Supreme Court Overturns Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Proclamation Guidelines and Bail Order

199
0
Share:
ultra review complaint guidelines land age property Acquisition Developers firm Bail Marriage Property Town Eyewitness child Custody burden Reasonable LPG evidence Selection Police Jurisdiction Evidence FIR eyewitness Certificate Land Judges Sex property Lands Evidence Jail Lands Motor Accident Evidence Judgment property Constitutional Child Murder employee SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1987 bail evidence claims pay diploma vidhan insurance magistrate 498 guilty 65 notice village ews guidelines Date of Decision: October 17, 2023 MRS. KALYANI RAJAN  vs INDRAPRASTHA medical APOLLO HOSPITAL  & ORS.          admission employers investigation judicial probationary mca tax kill bail liberty Police bail divorce certificate rape proper bail sexual violence acquittal police sale workers jurisdiction

*August 8, 2023* — In a significant legal reversal, the Supreme Court has set aside a series of guidelines issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court pertaining to the issuance of proclamations under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). These guidelines were part of a judgment granting bail to an accused, DARSHAN SINGH & ANR, and outlined the procedure for summoning witnesses crucial to the prosecution.

The High Court’s guidelines, which aimed to expedite the prosecution’s evidence, were reevaluated by the Apex Court bench, including HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s order had overlooked important provisions, leading to an erroneous interpretation of the law.

The guidelines highlighted by the High Court included summoning witnesses, skipping witnesses based on non-availability, utilizing formal and expert witnesses, and employing digital communication for witness appearance. The High Court’s order emphasized expeditious completion of prosecution evidence, considering the accused’s extended custody and delayed recording of witnesses’ statements.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment pinpointed crucial legal discrepancies in the guidelines. The Court noted that the High Court’s order had misapplied the purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and had inadvertently neglected important provisions such as Form 5, 6, Sections 83 and 174A of the Cr.P.C.

While the Apex Court upheld the bail granted to the accused, it set aside the directions given by the High Court to the State and Courts within the specified territories. The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of adhering to accurate legal interpretations and acknowledged that the case of the prosecution was that of the State against the accused.

This judgment reinforces the significance of precision and comprehensive understanding of legal provisions, particularly when issuing guidelines that impact the progression of legal proceedings and individual rights. It stands as a reminder of the careful consideration required while interpreting and applying the law to ensure justice prevails.

For more legal updates and insights, stay tuned.

Quotes from the Observation on Legal Point Part of Judgment:

“The impugned order also reveals that the Court took into consideration Sections 174, 82 and 311 IPC. The Court noted Section 174 but went on to hold that the defaulting witness can be punished with simple imprisonment with a term extending up to six months or fine.”

“The impugned order has inadvertently or otherwise entirely overlooked Form 5 and 6 and the important provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., Sections 83 and 174A.”

“It shall not be open to the police to put forward reasons of law and order work or any other of their functions as excuses for not complying with the order of the Trial Court to secure the presence of their witness.”

 Date : 08-08-2023

Haryana At Chandigarh) THE STATE OF HARYANA  vs DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. 

Download Judgment

                          

Share: