Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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