High Court Exercising Bail Jurisdiction Cannot Pass Directions Which Will Have Direct Bearing Upon Trial: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction, cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed thus while setting aside a direction of the High Court in a case, in which it directed the Investigating Officer to examine a CCTV footage and to submit...
The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction, cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed thus while setting aside a direction of the High Court in a case, in which it directed the Investigating Officer to examine a CCTV footage and to submit a report.
In this case, some persons accused in a murder case approached the High Court seeking bail. Before the High Court, accused contended that a CCTV footage would prove their non-participation in the alleged incident. Thus, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to examine CCTV footage and submit his report before the Court. The complainant in this case, aggrieved with this order, approached the Apex Court.
Observing that such a direction was not appropriate, the bench said:
"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."
Setting aside the High Court order, the bench requested it to consider the bail applications of the accused pending before it, expeditiously.
Recently, in another case, the Supreme Court had observed that, a criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant
CASE: PRASHANT DAGAJIRAO PATIL vs. VAIBHAV @ SONU ARUN PAWAR [CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.55-56/2021]CORAM: Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha BoseCOUNSEL: AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Nishant Ramakantrao KatneshwarkarCITATION: LL 2021 SC 39
Click here to Read/Download Order
Read Order