Kolkata:

The absence of the CBI’s investigating officer in the rape and murder of the trainee doctor in Kolkata and a 40-minute delay in the arrival of the agency’s lawyer prompted an angry court in the city to wonder if it should grant bail to the main accused. The court also pulled up the agency and said this reflected a “lethargic attitude” on its part.

The developments in court also prompted an attack on the CBI and the BJP from the Trinamool Congress, which has been under fire over its handling of the horrific crime, with the party alleging that attempts are being made to “sabotage justice”. The investigation had been transferred to the agency from the Kolkata Police on the directions of the Calcutta High Court.

Hearing the bail petition of Sanjay Roy – a civic volunteer who has been arrested for raping and killing the trainee doctor at the RG Kar Medical College and Hospital – on Friday afternoon, a magistrate at the Sealdah court noted that the CBI’s investigating officer was not present for the hearing. 

As Roy’s lawyer made arguments for bail, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Pamela Gupta was informed that the public prosecutor would be arriving late. While the wait for the lawyer continued, the magistrate remarked, “Should I grant bail to Sanjay Roy? This reflects a severely lethargic attitude on the part of the CBI. It is very unfortunate.”

The lawyer eventually reached about 40 minutes late, prompting the defence attorney to also raise the issue of the delay. The arguments then continued and, after hearing both sides, the magistrate sent Roy to judicial custody for 14 days. 

Reacting to what had happened in the court, the Trinamool Congress said this reflected a “blatant disregard for justice”. 

“The court got angry, waited, and yet no one came. We want to ask what happened. Why is the opposition not reacting to this? It has been over 24 days and over 570 hours since the CBI took over the investigation, what has been the result? The entire country is asking. This shows that the CBI is not taking the case seriously…” Trinamool Congress leader Chandrima Bhattacharya said.

In two different posts on X, the Trinamool Congress also hit out at the BJP and the CPM.

“Today, during the R G Kar case hearing, the Investigating Officer & Public Prosecutor of @CBIHeadquarters went MIA (missing in action). Is this not an outright insult to the victim? A blatant disregard for justice? Where are the demands for accountability? Have @BJP4India & @CPIM_WESTBENGAL lost their voice?” the party’s handle posted. 

“After 24 days of stalling, @CBIHeadquarters  didn’t even bother to send their Investigating Officer or Public Prosecutor for the R G Kar case hearing. This is nothing short of SABOTAGING JUSTICE!” it said in another post, adding that the CBI should stop “dragging its feet” and the BJP should take out a protest march against this. 

The trainee doctor was raped and murdered inside a seminar hall of the RG Kar Medical College and Hospital and her body was found on August 9. Her autopsy report, which put the time of death between 3 and 5 am, revealed that several injuries were inflicted on her before she was smothered to death.

New Delhi:

Granting bail but imposing excessive conditions on an individual is like taking away with the left hand what was given by the right, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday while stating that “excessive bail is no bail”

The bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by a man who had 13 cases filed against him for various offences including cheating.

In his plea, the petitioner has argued that he was granted bail in all 13 cases but was able to fulfil the bail conditions of only two of them and he was not able to furnish separate sureties for the rest of them.

“The situation today is, in spite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right,” the bench said.

The top court also referred to the petitioner’s “genuine difficulty” in getting multiple sureties for each bail. A surety, the bench noted, would usually be a relative or friend but in a criminal proceeding, this circle of people would be narrow depending on the nature of the crime as a person would hesitate to tell relatives and friends about such cases to protect their reputation.

“These are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within the framework of the law,” it said.

However the court said it was faced with the situation where there was a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In its order, the court observed that the petitioner was able to secure a surety for a case filed in Haryana but was unable to do so for another that was registered in Rajasthan

“Keeping the principles discussed hereinabove, we direct that for the FIRs pending in each of the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, in each state, the petitioner will furnish his personal bond for Rs 50,000 and furnish two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs 30,000 each which shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned state,” the bench said, adding that the same set of sureties is permitted to stand as surety in all the states.