In a recent legal case regarding pre-arrest bail, the focus is on the court’s analysis of witness statements. The case raises important questions about the timing and credibility of witness accounts, shedding light on the complexities of legal proceedings. Follow along to gain insights into the nuances of witness testimony and its impact on the court’s decision-making process.
Facts
- The CBI took over the investigation of the case on 30 August 2021.
- The appellant was granted protection against arrest by the High Court on 27 October 2021.
- A supplementary charge sheet was filed on 6 January 2022, and the appellant was not named as an accused.
- The appellant succumbed to injuries on 13 May 2021.
- Despite being called for investigation by CBI, the appellant was not named as an accused in the first charge sheet filed on 5 October 2021.
- The appellant was not named in the FIR.
- The appellant filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the High Court after receiving a notice from the CBI to remain present for investigation on 25 October 2021.
- The FIR was registered for various offences under the Indian Penal Code on 13 May 2021.
Also Read: Reversal of High Court’s Decision on Auction Sale Confirmation
Arguments
- The appellant, represented by Senior Counsel Shri Kapil Sibal, argues that he was not named in the charge sheets filed by the CBI in October 2021 and January 2022.
- Senior Counsel argues that witnesses’ statements were recorded belatedly and are not reliable as they contradict each other.
- The appellant is suggested to be falsely implicated for political reasons, being the election agent of the Chief Minister of West Bengal.
- Senior Counsel points out that earlier cases against the appellant from 2007 were withdrawn by the State Government but stayed by the High Court of Calcutta.
- Witnesses mentioned by the CBI are said to be affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party, indicating a political motive behind implicating the appellant.
- Senior Counsel challenges the credibility of witness statements, highlighting inconsistencies and lack of timely complaints.
- The argument is made that the appellant’s involvement in the incident is doubtful based on witness accounts and political context.
- Respondent-CBI relies on statements of 5 witnesses recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.
- Custodial interrogation of the appellant is deemed necessary due to the serious offence under Section 302 of IPC.
- Delay in recording witness statements does not warrant protection for the appellant given the gravity of the offence.
- The High Court’s denial of pre-arrest bail was based on well-settled law and the seriousness of the offence.
- Two charge sheets have been filed, but the appellant has not been named as an accused yet.
Also Read: Interest Compensation Dispute in Property Demolition Case
Analysis
- The appellant’s name was not mentioned in the charge sheets filed after the statements of the first two witnesses.
- Shri Manoj Kumar Bera, who gave a statement later, was not cited as a witness in the initial charge sheets.
- There seems to be a discrepancy in the inclusion of witnesses in the charge sheets based on the timing of their statements.
- The appellant has been granted pre-arrest bail.
- Cooperation for the investigation is essential, failure to do so may result in the cancellation of bail.
- Considering the circumstances of the case, pre-arrest bail is deemed suitable for the appellant.
- Statements of two witnesses were recorded on 24 January 2022.
Also Read: Legal Interpretation of Extension of Judicial Member’s Term
Decision
- The appellant is granted pre-arrest bail in connection with Case No RC 0562021S0032 of CBI arising out of Nandigram PS Case No 224 of 2021.
- The impugned Order is set aside.
- The appellant must fully cooperate with the respondent-CBI for investigation and remain present for investigation when called upon by the investigating officer.
- No adjudication on the merits of the controversy has been made.
Case Title: SK. SUPIYAN @ SUFFIYAN @ SUPISAN Vs. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2022 INSC 168)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000198-000198 / 2022
