Topic
Kerala High Court rules that separate trials for distinct accused groups do not violate fair trial rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 if allegations are unrelated. The judgment reinforces that piecemeal trials are permissible where no prejudice is demonstrated, setting a precedent for multi-accused criminal proceedings.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that trial courts must proactively safeguard CCTV footage and bio-matrix records, even if not yet summonable, to uphold fair trial rights under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The judgment emphasizes that failure to preserve such evidence could irreparably prejudice the accused's alibi defense.
Karnataka High Court rules that an accused's right to fair cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC outweighs dilatory tactics in cheque bounce cases, allowing witness recall even after multiple prior applications, but imposes costs to deter abuse. The judgment balances procedural fairness with judicial efficiency in economic offences.
The Bombay High Court (Goa) ruled that once defence evidence is voluntarily closed under BNSS Sections 348 and 353, reopening is impermissible, even due to absence. The decision underscores strict adherence to procedural finality in criminal trials, impacting accused persons seeking to reopen evidence post-closure.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that applications under Section 94 BNSS for preserving electronic evidence, such as call records and digital transactions, must be decided promptly at the pre-trial stage. Delaying consideration until the defence evidence stage risks prejudice and violates Article 21 fair trial rights, particularly in alibi defences.
Madras High Court holds that trial courts must permit reopening of evidence and recall of witnesses if additional documents like an FIR are material to the case. The ruling reinforces that fair trial rights under Article 227 override procedural technicalities, ensuring substantive justice in commercial disputes.