JUDGMENT The Court: Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the application for bail. 2. Considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates of both sides. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants has tried to draw the attention of the Court to certain discrepancies in the evidence while the learned Advocate for the State has submitted that the evidence should be looked at a totality and there are good grounds for refusing the prayer for bail at this stage. 4. It is not the stage for going into all these details but it can be said that when the appeal has been entertained, then certainly, prima facie, there are some points to argue. Right to a speedy public trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is an inalienable right of the accused persons. The situation, as is now prevailing, is such that our infrastructure is not capable of guaranteeing a speedy trial in this particular case. 5. In the circumstances, it is better and proper that the appellants’ prayer for bail should be entertained favourably. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appellants may find Bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore with at least one local surety and subject to the further condition that they will not go beyond the limits of Midnapore District without the leave of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. Bail granted condition imposed.