CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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