SUPRAKASH BASU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. This application has been made for review/modification of the order dated 6/8/2010. Though notice was given to the public prosecutor, due to Bharat Bandh he could not appear in the matter. Considering the urgency, as insisted upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant, we have taken up this matter and heard the learned Counsel at great length for about 2.30 hours. WE may also like to mention that the bail application was also heard at length with the assistance of the learned Counsel, who has also tendered English translation of the. This application was mentioned out of list on 3/9/2010 when Ms. Sunita Banerjee, learned Advocate appeared in the matter and sought permission to withdraw the application with liberty to file afresh.

(2.) Mr. Adhikary, learned Counsel pointed out to the Court that correction of certain clerical mistakes would tilt the balance in his favour and entitle him for bail. Therefore, we have recalled the order dated 3.9.2010 and proceeded to hear it.

(3.) In the following paragraph of page two the sentence which reads