In most police and CBI cases, acquittals have become routine because of delayed and casual approach by the investigating officers – sometimes deliberate, sometimes because of incompetence, and sometimes because of too many persons involved in charge of the investigations.
Because of this trend of acquittals in most cases of economic offences, especially where high profile persons are accused, the new trend of denial of bail by the Supreme Court of India at the inquiry stage itself has been welcome.
Some may call this denial as a window dressing measure so that the credibility of the Court is maintained. Refusal of bail and confinement to custody before charges are filed were normally reserved for heinous crimes like murder or dacoity or here there was probability of the accused tampering with the evidence.
This trend seems to have changed with the 2G scam case. The Supreme Court seems to have noted that the CBI took an inordinately long time to arrest the accused probably because of the influence the accused wielded in their public offices.
It probably indicated possibility of the accused tampering with the records or with the witnesses. In a similar case, the Court had observed that offences against body and property affect one person or at the most a few others, whereas in case of economic offences where public offices were used to defraud over large sums of money, it affected the society at large.
It meant that the impact of the offence in the society could be the next yard stick to measure the gravity of any offence and thus become the deciding factor on the decision whether to grant an accused bail or to keep in custody.
The society welcomes this decision even though it is a temporary feeling of having punished the rich and powerful. It however does not augment well for the rich and famous, as the chances of bail seem to diminish on the accused’s financial status.
The Court may observe that the CBI seems to take inordinate time to arrest the accused and may appoint committees in other cases, but at the same time, shouldn’t Courts look within their own functioning?
How many cases are there where Judges have been pulled up for delaying cases? None. Is there a system in place to pull up a Judge for delay in hearing of civil cases which we know have been dragging on for years, or for the accumulated rates of interest in land acquisition cases in the form of arrears? None.
Who will bell this cat?
No comments:
Post a Comment