Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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