Calcutta High Court Upholds Detention in Double Murder Case, Cites Witness Elimination
The Calcutta High Court recently made a significant ruling by refusing bail to Biplab Chhetri, also known as Biplab Chettri, who has been in custody since 2013. This decision underscores the court's firm stance on cases involving grave offenses and the protection of judicial integrity.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a dispute in the cable television business in Raiganj, located in Uttar Dinajpur district. According to prosecution details, on January 4, 2013, Sanjib Bardhan, a co-owner of Raiganj Cable TV (RCTV), was fatally shot while returning home. An FIR was promptly registered at Raiganj Police Station the following day. Bardhan was not only a businessman but also a key witness in an earlier murder case from 2009, involving the killing of Biswajoy Ghosh, a photojournalist linked to the same cable network. Biplab Chhetri is accused in both murders, with allegations that the 2013 killing was intended to eliminate a witness from the 2009 case.
Court's Reasoning for Denying Bail
In its order dated January 22, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh of the Calcutta High Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a fair and just procedure, cannot be applied without a comprehensive assessment of all case circumstances. The court highlighted several critical factors:
- Gravity of Offenses: The accused is involved in two murder cases, with the second allegedly committed to silence a witness from the first. The court noted that the heinous nature of these crimes naturally weighs against granting bail.
- Stage of Trial: The examination of prosecution witnesses and the accused has concluded, and prosecution arguments are over. The case is centered around the accused, making parity arguments with co-accused who received bail irrelevant.
- Delay in Trial: While the defense argued that nearly 12 years and 10 months of incarceration violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, the court found no evidence that the prosecution or judicial system contributed to delays. It questioned whether prolonging arguments could justify bail claims.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner's senior counsel relied on Supreme Court judgments, such as Hussainara Khatoon and Satender Kumar Antil, to argue that prolonged detention without attributable delays entitled Chhetri to bail. They also pointed out that some co-accused had been granted bail on similar grounds.
In opposition, the state and complainant argued that the case involved exceptional circumstances, including witness threats and misuse of previous bail liberty. They contended that the accused posed a serious risk to the trial process and was a habitual offender.
Conclusion and Implications
The Calcutta High Court concluded that Chhetri's case differed significantly from those of co-accused, justifying continued detention. The court dismissed the bail plea and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously. This ruling reinforces the principle that in cases of severe crimes, especially those involving witness elimination, the courts must prioritize justice and public safety over bail considerations.
