A 5-judge Bench of Calcutta High Court is hearing the plea moved by the CBI to transfer the Narada scam case presently pending before a special court to the High Court..Recently, the Court had granted interim bail to the four TMC leaders, Firhad Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee, Madan Mitra and Sovan Chatterjee, who were arrested by the CBI in relation to the case on May 17..Read an account of the last hearing here..Live updates from the hearing today feature here..Judges take an oath to uphold constitutional laws. They are not guided by the reasonable man principle. We have a dispassionate individual adjudicating matters. The oath that judges take is sacrosanct: Luthra.Luthra takes time to shift to another place as Bench found it difficult to hear him..If we were to accept the SG's submissions, then we would be in a piquant situation. The oath becomes a piece of paper: Luthra.Judges have to perform their duty without fear or favour. Luthra takes Court through oath prescribed for judges of West Bengal.Judges are made of much sterner stuff than the reasonable man. Day in and day out, we voice it that we are proud to have an independent judiciary. That can only happen if judges adhere to the oath: Luthra .Luthra cites case of State v Ram Siya (1950) of Allahabad High Court..Sibbia case discussed what is the nature of discretion given to judges to grant anticipatory. Legislature has given this discretion, knowing that judges can apply their mind to use this discretion: Luthra.CBI has chosen to be silent before Special Judge. They could not justify the arrest of the accused: Luthra.What is the idea of this argument? Court asks The trial court has kept with the oath and decided without fear or favour. Therefore, argument of mobocracy is vitiated: Luthra.Solicitor and his colleagues have made some extremely creative arguments. I am a trial court lawyer on deputation. Simple mind, simple arguments: Luthra.They cannot say that the judge was terrorised: Luthra.On argument of CBI that trial court did not give them enough time: Is that a ground for saying that the judge acted unfairly? Luthra .The matter was listed on June 4. Interim bail was granted. They were heard after that. The moment CBI finds that things are not going their way, they seek transfer: Luthra.If you have a grievance against an order, challenge it. CBI has eminent lawyers representing it. For them to seek transfer of a case because an order goes against them is no justification: Luthra .They claimed that the judge was influenced by gherao. Trained, disciplined minds of judges do 40-50 cases a day. Can we really think that judges can be influenced even in there is a mobocracy? Luthra .Court: Judge cannot be seen as infallible. They are human beings and not computers. The conditions around him should not be such that he is not able to keep his oath. That is what they are arguing. .Luthra talks about how judges used to function during insurgency days in Punjab. What were the conviction rates back then? Acting Chief Justice Bindal asks.Assuming there is a ruckus outside, are judges stopped from doing their duty? Luthra .Court asks whether facts point to pressure being exerted on the judge or whether there was a reasonable apprehension that he was exerted by events around him. Luthra says the contrary is true. CBI has sought to overreach at every stage of the case.Luthra refers to letter sent by CBI through email to the Court at 2:35 pm on May 17. Prior to this, there was another email titled 'Mob attack at Nizam Palace'. What was sent to the Court was sent to the Governor and other lawyers before..For a short issue of arrest and bail, we are troubling you in a five-judge sitting: Luthra.I am disturbed that a brazen false affidavit has been filed. They picked up Madan Mitra without serving notice or warrant. And they got the arrest memo done at Nizam Palace. Is that how the CBI deals with arrest? Luthra.I was given to understand that sanction for arresting public officials was to be given contemporaneously or before arrest. But in this case, it happened after: Luthra.CBI claimed that it was not allowed to file chargesheet before Special Court. You had protection of Kolkata Police, where is the question of being affected by mob? Is this the stand of a fair litigant? Luthra .They have made false statements contrary to the record: Luthra taking the Court through CBI affidavit.One affidavit says copy of S 173 statement was filed before bail was decided, another affidavit that they were not able to do so: Luthra.They have described themselves as a responsible agency. I think they have misspelt it; 'ir' is missing before responsible: Luthra.Affidavit is full of adjectives. Mobocracy, pressure, threat and violence are the CBI's four favourite words: Luthra.What is sought to be transferred is trial. It is only an afterthought that they want to transfer the bail, because they realise Antulay case is against them: Luthra.Bench resumes hearing. Luthra continues arguments..Luthra refers to Madan Mitra's affidavit and Section 50, 50A, and 60A of the CrPC.CBI keeps harping that accused were "arrested from their homes". But if you look at the arrest memo, it says arrest took place at CBI office at Nizam Palace: Luthra.This agency then claims to take the higher moral stand and allege mobocracy, after breaching the law and the Constitution: Luthra.In the matter of affidavits, poetic license does not apply. Either the arrest memo is false or the affidavit is false: Luthra.The CBI breaches the law and then alleges "mobocracy". Investigating agency is not supposed to be a persecuting agency..Luthra brings up the larger question of separation of prosecutors from the agency..He has been my Senior, my leader, and most importantly, my landlord! Luthra refers to Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi who enters the hearing.CBI had completely broken protocol and entered the facility where Mitra was recovering from COVID-19 and picked him up: Luthra.When I was appearing for the Union in the Sarada case, CBI claimed that they did not have manpower. The solution was to take the help of local police. But in this case, the arrest was so erroneous that they couldn't do that: Luthra.Court: Are arguments on validity of arrest relevant to these proceedings? Luthra: I am trying to show that if arrest was not tenable, police custody could not be sought.Their entire case is that they could not get police custody because there was mobocracy. My case is that you could not get police custody because the law does not permit it: Luthra.The argument that things could not happen because a mob appeared at Nizam Palace is wrong. In India, mobs take place on a constant basis: Luthra .To undertake further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, permission of the Court is required. No such plea was made in this case: Luthra .Incident (sting) was of 2014. Initial arrest was in 2017. According to CBI, back then, I wasn't a threat to influencing witnesses etc. But now I am? .I (Mitra) have cooperated for four years. You have earlier said that my custody is not required. Then why do you want arrest now?.Luthra reads CBI report on May 7 saying that they don't want custody of Sovan Chatterjee (one of the arrested TMC leaders). This report was sent to the Governor..If everything was over, the question is whether CBI was justified in arresting you after obtaining sanction: Court.What SG has argued is that post-arrest, there was an impediment that was created which he called mobocracy. He stated that the supervening circumstances were such that fair case couldn't be conducted before Special Judge: Court.At this stage, can the Bench go into the nitty-gritties of bail and arrest? Court asks.One argument is that there was pressure on judge. The second is that they couldn't get police custody. I am trying to show that the entire argument is false, that the agency is not being true or fair to the Court: Luthra.If I may use the expression, they are lying through their teeth. I am trying to prove that their functionality was not affected in this case: Luthra.Arrest was weak, therefore bail order cannot be questioned. Investigation was already complete. Even in terms of the law, their actions are contrary to what they are saying in Court: Luthra .Video recordings show that rear entrance to Nizam Palace was unimpeded by crowd that had gathered: Luthra. SG took objection to production of that footage. .Hearing ends. Matter to be heard next on Tuesday, June 15.