Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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"]

Latest Legal News