Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court has indicated that the High Court, whilst enforcing bail jurisdiction, may not issue directions or criteria, which would have a direct influence on future court proceedings. The Three-Judge Division Bench encompassing Justice Surya Kant, Justice N.V. Ramana, and Justice Aniruddha Bose confirmed the same, whilst setting aside an order of the High Court in a case where the High Court had issued directions to the investigating officer to review existing CCTV footage, compile and submit a report.
In the present case, some of the individuals who were convicted in the murder case were presented before the High Court to obtain bail. The defendants argued before the High Court that the CCTV recordings would show that they did not partake in the supposed incident. The Court then ordered the Investigating Officer to review the Surveillance video and to present its findings to the Court. The plaintiff, aggrieved by this order, appealed to the Supreme Court.
On subsequent appeal in the Supreme court, the Three-Judge Division Bench noted that the direction of the High court was ill-suited and opined that, In the event that only the specific matter of the granting of a periodic bail to the accused is awaiting consideration by the High Court, it is not necessary to pass the above-mentioned orders which would have a direct effect on the proceedings. The Supreme Court further held that the directions issued by the High Court to the Investigating Officer to review the CCTV footage and report its findings to court are not sustainable as it directly influences the proceedings before the court. Setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court bench ordered it to expeditiously consider the applications of bail pending before it.
86540
103860
630
114
59824