AGARTALA, Dec 17 (TIWN)): Badal Chowdhury’s Jail custody has been extended for more 3 days and on December 20 he will be produced before Court again. Addressing media, senior advocate Purushottom Roy Baramn said that bail today was however not expected as High Court denied the bail plea but let’s see what can be done on December 17. However, the jail remand of Badal Chowdhury is completed of around 2 months whereas police could not produce any proper chargesheet yet. On December 10, rejecting FIR quashing plea of former CPI-M Tripura Minister Badal Chowdhury, Tripura High Court has dropped two charges against Chowdhury. Addressing media Badal Chowdhury said that no conspiracy will be successful as the case was politically motivated. He mentioned, the ultimate victory will be for truth only and this fake case will never help the Govt.

Report from High Court laid 3 points below : (1)FIR quashing plea of former Tripura Minister Badal Choudhury rejected by Tripura High Court. (2) Two sections 418 & 420 under IPC removed. (3) Now investigation to be continued under Section-409, 120 (B), Section 13 (prevention of corruption). (PAC issue can be used in bail plea).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9suWsWM7A6w&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0t9tWXvpSceljIgfI1Pg2E8LZQQ7_3PssDq6dZOlfJsqIXaOGOLy1BsIo (TIWN YouTube Link, Badal Chowdhury case address to media)

However, now rest job is left to the Police’s investigation. FIR was lodged against Badal Chowdhury on 13th October, 2019 based on cost-plus in construction works of bridges back in 2008-09.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCWzU7WPQqA&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2T_1wEJXuVebnlWgM46-SIcKNNVvudjA-xlIy7ktem0CSP-ivunMEEvSE  (TIWN YouTube Link, Senior advocate Purushottom Roy Barman's address before media after Badal Chowdhury case's hearing)

On December 13, Tripura High Court has directed the Government of Tripura to take necessary measures in shifting Mr. Badal Choudhury to AIIMS, Delhi, for his routine health checkup.

But, the most important highlight about today's judgement was the surfacing of a long overlooked detail infront of the court. These facts were initially misunderstood and remained obscure, the court has mentioned.

The Court had earlier dissented on the "Cost plus" basis, citing the unusual raise up to 47% from the 10% limitation. In actual, the Tenders that were handed over, were not given in the "Cost plus" basis but on the "Schedule of Rates 2008", that is, the revised rate chart followed by PWD and CPWD. Thus, the question on "Cost-plus" doesn't even stand. The argument on this is, thus rendered baseless.

The Court was quite astonished, infact, on how this very important detail went unnoticed by the division bench. The Court had even, insisted on referring the case to the Division Bench for "review" but later, limited itself on suggesting the government to make necessary arrangements for Badal Choudhury's regular check-up.

The judge had even mentioned at one point, if this is the case then the FIR doesn't stand and it should have been emphasized that very day, when the hearing of the petition for quashing the FIR was undergone.