A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the
directions regarding the CCTV footage were made by the
High Court on submissions by the counsel for the
Respondents-accused before the High Court that they
wished to rely on the same to prove their nonparticipation
in the alleged incident. While the learned
counsel for the Respondents-accused have attempted to
submit before us that such an exercise is necessary, we
are not in agreement with the same. When only the limited
issue of grant of regular bail to
the accused is pending consideration before the High
Court, it was not appropriate for it to pass
the aforesaid directions which will have a direct bearing
upon the trial.
Thus, we are of the considered view that the
direction of the High Court directing the Investigating
Officer to examine the CCTV footage and to submit a
report, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
deserves to be set aside.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.55-56/2021
PRASHANT DAGAJIRAO PATIL VS VAIBHAV@SONU ARUN PAWAR AND ANR.ETC
Dated: 19-01-2021
O R D E R
The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
Leave granted.
The present appeals are filed by the Appellant–
complainant against the common impugned interim order
dated 28.08.2020 passed by the Bombay High Court Bench at
Aurangabad whereby, while hearing the bail application of
the Respondents-accused herein, the High Court directed
the Investigating Officer to examine CCTV footage and
submit his report before the Court. Aggrieved by the said
order, the Appellant-complainant has challenged the same
before this Court by way of Special Leave.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that
the High Court should not conduct a mini trial while
hearing a bail application. The defense of the
Respondents-accused would be examined in full detail
during the trial, and should not be pre-decided by the
High Court during bail proceedings. Any orders
passed by the High Court in relation to such an issue
would prejudice the trial. The learned counsel for
Respondent No. 2- State supported the submissions of the
Appellant and further submitted that such a course of
action would set a bad precedent.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Respondents-accused submitted that they had been in jail
for nearly 2 years, and that an examination of the CCTV
footage would prove that they were not present at the
time of the incident. They further submitted that due to
the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the
High Court has not decided their bail applications.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
A detailed conspectus of the facts of this case are
not necessary for the disposal of the present appeals.
However, for the sake of completeness, some facts might
be highlighted. The First Information Report regarding
the present incident was registered on 09.06.2018 against
eight individuals, including the respondents-accused
herein, under Sections 302, 307, 349, 120(B), 101, 143,
147, 148 and 149, IPC along with Sections 4 and 25 of the
Indian Arms Act and Sections 37(1)(3) and 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. The allegation is that the
accused persons threatened the Appellant-complainant and
his family two days prior to the incident, which took
place on 08.06.2018, in the evening. At the time of
the incident, the Appellant-complainant allegedly saw
some of the accused persons block the car of his elder
brother and his nephew. Then all the accused persons,
including the Respondents-accused herein, assaulted the
two persons with dangerous weapons. The Appellantcomplainant’s
elder brother and nephew allegedly passed
away due to the injuries sustained in the incident.
Subsequent to their arrest, the Respondents-accused
filed bail applications before the Trial Court which have
all seemingly been rejected on various grounds including
the nature of the allegations against them. The
Respondents-accused have therefore moved the High Court
for bail, in which proceedings the impugned interim order
has been passed.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the
directions regarding the CCTV footage were made by the
High Court on submissions by the counsel for the
Respondents-accused before the High Court that they
wished to rely on the same to prove their nonparticipation
in the alleged incident. While the learned
counsel for the Respondents-accused have attempted to
submit before us that such an exercise is necessary, we
are not in agreement with the same. When only the limited
issue of grant of regular bail to
the accused is pending consideration before the High
Court, it was not appropriate for it to pass
the aforesaid directions which will have a direct bearing
upon the trial.
Thus, we are of the considered view that the
direction of the High Court directing the Investigating
Officer to examine the CCTV footage and to submit a
report, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
deserves to be set aside.
We, accordingly, set aside the common impugned
interim order of the High Court and request the said
Court to consider the bail applications of the
Respondents–accused pending before it, expeditiously, on
its own merits and in accordance with law. It is made
clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits
of the matter.
The appeals are allowed in the afore-stated terms.
……………………………J
(N.V.RAMANA)
…………………………J
(SURYA KANT)
………………………………J
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI;
19TH JANUARY, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment