Supreme Court Cases (SCC)
Supreme
Court: Dealing with the question of granting anticipatory bail, the
Single Judge bench of hon'ble K.S. Radhkrishnan J., held that a case
where the investigation is still not over is not a fit case for granting
anticipatory bail. In the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge
granted anticipatory bail despite the fact that the gun through which
the gunshot was fired was not recovered, the accused were not
cooperative with the Investigation Officer, nor was the investigation
complete. Apart from this, while granting bail, he also concluded that
no case was made out under Section 326 of IPC, 1860 by merely looking at
the medical reports. A key question of law that arose for consideration
was whether an Additional Sessions Judge can express his opinion about
the merits of the case while deciding a matter of anticipatory bail when
the investigation is still pending. Deciding the question, the Supreme
Court held that it was incorrect on part
of the Additional Sessions Judge to express opinion about the merits of
the case at this stage. The Court opined that a conclusion as to
whether a case under S. 326 of IPC, 1860 is made out or not can be drawn
only after the investigation is complete. Only speculating based on the
available records of evidence is inappropriate. It would be too early
to form and express any opinion before the complete investigation report
is submitted. Therefore, it was held that the Additional Sessions Judge
erred in granting anticipatory bail, which was affirmed by the High
Court. Accordingly, the order of the Sessions Court as well as the High
Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. [Nasiruddin v. State
(NCT) Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 1128 of 2013, decided on August 7th,
2013]
Supreme
Court: Dealing with the question of granting anticipatory bail, the
Single Judge bench of hon'ble K.S. Radhkrishnan J., held that a case
where the investigation is still not over is not a fit case for granting
anticipatory bail. In the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge
granted anticipatory bail despite the fact that the gun through which
the gunshot was fired was not recovered, the accused were not
cooperative with the Investigation Officer, nor was the investigation
complete. Apart from this, while granting bail, he also concluded that
no case was made out under Section 326 of IPC, 1860 by merely looking at
the medical reports. A key question of law that arose for consideration
was whether an Additional Sessions Judge can express his opinion about
the merits of the case while deciding a matter of anticipatory bail when
the investigation is still pending. Deciding the question, the Supreme
Court held that it was incorrect on part
of the Additional Sessions Judge to express opinion about the merits of
the case at this stage. The Court opined that a conclusion as to
whether a case under S. 326 of IPC, 1860 is made out or not can be drawn
only after the investigation is complete. Only speculating based on the
available records of evidence is inappropriate. It would be too early
to form and express any opinion before the complete investigation report
is submitted. Therefore, it was held that the Additional Sessions Judge
erred in granting anticipatory bail, which was affirmed by the High
Court. Accordingly, the order of the Sessions Court as well as the High
Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. [Nasiruddin v. State
(NCT) Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 1128 of 2013, decided on August 7th,
2013]
No comments:
Post a Comment