The Supreme Court has granted bail to former RG Kar Medical College principal Sandip Ghosh in a corruption case, triggering strong criticism from the victim's family and the medical fraternity. Concerns have been raised regarding the CBI's investigation speed and procedural handling as the legal proceedings continue.
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Sandip Ghosh, the former principal of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, in connection with ongoing investigations into alleged financial irregularities. This judicial decision has prompted a strong public response, particularly from the victim’s family, who have voiced significant concerns regarding the efficacy of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The criticism highlights growing dissatisfaction with how the federal agency has managed the investigation linked to the events of August 2024.
The victim’s father publicly questioned the agency’s integrity, pointing to perceived delays and procedural lapses. These concerns are shared by the broader medical community, which has been actively seeking accountability in the case. Dr. Utpal Bandyopadhyay, representing the protesting medical fraternity, has publicly demanded that the investigative body provide clarity on the timeline of the proceedings. The group has noted that while 147 individuals were identified as potential witnesses over the last two years, only a small fraction have been interviewed. This disparity has intensified calls for a more transparent and expedited investigation.
The legal path to this bail order followed a series of unsuccessful attempts in the Calcutta High Court and special lower courts. The legal situation became complex after the investigative agency failed to submit a formal chargesheet within the mandatory 90-day period during previous proceedings, which facilitated earlier bail developments. These compounding legal challenges have fueled allegations of procedural stagnation.
Activists and family members are now pushing for the case to be moved to a fast-track court to resolve concerns about alleged institutional corruption and intimidation. The primary factor for observers to monitor remains the agency's ability to demonstrate clear progress and justify the pace of its legal efforts in the face of ongoing public and judicial scrutiny.