If Accused Have Not Been Arrested For 7 Years, Why Suddenly Arrest Them After Chargesheet? Calcutta HC Asks In Narada Case

While adjourning the hearing in the Narada case to May 26, a 5-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court observed on Monday that one of the issues in the case is the necessity of the arrest of the four Trinamool Congress leaders - two of them cabinet ministers, and one an MLA - in the case."One issue, is if the accused have not been arrested during investigation for over 7 years, what is the occasion for arrest suddenly after filing chargesheet?", Justice IP Mukerji, the second senior judge of the 5-judge bench, asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation."If the power of arrest has not been exercised for over 7 years, why should they be arrested suddenly now? This is one of the issues", Justice Mukerji added.In response, the Solicitor General said that the issue would have been relevant, had the High Court been considering the mere issue of bail. The larger issue before the Court, the Solicitor General added, was whether the bail hearing before the Special CBI Judge on May 17 was vitiated and non-est in law on account of the external pressure created by the mass protests led by the Chief Minister and the Law Minister.The judge also asked the Solicitor General the status of trial. The SG informed that chargesheet in the case was filed on May 17 as against the four arrested accused - Firhad Hakim, Madan Mitra, Subrata Mukherjee and Sovan Chatterjee - and charges are yet to be framed.The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee was having discussions on the issues to be formulated in the case for hearing.Justice Mukherjee : If the power of arrest has not been exercised for over 7 years, why should they be arrested suddenly now? This is one of the issues.SG says the Court is not considering the mere issue of bail.#NaradaScam #CalcuttaHighCourt— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 24, 2021 Can bail granted be stayed under Section 407 CrPC?The bench also asked the Solicitor General if the High Court can stay the bail granted by the trial court while acting on a petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the power of the High Court to transfer trial of a case from one court to another. Justice Soumen Sen, another member of the bench, said that another issue is whether the bail already granted can be stayed while exercising powers under Section 407 CrPC.In this connection, the bench pointed out that the division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee, which had stayed the bail order on May 17, was acting on an e-mail petition sent to the Acting Chief Justice by Additional Solicitor General YJ Dastoor about the dharna held by the Chief Minister in front of the CBI office.In response to a query by the bench, ASG Dastoor read out the prayers in the e-mail petition regarding directions to enable the CBI to discharge its official functions amidst the Chief Minister's protests and mass demonstrations. Terming the CBI's application "skeletal", Justice Mukerji observed : "One of the issue is whether the HC can stay the bail order without notice when there is no application seeking cancellation, and by filing an application under Section 407 CrPC".One of the judges of the bench says that the CBI's application was "skeletal"."One of the issue is whether the HC can stay the bail order without notice when there is no application seeking cancellation, and by filing an application under Section 407 CrPC", the judge says.— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 24, 2021 The Solicitor General then pointed out to the bench that the CBI had filed a detailed application later, invoking not only Section 407 of the CrPC but also Section 482 and Article 226 of the Constitution. Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal said that the bail order was passed by the trial court while the division bench was hearing the CBI's letter petition.The Solicitor General said that the during the hearing of the division bench, there was a news flash that bail order was granted, and on knowing that, a request was made by CBI to stay the bail order, and the bail order was accordingly stayed.Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu 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."The trial court heard the matter virtually. The learned Special Judge does not give any hint of either access to justice being disturbed or hearing being obstructed. The test of martial law is courts cannot function. The Special Judge gives no such indication", Dr. Singhvi said. He submitted that these facts were suppressed from the division bench."Mr.Singhvi, you mean to say that the division bench did not have the benefit of seeing the (bail)order?", one of...

If Accused Have Not Been Arrested For 7 Years, Why Suddenly Arrest Them After Chargesheet? Calcutta HC Asks In Narada Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags