Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave on Monday submitted before the Supreme Court that the overhaul of India’s criminal laws through the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was intended to eliminate the colonial legacy of criminal procedure, but several provisions continued to retain the same underlying approach.
The submissions were made during the hearing of a plea filed by Dasari Suvarna Raju challenging the grant of bail to an accused in the alleged ₹3,500-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor scam. While addressing the scope of judicial intervention in cases involving alleged selective prosecution, the hearing also witnessed a broader discussion on the BNSS provisions governing pardon to an accused and the requirement of continued detention after pardon.
“
I thought the overhaul was meant that the colonial hangover should not be there. Any criminal lawyer across the country can give at least 30 suggestions today to make the working of the BNSS much better….on fingertips. But if you retain all the old solutions…
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave contended that the State had adopted a contradictory stand by strongly opposing bail for other accused while taking a lenient position in respect of one accused in a case involving alleged corruption of nearly ₹3,500 crore. He submitted:
“
“In a case where the State and the accused are virtually on the same side… there are observations that grant of bail may be justified in certain circumstances, but not where it is a fixed match between the State and the accused.”
He further argued that the High Court had declined to hear his objections despite his allegation that the prosecution had selectively favoured one accused. Questioning the nature of the relief sought, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the petitioner’s grievance appeared to relate to the fairness of the investigation rather than the legality of the bail order.
“
“You are saying it is a biased investigation trying to cover up one accused under the cover of another, a pick-and-choose of accused. For that, your remedy is not to seek cancellation of bail. It may be something else. There may be some other relief available, such as transfer of investigation…It is up to the investigating agency and the prosecution to decide in what manner they will conduct the investigation and prosecution. If the prosecution chooses to loosen its grip on one accused, we as judges cannot control that.”
Responding, Mr Dave submitted that judicial intervention would nevertheless be warranted if such conduct was actuated by an ulterior motive, contending that the purity of the criminal justice system had to be preserved where allegations of selective prosecution were made.
However, the Bench expressed its disinclination to grant the relief sought.
Also Read: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Muppidi Avinash Reddy in Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam