Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad 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"]

Similar News