HC to hear bail pleas in Madan murder case

Late Madan Tamang

TT, Calcutta, Sept. 28: The high court today resolved that it had jurisdiction to hear the anticipatory bail applications of Bimal Gurung and 22 other Gorkha Janmukti Morcha activists chargesheeted in the Madan Tamang murder case and fixed October 4 as the date to hear the pleas from the accused.

The division bench of Justice Asim Kumar Roy and Justice Malay Marut Banerjee rejected the CBI's contention that the HC couldn't hear the bail pleas as the case was being monitored by the Supreme Court.

The division bench said in the judgement: "Though the Supreme Court is monitoring the murder case, the accused have the liberty to seek anticipatory bail before any of the appropriate courts."

Madan Tamang, the president of the ABGL, had been hacked to death in broad day light in Darjeeling on May 21, 2010. After the murder, his wife Bharati lodged an FIR at the local police station, accusing Morcha president Gurung and others of committing the crime.

At the end of 2010, Bharati moved a writ petition in Calcutta High Court, demanding a CBI probe into her husband's murder and the CID (then probing the case) was asked to hand over the case to the CBI.

In its first investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet, in which Gurung's name was not mentioned. Being aggrieved with the CBI, Bharati approached the Supreme Court, demanding a fresh probe into the murder case.

On May 29, 2014, the CBI filed its second chargesheet before the special CBI court in Calcutta, naming Gurung and 22 Morcha activists.

Soon after the filing of the chargesheet, the CBI court directed Gurung and others to surrender before it. To avoid the arrest, all the accused filed anticipatory bail please before the division bench of Justice Roy and Justice Banerjee.

Appearing for the CBI, additional solicitor general Manindra Singh Gill argued that the division bench had no jurisdiction to hear the anticipatory bail pleas. "Since the Supreme Court is monitoring the investigation, the division bench cannot hear the anticipatory bail pleas moved by the accused persons. They will have to move the bail pleas either before the CBI court in Calcutta or the Supreme Court," Singh had said.

After hearing Singh's' argument, the division bench headed by Justice Roy decided to conduct an elaborate hearing to decide if it had the jurisdiction to hear the bail pleas or not.

During his argument, the CBI counsel had cited various case histories to substantiate his claim. But the lawyer appearing for Gurung strongly opposed the CBI's plea and cited many judgements to prove that to seek bail or anticipatory bail was his/her fundamental right.

After hearing both the sides, the division bench had adjourned the verdict.

Today, in its verdict, the division bench held that Gurung and others did no mistake by seeking anticipatory bails before the division bench.

The division bench will now decide whether Gurung and his associates would be granted anticipatory bail or not. To decide this issue, the division bench has fixed a hearing on October 4.