Supreme Court orders further investigation by an independent investigation agency in a bail plea

By - Divisha Srivastava*

Recently the Supreme Court in a bail hearing ordered a further investigation in the matter by an independent body.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was charged for the murder of his wife. The petitioner claimed that he has done nothing wrong and that the deceased has committed suicide. He was charged under Section 323, 506, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to the petitioner, who was in judicial custody. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India against this decision of the Rajasthan High Court.

Also Read - Revisional jurisdiction can only be invoked when allowing the application will finally terminate the proceeding: Rajasthan HC.

Initially, the bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant, was apprehensive to grant bail and recommended the counsel to withdraw the plea. In an attempt to persuade the bench, the lawyer claimed that the chargesheet did not indicate any offence and encouraged the bench to examine it.

After reviewing the chargesheet, the bench stressed the necessity for an independent inquiry, stating that the probe looked to be “motivated”.

Also Read - Preventive detention only to prevent public disorder; Cannot be invoked over apprehension of breach of law and order: Supreme Court.

"...we are prima facie of the view that the matter should be transferred to an independent Investigating Agency for further investigation...Issue notice to the respondent – State to consider referring the current issue to an independent Investigative Agency for further inquiry, taking into account the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner." the order said.

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

*Divisha Srivastava is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from S.N.D.T School of Law, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog