12 years in jail not enough for bail: Why Calcutta High Court refused to release man accused of two murders

The accused allegedly killed a man in 2009 and was granted bail in the case. Following this, he killed a key witness in 2009 case in 2013.

The Calcutta High Court said that the issue relating to parity that two other accused persons have been granted bail do not ensure any advantage to the petitioner. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• Petitioner is involved in two murder cases and the present offence has been allegedly committed to eliminate a witness of the first case.
• Naturally the gravity and heinousness of the offence weighs against the accused.
• The stage of the case reflects that the examination of the prosecution witnesses are over.
• The examination of the accused is over, the arguments of the prosecution are also over.
• The prosecution case is centred around the accused as such the issue relating to parity that two other accused persons have been granted bail do not ensure any advantage to the petitioner.
• The time period consumed for continuing with the arguments on behalf of the accused itself raises a question whether by way of stretching the time during arguments petitioner can claim benefit of right to speedy trial.
• At this stage there is nothing on record to suggest that whether the prosecution or judicial system contributed to the delay.

Background

• The case arises from a long-standing dispute linked to the cable television business in Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur district.
• According to the prosecution, on January 4, 2013, Bardhan, one of the owners of Raiganj Cable TV (RCTV), was intercepted while returning home.
• Armed assailants allegedly led by the petitioner blocked his vehicle and opened fire, causing fatal injuries.
• An FIR was registered the next day as Raiganj Police station.
• Bardhan was also a crucial witness in an earlier murder case relating to the killing of Biswajoy Ghosh alias Dhapu, a photojournalist associated with the same cable network.
• That offence was registered in 2009 in Raiganj police station in which the present petitioner is also an accused.

Petitioner’s arguments

• Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused had been incarcerated for nearly 12 years and 10 months, violating his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Relying on multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Hussainara Khatoon and Satender Kumar Antil, the defence contended that prolonged detention, coupled with delays not attributable to the accused, entitled him to bail.
• It was also pointed out that some co-accused had been granted bail on similar grounds.

Opposition by state and complainant

• Opposing the plea, the state and the de facto complainant argued that the case involved exceptional circumstances.
• Senior counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner was accused of murdering a prosecution witness to derail an earlier trial.
• He had misused liberty when previously released on bail.
• He had allegedly threatened witnesses, including incidents recorded by the trial court.
• It was further argued that the accused was a habitual offender and posed a serious threat to the integrity of the trial process.

Decision

• Concluding that the petitioner’s case stood on a different footing from those of the co-accused who had been granted bail, the high court held that continued detention was justified.
• “I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail,” the court said, dismissing the plea and directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously.