New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday frowned with long trial fat in the case investigated by the CBI and said the central institution had not been able to complete proof of prosecution even though there were several cases in many cases.
Judge Judge Sanjay K Soul and Hrishikesh Roy said the CBI track record in the completion of proof of prosecution was not so good.
“There is value for personal freedom.
We cannot make everyone behind bars all the time to take the CBI to complete the trial,” he said.
Releasing the defendant in the kidnapping and murder of the 2011 nurse in the health department of Rajasthan, Bhanwari Devi – allegedly at the command of the State Minister Mahipal Maderna – the bench said, “The problem is undoubtedly serious.
But the Breasts of Ram Bishnoi were accused.
Imprisoned as an underbial for the past eight .
What would happen if he was dismissed at the end of the trial? will the prosecution to provide compensation to her? “Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Bishnoi, had said that the prosecution evidence is now complete and that the defendant did not want to lead evidence in defense.
For CBI, additional lawyer General S v Raju said if someone was released on a guarantee, then all the others unless someone would take the same request – not examine defense witnesses – to seek guarantees with the life.
Justice Kaul Saive the “not so good” experience with a trial at the CBI court specifically in Delhi.
“We don’t have a good experience with a special CBI court.
CBI prosecutors a lot of time doesn’t even have a file to debate the case.” In its order, Bench said, “We have no doubt that this problem is serious and violations also vile.
However, we are faced with a position where the applicant, among other defendants, has been suspended.
Eight and a half years.
Proof of prosecution ends and so is a statement which was recorded from all those accused of under part 313 of the criminal procedure code.
The applicant before we have made a statement through the advice that he did not propose to lead defense evidence.
“” So, as far as the Petitioner before we worry, this case is ready to be heard.
However, Given the large number of defendants in this case, it was not a position for all who were accused when several defendants tried to lead defense evidence.
With the consideration of this problem, we hold that while waiting for the trial, we cannot save someone in detention for an unlimited period of time and consider the period of prisoner and that the other defendant hasn’t lead defense.
The evidence when the applicant has stated that he does not propose to lead evidence, we tend to provide guarantees to the applicant in terms and conditions for the satisfaction of the court of trial, “he command.