A packed courtroom witnessed high drama on Thursday, as proceedings in the Susmita Dhar disappearance case unfolded.

Accused Suparna Sengupta (Banerjee) clung to her lawyer and the others accused, Rajib Choudhury and Debanjan Das, tried to shield themselves from the public eye. Lawyers of both sides exchanged heated words.

Additional chief judicial magistrate Sagarmoy Ghosh, after hearing both sides, said he would pronounce the order on the bail petition at noon on Friday.

For the third day on the trot, defence lawyers Ashok Mukherjee and Tamal Mukherjee argued that the accused could not be denied bail.

“Why does the investigating agency need to have the accused in custody if they are ready to cooperate?” they asked.

Taking note of the arrests made by the Criminal Investigating Department (CID) in spite of the high court order in 1995 in favour of an anticipatory bail for the three accused, the defence team urged the court to restrain the CID from “high-handedness and arrogance”.

The defence also challenged the findings of the CID, which had forced a reopening of the case. “What has it unearthed to prove the accused guilty? Has the blood-stained nightwear found in the guesthouse (where the Jadavpur University students had checked in for their Chandipur outing) been sent for forensic examination? How can we be sure it belongs to the missing girl?” the lawyers demanded.

The nightwear could not be sent for forensic examination because the hotel manager had disposed of it after the private detectives, engaged by Suparna’s father, had handed it over to him.

The photograph of the nightwear is all that the CID has — that too, after Susmita’s sister Arpita recognised it from a photograph.

“What the investigating agency is trying to get at is very simple and a common practice all over the country — take the accused in custody, assault them and force them into confessing to a crime they know nothing about,” the defence team said. “Immediately after the arrests early this month, accused Debanjan was severely beaten up by officers probing the case,” it added.

The prosecution wanted the bail petition quashed. “Under the Evidence Act, it is expected that the accused have ‘special knowledge’ about the disappearance of Susmita. It is unfortunate that they have remained silent. For the sake of investigations, we want them in police custody,” it added.

The court adjourned. Suparna broke down, fearing the order would go against her and she would be arrested on Friday.