In an unprecedented order, Calcutta High Court on Thursday released from jail Trisha Roy, one of the convicts of the Bunty murder case, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in February 2003. Generally, the court does not grant bail to a life-term prisoner.
The division bench of Justice A. Talukdar and Justice P.K. Deb, while granting her bail petition, observed that the trial court had convicted Trisha on the basis of “circumstantial evidence only and not by direct evidence”.
Shop-owner Sanjiv Jhulka, alias Bunty, who had had an affair with Trisha, was allegedly murdered by Gabbar, alias Rashid Alam, and two of his accomplices in May 2001.
Gabbar, a history-sheeter, was hired by Ranvijay Rathore, one-time friend of Bunty’s, who later developed a relationship with Trisha. Rathore has been charged with eliminating Bunty.
The murder had sent shock waves through the city because of the nature of the crime. Police recovered Bunty’s body from the EM Bypass. Later, it was revealed that Gabbar had shot him dead in a car owned by Rathore and had tossed the body out of it.
The vehicle was found in a spot in the Taltala police station area. Both Trisha and Gabbar were convicted by Alipore Fast Track Court judge S.C. Chatterjee and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Rathore, too, was arrested, but managed to escape from a police van while returning from court. He is absconding. All the accused, except Trisha, a college student, were arrested later. Trisha surrendered before then superintendent of South 24-Parganas police.
Moving Trisha’s bail petition, her counsel Mujibur Rahaman told the court: “On the day of the incident, Trisha had invited many friends to a Chinese restaurant in Tangra. This proves that she had no intention of murdering Bunty. A criminal never wants witnesses to her crime.”
The lawyer said the main accused, Ranvijay, was still absconding. Instead of tracking him down, the investigating authorities put the onus of the crime on his client.
Rahaman has moved an appeal in the high court challenging the validity of the trial court order.
