20 Jan 2024 3:51 PM GMT
In an appeal filed by the accused/ petitioner seeking bail, the Supreme Court was shocked to note that the respondent state, in its counter affidavit, has relied upon the confessional statements recorded before the police.
“In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State of West Bengal, shockingly, the State has relied up so called confessional statements of the petitioner accused recorded by the police. To put it mildly, we are shocked to note that the State is relying upon confessional statements recorded before the police.,” Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated.
In a nutshell, a criminal case was registered against the accused/petitioner. Initially, the accused had approached the High Court of Calcutta, praying for his bail. However, the High Court rejected his prayer for bail on merits. The Court noted that a date had been fixed for recording prosecution evidence, and it was not inclined to grant bail at this stage. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Top Court.
Apart from the above-mentioned finding, the Court also drew attention to a crucial procedural gap. The Court noted that without completing the cross-examination of a first prosecution witness, the Trial Court proceeded to record the examination-in-chief of the second witness. Explaining this, the State submitted that their cross-examination will be recorded after the examination-in-chief of five witnesses is recorded. The Court categorically disapproved of such practice, marking the same as “deprecating.”
“Another disturbing feature is that after examination-in-chief of the PW-1 was recorded, without completion of his cross-examination, the Trial Court has proceeded to record the examination-in-chief of the second witness for the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, on instructions, pointed out that after examination-in-chief of five witnesses is recorded, their cross-examination will be recorded. We deprecate such practice.”
In view of these observations, the Court stated it is not considering the bail to allow the completion of the cross-examination of the two eyewitnesses.
“As of today, we are not considering the prayer for bail only with a view to allow cross-examination of the two eye witnesses to be completed.”
Accordingly, the Court listed the matter on February 12, 2024, and directed the State to produce a copy of the instant order before the Trial Court.
Case Title: SAIFUL LASKAR v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL., Diary No.- 33125 - 2023
Click here to read/ download the order