9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The case involves allegations of murder and allied offenses against police officers, the jurisdictional hurdle in granting bail, and the responsibility of the State in ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law. Allegations of Murder and Allied Offenses: The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal case, accused 2 Sub-Inspectors and 8 Constables of murder and related offenses under various sections of the Penal Code. The complaint detailed a gruesome incident where the victim was shot and killed by one of the Sub-Inspectors, leading to non-bailable warrants being issued. The accused policemen claimed self-defense, alleging the victim was a criminal who resisted arrest. The courts emphasized the need for an impartial trial and cautioned against pre-judging guilt based on preliminary evidence. Jurisdictional Hurdle in Granting Bail: The petitioner argued that the accused, not in custody, should not be eligible for bail as per Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the accused had surrendered before the Sessions Judge, establishing judicial jurisdiction for bail consideration. The courts clarified that custody, for bail purposes, includes physical presence before the court and submission to its authority. Despite irregularities in the bail application process, the Sessions Court exercised its discretion to grant bail, which was upheld by the High Court. Responsibility of the State: The Supreme Court expressed concern over the accused police officers potentially abusing their freedom and highlighted the need for the Inspector General of Police to monitor their conduct closely. Criticism was directed at the State for allowing the accused officers to remain on duty despite serious charges, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all. The Court urged the State to take corrective measures and sent a copy of the judgment to the Home Ministry for necessary action to prevent similar errors in the future.
|
