restore public confidence and deter violent offenders.

The incidents have also revived memories of a similar shooting in Baruipur in July, when a man accused of the rape and murder of a minor girl was killed after allegedly snatching a police officer’s firearm during crime reconstruction. The repetition of a comparable account across several cases has intensified demands for transparent investigations and a detailed examination of police protocols.

The central question extends beyond the guilt or innocence of the men who were killed. The allegations against them concern grave crimes that demand thorough investigation and, where proved, punishment under law. But a suspect’s death in police custody cannot by itself establish guilt through a judicial verdict, nor can public anger replace the safeguards of criminal procedure.

Police officers have a duty to protect themselves and others from immediate threats, and the law recognises the use of necessary force in appropriate circumstances. Equally, the state has a responsibility to establish what happened when a person in its custody is killed by its personnel. Independent scrutiny, forensic evidence, post-mortem findings and a credible reconstruction of events are essential to determine whether the force used was justified.

West Bengal now faces a difficult test: demonstrating that the authorities can respond firmly to heinous crimes without weakening the institutions designed to deliver justice. Public confidence depends not only on the state’s determination to protect victims, but also on its willingness to ensure that police conduct remains accountable to the law.

The demand for justice must therefore encompass both the victims of violent crime and the integrity of the legal system itself. A government committed to the rule of law must establish not merely that it can act decisively, but that every consequential use of state power can withstand independent examination.