Premium
This is an archive article published on November 4, 2011

Judge cites security of witnesses,says ‘cannot be left to their fate’

While rejecting the bail applications in the 2G case,one reason cited by Special CBI Judge O P Saini was that keeping the accused in custody

While rejecting the bail applications in the 2G case today,one reason cited by Special CBI Judge O P Saini was that keeping the accused in custody would “generate a sense of security” among the witnesses who were already “under a lot of pressure”.

Even as he noted in his 76-page order that the rights of the accused are very important in criminal jurisprudence,Judge Saini said: “If an accused is required to be kept in custody during trial,the reasons for the same must be valid,both in law and fact. Having said that,I may also record that the rights of victim and witnesses are also no less valuable and are required to be protected equally during trial… Victim and witnesses cannot be left to their own fate while protecting the rights of the accused.”

The judge cautioned that over-emphasis on the rights of one group of people may result in the subversion of justice,but added that the case before him was exceptional. He said the accused may apply for bail again after the prosecution has recorded its evidence,and witnesses have been examined.

Story continues below this ad

“I may respectfully add that every criminal case is a dyad or triad constituted of accused,victim and/ or the witnesses… If the witnesses do not gather the courage to tell the truth before the Court,the triad would break down and truth will not come out and cause of justice would suffer. One way of generating a sense of security in the mind of victim and the witnesses is to keep the accused in custody till their evidence is complete,” said the order.

The judge also discussed the issue of witness protection. “…this is a case of unprecedented nature. The facts and circumstances of the case itself suggest that the witnesses would be under a lot of pressure,given the serious consequences of the case for the parties. This is further compounded by the fact that the witnesses are employees,relatives,family members,colleagues and subordinates of the accused persons,” he said.

“In such a situation,such apprehension is always well founded and does not depend upon expression or negation by parties,that is,prosecution may or may not express it and the accused as usual may deny it,but it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case,” he added.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement