KOLKATA, May 28: Amidst an ugly controversy with one of the senior judges questioning the constitution of a full bench, a five-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday accepted the special CBI court’s order and granted interim bail to four Trinamool Congress leaders including two ministers in West Bengal’s Mamata Banerjee cabinet in the now-famous Narada alleged corruption case.
The four have been under house arrest in the Narada sting operation case after the high court had stayed a bail given by the Special CBI court which the Supreme Court had refused to vacate.
The five-judge bench said the interim bail with conditions granted to Firhad Hakim, Subrata Mukherji, Madan Mitra and Shovan Chatterjee was only valid till the bench gives a final order in this case. The bench granted interim bail upon furnishing two bonds of Rs 2 lakh each.
The CBI can further interrogate the accused but without physically summoning them to the CBI office because of the prevailing pandemic situation, the court said, adding that the investigations can proceed via video conferencing. Also, the leaders cannot give interviews to the press on this case or any other legal matters pending on them.
When the hearing commenced on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed grant of interim bail saying the four were influential people and could whip up public emotions again. Justice Mukherji asked the Solicitor General why the TMC leaders, who have not been arrested during the investigation for over four years, should be kept in house-arrest now, when they are required to do public functions during the pandemic.
The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justices IP Mukherji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee had Thursday decided that it will hear the recall (of order) application appealed by the four arrested leader’s lawyer on Friday at 12 noon.
The five-judge bench was constituted after a two-judge bench remained equally divided in opinion on the bail issue, one favouring granting bail and the other supporting house arrest.
The CBI challenged the High Court order and filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. But the apex court ordered the CBI to withdraw the petition and said the hearing will be continued in Calcutta High Court.
The four leaders were arrested by CBI on May 17 morning and on that afternoon bail granted by special CBI court 1. However, soon after the CBI approached the high court which stayed it and ordered house arrest of the four leaders.
But in an unprecedented move, a senior judge of the Calcutta High Court has written a letter to all judges of the high court, including the acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, raising questions over the acting chief justice’s intervention in the case in transferring the case to the HC and staying the bail granted to four TMC leaders by a CBI court.
“The high court must get its act together. Our conduct is unbecoming of the majesty the High Court commands. We have been reduced to a mockery. As such, I am requesting all of us to salvage the situation by taking such steps, including convening a Full Court, if necessary, for the purpose of re-affirming sanctity of our Rules and our unwritten code of conduct,” the judge wrote in the letter.
The letter dated May 24, a day after the CBI moved the Supreme Court against the High Court’s house arrest order, raised a series of questions on the procedural gaps in admitting the CBI’s plea and assigning it to a bench headed by the acting chief justice.
“Whether the high court exercising power in the matter of transfer of a criminal case, at that stage, on its own initiative, could have passed the order for stay, is the second question,” the letter questioned.
On May 21, the order for house arrest was made even as Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee differed in their opinion regarding the matter and a larger five-judge bench would be constituted to hear the plea. While justice Banerjee was in favour of granting bail, acting CJ Bindal favoured house arrest.
In his letter, the senior judge questioned why a five-judge bench was constituted when normally a third judge is added in case of a split verdict in a division bench.
“Chapter VII provides for a reference to a Full Bench. Such references arise when view taken by a Division Bench is inconsistent with view taken by another Division Bench,” the letter said.
Seeking stay of the special CBI court’s order for bail of the four TMC leaders, the CBI made a plea in the High Court that the CBI court had granted bail to the four leaders “under the cloud of mobocracy, pressure, threat and violence and is a nullity in the eyes of law.” The high court then heard the matter after court hours and stayed the bail granted by the special court.
“The appellate side rules require a motion seeking transfer, either on the civil or criminal side, too be headed by a single judge. However, the First Division Bench took up the matter, treating it to be a writ petition,” the judge wrote.
Referring to the CBI’s communication that TMC made attempts to the trial court, “the mob factor may be a ground on merits for adjudication of the motion but could the First Division Bench have taken it up and continue to hear it as a writ petition is the first question,” the letter stated.
(Manas Dasgupta)