State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Supreme Court Cancels Bail Amid Witness Tampering Allegations: Ensuring a Fair Trial Is Paramount.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has canceled the bail granted to Respondent No. 1 in a high-profile case involving allegations of intimidation and witness tampering. The decision, handed down by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, comes in response to the changing testimonies of crucial witnesses and disturbing post-bail developments.

The bench emphasized the importance of maintaining a fair trial and ensuring the safety and credibility of witnesses. Justice Surya Kant stated, “The Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully.”

The judgment cited Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the recalling of witnesses, and invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to withdraw the bail granted to Respondent No. 1. Justice Dipankar Datta explained, “A major challenge before this Court is to ensure a fair trial amidst the hostility of witnesses. Witnesses play a very vital role in bringing justice home.”

The court ordered Respondent No. 1 to surrender within one week and remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial. It also directed the Trial Court to recall key witnesses for further cross-examination. Additionally, the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, was tasked with providing security to the appellant and her family and investigating alleged threats or inducements against witnesses.

This decision underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and the integrity of the criminal justice system. It sends a clear message that attempts to intimidate or influence witnesses will not be tolerated.

Date of Decision: October 20, 2023

Munilakshmi   vs Narendra Babu & Anr.                                             

Latest Legal News