Introduction:

In a recent appeal for bail, the Supreme Court expressed shock over the State’s reliance on police-recorded confessional statements. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan revealed their astonishment at the state’s use of such statements in the counter affidavit, criticizing the practice. The accused initially sought bail from the Calcutta High Court, which was denied based on the impending recording of prosecution evidence. Unhappy with the decision, the petitioner escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Arguments:

The Court highlighted a procedural gap, noting that the Trial Court proceeded to record the examination-in-chief of the second witness before completing the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness. The State defended this unusual practice, indicating that cross-examinations would occur after the examination-in-chief of five witnesses. The Court disapproved of such a method, deeming it “deprecating.” Despite these concerns, the Court decided not to consider bail at that moment, emphasizing the need to complete the cross-examination of two eyewitnesses. The matter was listed for further consideration on February 12, 2024, with instructions to the State to present the order before the Trial Court.

Court’s Judgement:

As of now, the Supreme Court refrained from granting bail, citing the necessity to allow the completion of cross-examination for the two eyewitnesses. The court expressed discontent with the reliance on police-recorded confessions and disapproved of the Trial Court’s sequencing in recording witness statements. The decision to defer the bail consideration until after the completion of cross-examination indicates the Court’s commitment to a fair and thorough examination of the case.