This case originated from an appeal filed by one Sutherson against the rejection of his bail plea by a Thoothukudi special court. He was arrested for the murder of an advocate over suspected business rivalry and property disputes. Motivated by apprehensions relating to witness safety and the potential for witness intimidation, the Madras High Court not only denied bail to the accused, but also directed the trial proceedings to be conducted in jail.

Today, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta dismissed Sutherson's special leave petition against this October 11 order, despite the appellant questioning appropriateness of such judicial orders even in exceptional circumstances.

Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, representing Sutherson, contested the jurisdiction under which the high court's order was passed, arguing that it exceeded the scope of the court's bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Rebuffing this argument, Justice Khanna asserted the discretionary nature of the high court order. The judge stressed that while the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure provide procedural frameworks, the judiciary retains the authority to adopt appropriate measures to ensure a just and equitable trial process. "The Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure are not complete codes. So as long as the procedure is fair, it may be adopted. This part of the order was under Section 482 of CrPC, and is specific to this case."

"This order has been passed for the convenience of the witnesses and the police," Justice Khanna added.

Nagamuthu attempted again to persuade the bench, saying "I am concerned with the legal system. If every judge keeps passing such orders..."

"The legal system was compromised when a witness was murdered. Sorry," the judge riposted. He also revealed that this was the first such order he had come across. "It is not as if every judge is doing it. How many cases of this nature have you seen? I have seen this for the first time, and for justified reasons."

Despite protests from Sutherson's lawyer, the Supreme Court upheld the high court's decision, citing the exceptional circumstances surrounding the case, including the murder of a witness and the need for expedited trial proceedings. Justice Khanna explained the rationale behind the court's decision saying -

Ultimately, the bench pronounced, "In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and the special leave petition is dismissed."

While acknowledging the concerns raised by Nagamuthu regarding judicial precedent, Justice Khanna affirmed that the court's decision was based on the unique circumstances of the case and the imperative to ensure a fair and secure trial environment. At the senior counsel's insistence, the bench, however, agreed to keep the question of law open for future consideration.

"I am concerned because each judge has begun passing such orders," Nagamuthu exclaimed at the end of the hearing.

Disagreeing, Justice Khanna firmly said, "If it happens routinely, we will interfere. That's why we said that the question of law will remain open."