SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EKENE GODWIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMILNADU – Respondent
ABHAY S. OKA, J
1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. The appellants are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66, read with Sections 43(J) and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The charge sheet has been filed, and the trial has proceeded. By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the appellants’ application for regular bail.
3. During the hearing on an earlier date, we were informed that the Trial Court recorded the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) one after the other on different dates without recording their cross-examination. Therefore, considering this peculiar procedure followed by the learned trial Judge, we requested the learned trial Judge to submit a report.
1 Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.03.20 16:02:21 IST Reason:
4. We have perused the report dated 11th March 2024 of the Trial Court, which records that by an order dated 27th June 2023, a direction was issue
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.