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..The High Court had recently 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..Live updates from the hearing today feature here.Bench assembles. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra resumes arguments .Solicitor General Tushar Mehta says CBI has filed response to late affidavits including filed by West Bengal though it is opposing the delayed filing. High Court says it won't be taking the late affidavits on record. .Luthra continues. CBI entire case is three fold - We want further custody. We wanted to further argue against bail and we were prevented from putting forth our case. This is their three plank case..I am not going into details of their investigation. I l will start from the point when they filed chargesheet: Luthra .The arrest was mala fide, says Luthra. Luthra refers to Section 167 CrPC on procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours..Luthra refers to West Bengal State amendment to Section 167 CrPC. Luthra says West Bengal is only State which allows production of accused through video audio conference even before the Covid era..Luthra refers to 2(g). 2G is a dangerous word: Bench. Not anymore. The court acquitted all. Now it seems 5G is: Luthra.Luthra says arrest was illegal. Bench asks why? Is it due to lack of sanction or due to failure to comply with Section 41 CrPC? Luthra says it is combination of section 41 and CBI manual..Luthra says CBI manual mandatory as per Ripun Bora case..Police custody after submission of chargesheet is not permissible. Police custody in this case is an afterthought: Sidharth Luthra.If remand is unjustified, I cannot place be placed in no man's land. The moment remand was sought, accused can seek bail and consideration of the same was a legal requirement of the Magistrate: Luthra.As far as allegation regarding mob affecting proceedings before special judge, Luthra says special judge was sitting in his chamber and there was nobody there..CBI improving and changing their case at every stage. First they said no document was produced before special judge. Later they said physical chargesheet was produced: Luthra.Luthra cites 2004 judgment of Delhi High Court in Court on its own motion v. CBI. Acting CJ asks how court in that case took Suo Motu cognizance in that case. Lengthy arguments were addressed on that issue: Acting CJ Rajesh Bindal .Justice IP Mukerji says right to arrest remains even after filing chargesheet. The right to arrest while remaining, the need to arrest has to be considered especially in view of what has been stated in chargesheet: Luthra .Arrest is usually to prevent such persons from tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses. Luthra refers to Section 41..Luthra refers to three judgments on how video conference is the norm these days. "I could not have addressed a 5-judge Bench in Calcutta but for VC. Though my vacation is gone because of this matter," he says in lighter vein..Luthra refers to a recent order passed in Mithun Chakraborty case ordering interrogation by VC..CJ Rajesh Bindal ask on necessity of going into CBI manual. Luthra underscores importance of CBI manual after Lalita Kumari judgment of Supreme Court.Bench rises for lunch. To resume hearing at 2 pm. .Bench assembles. Hearing commences.It has become a trend with these investigative agencies which secure ex parte orders curtailing liberty. It was not the case 20 or 30 years ago. Of course Your Lordships are there to protect liberty as was done in this case: Sidharth Luthra..Luthra now on Kalyan Bandhopadhyay visiting CBI office. He went there to give legal advice to his clients. Luthra referring to judgments on Right to legal access..Luthra refers to Nandini Satpathy and DK Basu judgments in this regard..They acted with impunity. If you want to investigate further investigate, you should act as per the statute. .In this case, CBI did not seek Magistrates permission. Luthra cites Vinubhai Haribhai Judgment.Justice IP Mukerji remarks that legality of arrest is not before the Court and asks Luthra whether proceedings before High Court need to be so widened..We have to question a court order based on what it states, not based on what happens on the streets on the city: Sidharth Luthra.A newspaper report cannot be a ground for challenging a court order. If so, I can just give an interview to a newspaper and use that as ground to challenge a court order: Luthra .Discussion progressing regarding binding nature of CBI manual. Luthra relies on Ripun Bora and Lalita Kumari CBI manual does not supersede CrPC but CBI has to comply with the manual..Luthra says there was non compliance with CBI manual. .Bench rises..Hearing tomorrow at 11 am. No hearing post lunch.