The High Court recently rejected the bail application of Ekene Godwin and others in a crucial legal case. The appellants sought bail but were denied. However, the Court ordered legal aid advocacy for the accused, highlighting a significant move towards ensuring fair representation in the trial proceedings.
Facts
- Leave granted to Ekene Godwin
- Specific part of the judgement (FAC) discussed
- Points of the judgement summarized in this section
- The High Court rejected the appellants’ application for regular bail.
- The impugned order was in relation to the bail application filed by the appellants.
- The appellants’ appeal for bail was not granted by the High Court.
Also Read: Annamalai v. State: Abetment of Suicide Case
Arguments
- Learned senior counsel appearing for the State argued in support of the prosecution of the appellants.
- The appellants are facing charges under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66 along with Sections 43(J) and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
- The charge sheet has been already filed, and the trial is in progress.
Also Read: State of Delhi v. Silk Fabric Appellant
Analysis
- The Trial Court recorded the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without recording their cross-examination, which is contrary to the law.
- The Trial Court should have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants-accused before recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
- The High Court had set a time-bound schedule for trial completion, but the Trial Court could have requested an extension instead of rushing the proceedings.
- No order was passed by the learned Magistrate to postpone cross-examination of witnesses as permitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The Trial Court’s approach could be seen as prejudicial to the accused due to the lack of legal representation during examination-in-chief.
- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants requested for a direction to be issued to the Trial Court for providing legal aid to the appellants.
Also Read: Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India: Environmental Protection Case
Decision
- Trial Court directed to hold a de novo trial by examining Prosecution Witness Nos.1 to 12
- Civil Appeals allowed with specific terms and conditions
- Appellants to be enlarged on bail subject to stringent terms and conditions including surrendering their Passports
- Appellants to be produced before Trial Court on 27 March 2024 at 10:30 a.m.
- Legal aid Advocate to be appointed for the appellants
- Appellants to be heard before finalizing terms and conditions of bail
Case Title: EKENE GODWIN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU (2024 INSC 229)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001664-001665 / 2024
