(1) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(1), 308(5), 61(2)—Anticipatory Bail—Direction to undergo mediation—Petitioner, an aged person, sought anticipatory bail in connection with offences alleging forgery and cheating. High Court granted anticipatory bail but directed the petitioner to participate in mediation before the District Mediation Centre. Supreme Court held that once the High Court was satisfied that a case for grant of anticipatory bail was made out, it ought not to have imposed a direction compelling the accused to undergo mediation. Direction requiring appearance before Mediation Centre set aside, while order granting anticipatory bail otherwise left undisturbed. Petition disposed of. [Paras 6 to 9] Result: Bail maintained. ...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Bail
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 54—Gujarat Police Act, 1951—Section 135—Regular Bail—Grievous hurt—Custody of five months—Petitioner challenged High Court’s order denying regular bail in case alleging offences including causing grievous hurt. Supreme Court, considering nature of allegations, role attributed to petitioner and fact that he had been in custody for over five months, held that discretion for grant of bail deserved to be exercised in his favour. Petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as Trial Court may deem fit to impose. Special Leave Petition disposed of. [Paras 3 and 4] Result: Bail granted. ...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Bail
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 498-A and 304-B—Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961—Sections 3 and 4—Regular Bail—Prolonged custody—Parity with co-accused—Petitioner sought bail after rejection by High Court in dowry death case; in custody since 27.05.2024. Supreme Court, considering length of custody (about one year and eight months), likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial and fact that co-accused had been granted bail, held that case for grant of bail was made out. Without expressing opinion on merits, petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and subject to conditions to be imposed by trial Court—Violation of conditions to entail appropriate action. [Paras 2 to 4] Result: Bail allowed. ...
(4) SUPREME COURT
Bail
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 406, 420 and 201—Regular Bail—Civil Dispute—Custody period—Charges yet to be framed—High Court rejected second bail application in case arising out of alleged breach of trust and cheating between business partners. Appellant contended dispute was essentially civil in nature; he had been in custody since 20.08.2025 and charges were yet to be framed. Supreme Court, considering nature of allegations, stage of proceedings and period of incarceration, held that case for grant of bail was made out. Impugned order set aside. Appellant directed to be released on bail subject to conditions to secure his presence and with direction not to misuse liberty; breach to entail cancellation. [Paras 5 to 9] Result: Bail granted. ...
(5) SUPREME COURT
Suspension of sentence
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 412—Suspension of Sentence—Bail pending Appeal—High Court rejected application for suspension of sentence in appeal against conviction under Section 412 IPC (seven years’ rigorous imprisonment). Supreme Court observed that the appellant had already undergone about two years and two months of incarceration without remission and the criminal appeal of 2024 was still pending and likely to take time for disposal. Considering the period of custody and pendency of appeal, sentence suspended and bail granted subject to conditions to ensure presence before courts. Appellant directed to cooperate in hearing and not misuse liberty; breach to entail cancellation. Criminal appeal allowed. [Paras 5 to 10] ...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Anticipatory Bail—Conditional Deposit—Impermissibility of Monetary Condition—Trial Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner subject to deposit of ₹25,00,000/-, which was reduced by High Court to ₹10,00,000/-. Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571, reiterated that no High Court or Trial Court shall grant regular or anticipatory bail on condition of deposit of a particular amount or on undertaking to deposit money. Bail must be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law and not be made conditional upon monetary deposit. Monetary conditions directing deposit of substantial sums are impermissible. Order of deposit set aside and anticipatory bail affirmed without any condition ...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 482—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 132, 221, 351(1) read with Section 3(5)—Anticipatory Bail—High Court Rejection—Interim Protection by Supreme Court—Cooperation with Investigation—Principle of Parity—Held, where appellant was protected by interim order and cooperated with investigation, denial of anticipatory bail not justified—Supreme Court set aside High Court orders and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions—Bail directed on furnishing cash security of ₹25,000/- with two sureties—Appellant to cooperate, not misuse liberty or tamper with evidence; breach to entail cancellation—Co-accused granted similar relief on principle of parity. ...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Service Law
Service Law—Contempt Proceedings—Non-compliance of Promotion Order—Pendency of Special Appeal—Absence of Stay—Held, in absence of any interim stay granted by the Division Bench against the Single Judge’s order directing promotion, the respondent is entitled to proceed with contempt—Repeated adjournments sought by petitioner in special appeal cannot stall implementation of the order—Supreme Court found no infirmity in Single Judge’s direction to file compliance affidavit and ensure presence upon failure—However, one final opportunity granted to petitioner to pursue pending special appeal for interim relief before Division Bench—Contempt listing deferred for limited period with liberty to respondent to proceed if no stay is granted. [Paras 8 to 13] ...
(9) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 438—Anticipatory Bail—Absconding Accused—Grant improper—Accused absconding for nearly six years since date of incident involving offences under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Arms Act—Failure to cooperate with investigation and announcement of reward for arrest—High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail—Absconding accused ordinarily not entitled to pre-arrest bail unless exceptional case made out—Impugned order set aside—Accused directed to surrender. [Paras 40 to 47, 52] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 438—Parity—Acquittal of Co-Accused—Irrelevance—Acquittal of co-accused does not ipso facto entitle absconding accused to anticipatory bail—Findings recorded in trial of co-accused ir...
(10) SUPREME COURT
Education Law
A. Kerala Education Rules—Chapter XXXII Rule 6.2(24)(iii)—Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST)—SET Qualification in Concerned Subject Mandatory—Requirement of State Eligibility Test (SET) qualification “in the concerned subject” is mandatory for appointment as HSST—Statutory provision to be interpreted purposively to ensure subject competence and academic excellence at Higher Secondary level—SET in any subject unrelated to the post does not meet statutory eligibility—Object of Rule is to maintain teaching standards in the specific subject taught. [Paras 14 to 22] B. Kerala Education Rules—Chapter XXXII Rule 10(4)—Exemption from SET—Ten Years Approved Service—Exemption from SET available only to teachers having ten years of approved teaching service at...
