Category: Investigation

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court can direct the arrest of accused persons during an ongoing investigation, even when the police have not deemed it necessary to arrest them?

Whether rejection of anticipatory bail applications is a ground for directing immediate arrest?

RULE:

The discretion to arrest lies with the police based on the specifics of each situation.

Mere rejection of anticipatory bail does not mandate immediate arrest, and any directives should respect the autonomy of the investigative process.

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court is empowered to enhance the sentence given by a trial court in a suo motu manner?

Whether the recovery of dead body is required for conviction of accused in the case of murder?

RULE:

High Courts may enhance sentences of accused as empowered under Section 386(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”), after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the accused.

The recovery of the body of the deceased is not a condition precedent for conviction of the accused for murder.

ISSUE:

Whether the Courts can monitor investigations when the investigation has already been commenced by the investigating agency?

RULE:

The Supreme Court and the High Court can intervene in the investigation process in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

ISSUE:

Whether High Courts can direct the manner of investigation by an investigating agency under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”)?

RULE:

The High Court cannot interfere with the investigation of crime under Section 482 of the Code by directing the police to investigate in accordance with its views.

The only grounds for exercising the High Courts’ powers under Section 482 of the Code are – to secure the ends of justice, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

ISSUE:

Whether eye-witness accounts can be relied upon in lieu of expert medical evidence, in case of conflict?

Whether the retirement of officer, expert of employee witness is a bar to taking of disciplinary action against them for deliberate dereliction of duty prejudicial to the prosecution’s case?

RULE:

Omissions by the key witnesses, whether intentional or not, require close scrutiny. Credible and consistent eye-witness testimony can outweigh conflicting medical evidence. Expert witnesses provide scientific analysis, but the final determination rests on the assessment of all available evidence.

The court cannot discard the statements of friendly or related eyewitnesses when their presence is proved to be natural and their statements are a truthful account of the occurrence.

The courts are justified to direct appropriate disciplinary action against officers or expert and employee witnesses, for deliberate dereliction of their duties, whether they are in service or retired.

ISSUE:

Whether second application for police remand after dismissal of first application is maintainable?

Whether bail can be cancelled on the ground of disclosures made by the accused during investigation?

RULE:

The second application for police remand after dismissal of first application is maintainable only if made within first 15 days of arrest.

Bail cannot be cancelled on the sole ground of any disclosures of the accused, when there is no allegation of misuse of the privilege of bail.

ISSUE:

Whether Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, 1974 (“COFEPOSA”) is constitutionally valid, in light of the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (“FERA”)?

Whether preventive detention can exist for activities that are not criminal offences and do not attract any punishment?

RULE:

Preventive detention can exist for illegal activities which though do not attract any punishment, are prejudicial to the security of the State.

The repeal of FERA by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, does not dilute the control of the Government over foreign exchange.

When a detention order is not executed for more than a year on account of the contumacious conduct of the detenu, he cannot take advantage of his own wrongdoing by challenging the detention order as having lapsed the maximum period.