Calcutta High Court Directs CBI To Reinstate Gorkha Leader Bimal Gurung As Accused In 2010 Madan Tamang Murder Case

The Calcutta High Court has recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to reinstate Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leader Bimal Gurung in a 2010 murder case of Madan Tamang. who was a leader of the All India Gorkha League.

Tamang, who was vocally opposed to the violent means and corruption in the GJM, was brutally hacked to death in 2010 when members of the GJM stormed his party's gathering and attacked those present with 'khukris' and sticks. Tamang was brutally stabbed and later died in hospital.

A single-judge bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta set aside an order of the trial court which had discharged Gurung as an accused in the 2010 murder case, in an appeal by Tamang's widow. The bench held:

The allegation of criminal conspiracy alleged to have been committed by the all  accused persons including Bimal Gurung to commit the murder of Madan Tamang. I could not find any justifications how the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court has segregated Bimal Gurung from other accused persons where all the allegations are similar in nature against Bimal Gurung as well as other accused persons Thus complicity against Bimal Gurung has been sufficiently established at this Stage.

Upon occurrence of the incident, an FIR was registered and the investigation of the same was handed over first to the West Bengal CID, and then to the CBI which investigated the matter. A plea was filed by the deceased's wife before the Apex Court for re-investigation by the NIA or any other agency. The Apex Court by its order, transferred the case from Darjeeling to the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Calcutta, but directed the CBI to continue its probe.

In course of trial the Sessions judge proceeded to record the materials placed by the CBI, but discharged Bimal Gurung as an accused by the impugned order, and proceeded to frame charges against the other accused. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved the High Court in the present revisional applications. 

Petitioner submitted that the CBI submitted chargesheets against 48 accused persons including Bimal Gurung and they all filed separate applications for discharge u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that though there are huge materials on record which indicated that there are sufficient grounds for framing charges against the accused persons, the Sessions Judge discharged only Bimal Gurung from the case and directed for framing charges against 47 accused persons.

It was further submitted that the statement of witnesses revealed that Bimal Gurung entered into a conspiracy with other accused and was instrumental in executing the murder of the victim, which gives rise to grave suspicion against him which is sufficient to send him to face the trial. It was argued that the impugned order passed by the Chief Judge, was not a speaking order and it was not passed upon sufficient and cogent reason.

Counsel for the CBI submitted that the roles of all accused persons including the Bimal Gurung are more or less similar as all the accused persons in furtherance to commit a conspiracy with each other committed the brutal murder of Madan Tamang in broad daylight. It was argued that the Chief Judge had committed an error in discharging Bimal Gurung from the case by the impugned order, which ought to be set aside.

Counsel for Bimal Gurung submitted that the case was investigated thrice by different investigating agencies, but they did not find the involvement of Bimal Gurung in this case. It was argued that the CBI conducted a further investigation and submitted a supplementary charge sheet wherein the name of Bimal Gurung transpired. It was argued that the statements of witnesses as recorded by the CBI are a copy of each other and cannot be substantiated to make out the direct involvement of Bimal Gurung in the alleged offence.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court observed that on the basis of the statements of witnesses which implicated Bimal Gurung in a similar fashion as the other 47 accused, there was no scope for the argument that Bimal Gurung's involvement in the conspiracy was any different from the others who had charges framed against them.

Therefore, upon holding the discharging Gurung while framing charges against his co-accused who were accused of similar offences was improper, the court set aside the trial court's order and directed the CBI to reinstate Gurung as an accused in the murder case.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 144

Case: Bharati Tamang v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 

Case No: C.R.R. No. – 3685 of 2017

Click here to read order