- The Calcutta High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee is hearing the CBI's case against the bail granted to TMC leaders Firhad Hakim, Madan Mitra, Subrata Mukherjee, and Souvan Chatterjee in the Narada Scam case.
- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday that there had been "orchestrated attempts to frustrate the path of justice."
- The four All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leaders arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Narada sting case will remain in custody for the time being, after an inconclusive hearing before the Calcutta High Court.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Calcutta High Court that protests by Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee and Law Minister MoloyGhatak, both at the Trial Court and outside the CBI office, were a "orchestrated effort" to obstruct the path of justice and prevent the CBI from carrying out its functions.
- The CBI contends that the proceedings before the Special CBI Court on May 17 was vitiated due to the Respondents' "unprecedented pressure tactics and hooliganism" in the form of overcrowding, both at the Trial Court and outside its offices.
- The SG claimed that the Trial Court issued bail on the first day and that the CBI was not given an opportunity to respond to the application.
- He went on to say that because of the 'terror' situation generated by the mob, the CBI did not request policy custody of the arrested accused. "The CBI did not believe that seeking police custody was secure," he said.
- In addition, referring to the protest outside the Trial Court led by Law Minister MoloyGhatak, SG said, "The agency was terrorised not to effectively oppose the bail and not to pursue police custody." The department was unable to present the case diary before the Special Court. As a result, the prosecutor was unable to successfully challenge bail.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, argued that the Respondents should be detained to prevent them from manipulating witnesses.
What is your say on this case?