A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose in the case of Prashant Dagajirao Patil v. Vaibhav@ Sonu Arun Pawar and anr. etc. has held that a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Brief Facts
The present appeals were filed by the Appellant– complainant against the common impugned interim order of 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
Case of the Appellant
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted 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.”
Cases of the Respondents
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.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
Consideration of factual aspects of the Case
“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 Appellant-complainant’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.”
The Court further observed that a perusal of the impugned order indicated 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 non- participation 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, the High Court direction that the Investigating Officer to examine the CCTV footage and to submit a report, was not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.
Held
“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.”
Case Details
Name: Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar and anr. etc.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 55-56/2021 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5038-5039 of 2020)
Bench: Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
