Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

Karnatka High Court Orders Inspection of CCTV Footage in NIA Case Following Allegations of Ill-Treatment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Karnataka has ordered the inspection of CCTV footage in a case being handled by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) after allegations of ill-treatment were raised by one of the accused. The Court’s decision came in response to a writ petition filed by Mohammed Shiyab, accused No. 1 in the case, challenging the order passed by the Special Court for trial of NIA cases.

The case pertains to the homicidal death of Praveen Nettaru on 26th July 2022 at Bellare, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada-Mangaluru. The NIA took over the investigation following an order from the Ministry of Home Affairs, registering the case under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act), and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the investigation was biased and illegal, and that innocent individuals had been implicated in the case. The allegations of ill-treatment were made by accused No. 18, Mohammed Jabir, while in police custody, raising concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

In response to the petitioner’s request to produce CCTV footage from the Madiwala FSL office dated 06.11.2022 and NIA office between 07.11.2022 to 14.11.2022, the Special Court had dismissed the application. However, the High Court took note of the allegations and ordered an inspection of the CCTV footage.

The Court’s order stated, “Although we concur with the reasons given by the Special Court for dismissing the application, if accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner carries an impression in him that the investigation was tainted and the production of the footages discloses the ill-treatment, if any, on accused No.18, we may consider the request to obviate the impression that he is carrying.”

The Court further clarified that if the CCTV footages for the relevant period are available, they will be collected or retrieved by the Central Project Coordinator (CPC) and the technical team of the court. The footages will then be submitted to the Special Court in a sealed cover for use during the trial.

However, the Court rejected the petitioner’s request for the production of call detail recordings (CDRs) of NIA officials and the concerned advocate, citing legal restrictions on disclosing privileged communications.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 27th July 2023, during which the inspection report on the CCTV footage will be submitted.

the fairness and transparency of the entire trial process.

 DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

 Mohammed Shiyab vs National Investigating Agency

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mohammed_Shiyab_vs_National_Investigating_Agency_on_24_July_2023_Karnt.HC_.pdf"]

Similar News