(1) KARNATAKA
Recall of witness
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 311 / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 348—Recall of Witness—Scope—Court empowered to summon, recall or re-examine any witness at any stage of trial—Provision to be interpreted purposively to advance cause of justice and discovery of truth—Essentiality of evidence to just decision is determinative test—Rejection of application solely on ground that it was second in line held improper—One opportunity ought to have been granted. [Paras 5 to 7] B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Further Cross-examination of Defence Witness—In prosecution under Section 138 NI Act, recall of DW.1 for further cross-examination permissible where it aids fair adjudication—Though power under Section 311 CrPC...
(2) KERALA
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 482—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Quashing of Proceedings—Drawer and Account Holder Distinction—Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of prosecution under Section 138 NI Act—Allegation that cheque was drawn on account maintained by proprietary concern through its proprietor (first accused), but cheque was signed by second accused as authorised signatory of proprietor—Complaint itself disclosed that signatory was not the account holder and account holder had not signed the cheque—Under Section 138 NI Act, criminal liability arises only against “drawer” who maintains the account and draws the cheque—In case of individual/proprietorship concern, neither non-signatory account holder nor signatory who is n...
(3) MADRAS
Presumption
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Cheque Dishonour—Rebuttal of Presumption—Legally Enforceable Debt—Complaint based on dishonour of cheque for Rs.5 Crores—Respondent’s versions regarding nature of liability inconsistent in complaint, statutory notice and written submissions—No clear pleading or proof as to quantum of commission allegedly due—Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) did not contain stipulation regarding 20% commission as claimed—Evidence showed loan of Rs.10 Crores and admitted repayment of Rs.8.74 Crores—Presumption under Section 139 NI Act held rebutted to extent that cheque amount did not represent subsisting legally enforceable debt of Rs.5 Crores on date of presentation—Conviction sustained in peculiar facts but findings of Courts below on ...
(4) KERALA
Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 16, 23; Equal Pay for Equal Work—Medical Education—Senior Residents Performing Duties of Assistant Professors—Senior Residents undergoing bonded service after completing DM/MCh courses and discharging the duties of Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors—The principle of equal pay for equal work applies even to contractual employees and those under bonded service; deviation from this principle violates Articles 14 and 16—Regulations of 2019 and 2022 mandate appointment as Assistant Professors upon completion of DM/MCh—While appointment to the post requires a sanctioned vacancy, lower remuneration during bonded service despite performing higher duties may constitute forced labour under Article 23, and the government...
(5) KERALA
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967—Section 44(2)—Protection of Witnesses—Under Section 44(2) UAPA, the power of the court to issue witness protection orders is contingent upon satisfaction that the life of a witness is in danger, based on available materials—The court must record its satisfaction, apply its mind to the evidence, give brief reasons for secrecy measures, and consider each witness individually—Orders issued by Special Courts without recording satisfaction of danger, without application of mind to materials, without reasons, or without individualized consideration are unsustainable—Redaction of documents and treating witnesses as protected must satisfy these criteria; failure to do so renders such orders liable to be set aside—If a witness’s identity is already revealed,...
(6) MADHYA PRADESH
Appeal against acquittal
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 415—Proviso to Section 372 CrPC (Section 413 BNSS)—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Appeal against Acquittal—Complainant as Victim—Special Leave—Not Required—Appeal filed by complainant under Section 415 BNSS (earlier Section 378 CrPC) challenging acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act along with application for grant of leave—Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran held that complainant in Section 138 proceedings is also a “victim” within meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC / Section 2(y) BNSS—Such victim is entitled to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC (Section 413 BNSS) as a matter of right without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC / Se...
(7) MADHYA PRADESH
Appeal against acquittal
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 419(4)—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Proviso to Section 372—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Appeal against Acquittal—Maintainability—In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC (corresponding to Section 2(y) BNSS)—Such complainant is entitled to prefer an appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS) as a matter of right—Seeking special leave under Section 419(4) BNSS (earlier Section 378(4) CrPC) is not mandatory—Appeal filed under Section 419(4) held not ...
(9) KERALA
Essential Commodities Act, 1955—Sections 3(1), 6A, 6A(2), 6A(3)(c), 6C(2)—Confiscation of Goods—Acquittal—Entitlement to Price and Interest—The entitlement to compensation and interest under Section 6C(2) arises only upon acquittal in a prosecution specifically instituted under Section 6A of the Act—An acquittal in a general prosecution under Section 3(1) does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions for Section 6C(2)—Where seized goods are perishable, Sections 6A(2) and 6A(3)(c) govern their sale through the Public Distribution System, and proceeds are payable to the owner if no confiscation order is made—Acquittal of a managing partner for offences under Section 3(1) and relevant state orders does not invoke Section 6C(2)—In such cases, the price of confiscated goods is determined un...
(10) DELHI
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 34 & 37(1)(c)—Challenge to Arbitral Award—Patent Illegality, Perversity, and Compensation—Appeal under Section 37(1)(c) against dismissal of Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award—Appellants contended encashment of performance security was without pleading or proof of loss, alleging violation of Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act, 1872—The Court held that appellate interference is limited to grounds under Section 34; re-examination of evidence is impermissible unless the award is patently illegal, perverse, or contrary to fundamental law—The arbitrator’s adverse inference due to appellants’ failure to produce salary records was a plausible exercise of discretion, not perverse—Partial encashment of performance secu...