Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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