SHIVAKANT PRASAD,J. - (1.) Leave is granted to correct the cause title of the revisional application being CRR 2011 of 2018.
(2.) Persuant to the direction passed by this Court, learned District Judge has submitted his report enclosing the enquiry report submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldia, Purba Medinipur. It reflects from the report that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, held enquiry by taking statement of the President and the Secretary of the Bar and also that of the President and the Secretary of Law Clerk Association and has submitted report to this effect that Murari Mohan Das, defacto complainant of Sessions Case No.22(2)/2018 an accused of Sessions Case No.35(02)/2017 (ST 14(02)/2018) who never called and Asim Chandra Das an accused of Sessions Case No.22(02)/2018 and the defacto complainant of Sessions Case No.35(05)/2017 (ST 13(02)/2018 or his colleagues of Bar Association or abuse them or threaten them or ask them to withdraw the case no.35(05)/2017. Said Murari Mohan Das or his colleagues never compelled the said Asim Chandra Das rather the said Asim Chandra Das and his colleagues came to Secretary of the Bar Association, Haldia with a proposal for compromise of both the aforesaid cases and they also visited the President and Secretary of the Bar Association with the same proposal. Let the report be kept with the record.
(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the President and the Secretary of the Bar had appeared on behalf of Murari Mohan Das and that would be evident from the LCR. Now, the question is whether the said President and the Secretary of the Bar Association appeared on behalf of said Murari Mohan Das is a consideration to hold that they are bias against the petitioner effecting the trial before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldia, Purba Medinipur.;