64. The Sessions Court, further, ought to have realised that the directions for early conclusion of trial were passed owing to long incarceration of Anisur. This Court was anxious that an under-trial’s liberty should not be curtailed without sufficient reason. However, with the passing of the order dated 3rd January, 2025 by this Court releasing Anisur on bail ( albeit with restrictions on his movement), the extreme urgency to conclude the trial as early as possible by fixing successive/alternative dates did recede a bit and the endeavour of the Sessions Court ought not to have been to discourage the prosecution from placing its case by all means, as permitted by law. If indeed the prosecution, for ensuring a fair trial for the victim as well as the accused, felt that it was essential to apply for permission to have witnesses re-examined/examined, obviously such an application was not one which necessitated scathing remarks to be made against the Special Public Prosecutor. To characterise the approach of the Special Public Prosecutor as torpid and indifferent amounts to unjustly criticising him for lack of initiative. The Sessions Court ought to have been alive to the situation that the predecessor in office of the Special Public Prosecutor was tardy, lethargic, indolent and unenthusiastic for which the current initiative of the Special Public Prosecutor was necessary for a fair, effective and meaningful trial. The Sessions Court ought not to forget the status of a prosecutor, who has been appointed pursuant to an order of this Court. Reference to legal maxims could be insightful, if the context so requires, but overusing them might distract from the main issue, coming across
