BENGALURU: A special court has observed that the state government should maintain neutrality and it cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court by monitoring each and every step of investigation, although it is a party to a criminal case.
Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat made this observation while granting bail to Rajarajeshwari Nagar BJP MLA Munirathna on October 15 after going through the contents of a notification issued by the government to form a SIT to probe cases against him, including a rape case registered in Kaggalipura police station.
“It is relevant to note that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be ousted and it is the sacrosanct act of the investigating agency to file its final report to the court. However, in the instant case (Munirathna), the notification to constitute the SIT indicates that every minute details of investigations are to be shared with the government.
The special public prosecutor (SPP) has submitted that the government is monitoring the investigation to ensure its fairness. In my humble opinion, the submission would not be appropriate for the reason that though the state is a party to the criminal case, it is required to maintain neutrality and it cannot monitor every step which is being taken up during the course of investigation,” the judge said.
The court said the investigation process can be brought to the notice of higher police authorities. However, it does not mean that the government can interfere with the nature and process of investigation. A delicate line should be maintained as enshrined in the Constitution, the court added.
The court noted that it has been fairly admitted by the SPP that the notification issued to constitute the SIT is not happily worded. Be that as it may, even otherwise when the entire factual aspects of the case are carefully appreciated, it would indicate that no prima facie case is made out by the prosecution.
Admittedly, Munirathna was remanded in police custody and after completion of the same, he is now in judicial custody. It seems that the sole ground for which he is sought to be detained by the prosecution is that he may threaten and tamper with the witnesses. This apprehension can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions for granting bail, the court said.
The court said that admittedly, the alleged incident took place in 2021 and now the complainant has filed a complaint. As such, the question of destroying evidence will not be of much relevance since much time has already been spent.