If accused haven't been arrested for 7 years, why arrest them after charge-sheet, asks Calcutta HC

MP | 24 MAY 21 | KOLKATA: The CBI on Monday suffered a major setback in both the Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court in connection with the Narada tape case. The Apex Court did not enlist the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the CBI on Sunday midnight challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court — comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee — allowing house arrest of the state Panchayats and Rural Development minister Subrata Mukherjee and state Transport minister Firhad Hakim, Kamarhati's TMC MLA Madan Mitra and former Kolkata Mayor Sovan Chatterjee. 

The Supreme Court did not enlist the SLP considering the fact that the plea was filed with several mistakes. The probe agency, in its appeal filed before the Apex Court, had sought deferment of the larger bench hearing (on May 24) before the five-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court. 

But the larger bench of the Calcutta High Court took up the hearing on Monday, refusing a prayer by the CBI to adjourn the matter as it had filed the SLP before the Apex Court. However, all four have to continue to be in house arrest with the five-judge Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Harish Tandon, Justice I P Mukerji, Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Soumen Sen adjourned the hearing in connection with their bail plea till May 26. 

The matter was heard for around two hours on Monday. 

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta — appearing for the CBI — pleaded for deferring the hearing as the CBI had approached the Supreme Court against the May 21 order allowing the house arrest of the heavyweight leaders. The CBI is trying to get the matter listed in the Apex Court on Tuesday. 

Defense counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that "it is sad and unfortunate that an investigating agency, which calls itself premier, has sought an adjournment when the question of personal liberty is involved. This is unbecoming of the CBI to make the request knowing what transpired in Court and knowing the urgency". 

The five-judge bench asked how its hearing of the matter on Monday would affect the SLP filed by the CBI as it was not listed yet. The Bench also stated that it had three options — to continue house arrest, to grant interim bail or to finally dispose of the matter. The Bench asked the Solicitor General that whatever orders passed by it can be the subject matter of SLP in the Supreme Court. "So what is the prejudice caused by the bench hearing the matter today?" it asked. 

"If the accused have not been arrested during investigation for over 7 years, what is the occasion for arrest suddenly after filing charge-sheet," Justice IP Mukerji asked the Solicitor General of India. In response, the latter said: "The issue would have been relevant had the High Court been considering the mere issue of bail. 

The charge-sheet in the case was filed on May 17 as against the four arrested accused." The Bench also added that there was the threat of a cyclone hitting Bengal and the Court may not be able to hear the matter in the coming days. 

Singhvi, appearing for three of the arrested TMC leaders, contended that the CBI suppressed from the division bench that the hearing before the Special CBI judge was virtual and that the trial judge did not given any indication in the bail order that the hearing was obstructed by protests. 

It needs a special mention that the matter was referred to the larger Bench following a division of opinion between Justice Bindal and Justice Banerjee on the grant of interim bail. http://www.millenniumpost.in/kolkata/if-accused-havent-been-arrested-for-7-years-why-arrest-them-after-charge-sheet-asks-calcutta-hc-441213