The Narada Case has been spurring controversies ever since the CBI has accused the judgement given by a lower court to have been influenced by mobocracy. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra has concluded while presenting his arguments in court that the accusation has been a mere perception of the CBI itself under the influence of the media and newspapers. The Hon’ble bench comprising of Hon’ble Justices Rajesh Bindal, IP Mukherjee, Arijit Banerjee, Harish Tandon, and Soumen Sen. Citing the verdict given by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the Kumaun Mamdal Vikas Nigam ltd versus. Girja Shankar Pant, the counsel argued that mere assumptions or perceptions from unreliable sources do not constitute a sufficient basis for the conclusion of important arguments. He went on to argue that the proceedings being vitiated and injustice being done are sine qua non which the CBI has failed to prove with substantial evidence.
In the case of Multani verses. The state of Karnataka, the criminal court held that the authorities must make a clear investigation of the facts produced and the allegations made before getting camouflaged by the facade.
In the case of Ashish Chadha versus. Asha Kumari it was held that if the Hon’ble High Courts work based on oral statements given by the parties instead of relying on concrete evidence, it will have a demoralizing effect on the lower courts.
Advocate Luthra went on to argue that the allegations do not fulfill the conditions laid down in chapter 35 of the Cr. P.C, 1973.
the writ petition submitted by the CBI has also been challenged by the counsel saying that they had an alternative other than to file the writ petition. It has been said so because the bail order given by the trial court was a judicial order which could not have been amended under Article 226 of the Indian constitution. Even if there had been a breach of peace, sections 186 or 189 could have been invoked. Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also mentions that such cases are to be handled by special judges only.
The counsel stated that a special judge can recognize without the act being committed. Even in such a case, trial order by a magistrate is needed. Therefore, the plea presented to the Hon’ble court by CBI on the 17th of May was unconstitutional.
Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen raised that question that provided that the accused are people wielding political powers, it is not natural to assume that they had purposely created a situation to get the judgment in their favour.
Noting the principles of granting bail jurisprudence, laid down by the Hon’ble apex court, Advocate Luthra said that the parties had yet been in the custody when the public gathering took place and they had not been in a position to create such a situation at all.
The next date of hearing has been decided to be on Monday. On that date, the court will also hear the intervention application filed by Advocate Bibek Jyoti Basu. Despite the objections raised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, this application will be heard by the Hon’ble court. the progress of the case will be clearer after the conclusions drawn from the upcoming hearings are produced.
