Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Supreme Court Upholds Importance of Fair Investigation and the Scope of High Court's Powers in Bail Applications

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On May 11, 2023, New Delhi, In a significant judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India upheld the concerns raised by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding lapses in the investigation of a sensitive criminal case. The Court, while dismissing the appeal against the Impugned Judgment, emphasized the crucial role of conducting a thorough and fair investigation to ensure justice is served and to prevent the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

The case before the Supreme Court involved an appeal filed by Inspector Sanjay Dubey against the Judgment and Order rendered by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court, in its Impugned Judgment, had found the appellant guilty of dereliction of duty and observed that he was unfit to hold any responsible post in the Police Department.

During the course of the proceedings, the High Court had expressed its dissatisfaction with the investigation conducted by the police officers, including the appellant. It noted that there were lapses in bringing all relevant materials on record, which could potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice. The High Court, being a Constitutional Court with powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, sought to address these concerns in the interest of justice.

While delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing certain directions during the pendency of a bail application. However, the Court recognized that the concerns raised by the High Court were justified given the gravity of the case and the need to prevent any potential miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the High Court's observations should not be treated as findings against the appellant in the departmental proceedings that would be initiated against him.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a bail application is limited to deciding whether to grant or reject bail. However, it stressed that the High Court has broader powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to intervene in exceptional cases where the interest of justice necessitates it.

The Court also highlighted the significance of examining acquittals and recording reasons for failures in prosecution cases. It emphasized the need for a procedural mechanism to ensure that the cause of justice is served, and the rights of the innocent are safeguarded.

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Impugned Judgment. It reiterated the importance of conducting a fair investigation and clarified the scope of the High Court's powers in bail applications. The Court emphasized that the observations made by the High Court should not prejudice the appellant in the departmental proceedings, where he would have the opportunity to raise all grounds and contentions.

CASE TITLE: SANJAY DUBEY VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

DATE OF DECISION: May 11, 2023

Latest Legal News