(1) SUPREME COURT
Bail
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Bail—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B—Information Technology Act, 2000—Sections 66-C, 66-D—Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022—Sections 7, 8—Regular bail—Magistrate triable offences—Held: Where offences are Magistrate triable and accused is in custody since 24.07.2025, continued incarceration not justified—High Court erred in denying bail—Appellant entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions. (Paras 5–7) B. Criminal Procedure—Conditions of bail—Held: Trial Court empowered to impose appropriate conditions to safeguard interest of prosecution—Liberty granted to prosecution to seek imposition of specific conditions—Bail granted with safeguards. (Para 7) ...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Suspension of sentence
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 389—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Arms Act, 1959—Sections 25(1)(b), 27—Suspension of sentence—Bail pending appeal—Held: Where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and the appellant has undergone substantial period of incarceration (8 years 5 months), Court may suspend sentence pending appeal—Merits to be examined at final hearing—Appellant entitled to bail during pendency of appeal subject to conditions. (Paras 5–8) ...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Bail
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Bail—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471—Regular bail—Magistrate triable offence—Prolonged custody—Held: Petitioner in judicial custody since 30.06.2023 and trial progressing slowly with only two witnesses examined—Offences being Magistrate triable, continued incarceration not justified—High Court erred in rejecting bail—Petitioner entitled to release on bail subject to conditions. (Paras 3, 5–7) B. Criminal Procedure—Right to liberty—Speedy trial—Held: Undue delay in trial and unnecessary incarceration of undertrial deprecated—Courts must balance seriousness of allegations with right to personal liberty—Trial directed to proceed expeditiously. (Paras 6, 8) ...
(4) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 482 (Anticipatory Bail principles)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 467, 468, 471—Anticipatory bail—Delay in FIR—Held: Where FIR alleging forgery of date of birth is lodged after an inordinate delay of 23 years and the petitioner had already been granted interim protection, Court found it appropriate to confirm such protection—Delay in prosecution is a relevant factor—Petitioner directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions. (Paras 2, 4) B. Criminal Procedure—Departmental proceedings vs criminal case—Held: Even though departmental enquiry established misconduct and petitioner stood terminated from service, such findings do not preclude grant of bail in criminal proceedings—Bail to be...
(5) SUPREME COURT
Bail
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 201—Bail—Undertrial—Delay in trial—Parity—Held: Petitioner in custody for prolonged period with no witnesses examined despite framing of charges—Co-accused already granted bail and no criminal antecedents—Petitioner being driver of vehicle and considering overall facts, rigours of NDPS Act relaxed—Bail granted subject to conditions—Delay in trial and parity are relevant considerations. (Para 2) ...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 482 (Anticipatory Bail principles)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 323, 506, 148, 149, 325, 307, 379B—Anticipatory bail—Grant—Held: Where the petitioner was not named in the FIR, offences were subsequently enhanced, co-accused already granted bail, and injured had recovered, a case for anticipatory bail is made out—Petitioner directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest subject to conditions and cooperation with investigation. (Paras 4–5, 8–10) B. Criminal Procedure—Anticipatory bail—Conditions—Held: Petitioner directed to join investigation, cooperate with Investigating Officer, and thereafter appear before Trial Court to furnish bail bonds—Investigating Officer empowered to impose appropriate co...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 482—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 420—Information Technology Act, 2000—Section 66D—Anticipatory bail—Custodial interrogation—Held: Where the accused has joined and cooperated with the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, denial of anticipatory bail is unjustified—Interim protection confirmed—Appellant directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions including surrender of passport and compliance with S. 482(2) BNSS—No observations on merits. ...
(8) SUPREME COURT
SARFAESI ACT, 2002
A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Section 13(2)—Enforcement of security interest—Default by borrower—Held: Persistent default by borrower despite repeated undertakings and failure to comply with repayment obligations justified continuation of SARFAESI proceedings—Borrower’s conduct found contumacious and lacking bona fides—Secured creditor entitled to take possession and proceed with recovery in accordance with law. (Paras 3–4, 12) B. Constitution of India—Article 136—Interim orders—Abuse of process—Contempt—Held: Petitioners repeatedly violated orders of High Court and Supreme Court, failed to cooperate with Administrator, and acted in wilful disobedience—Court noted aggravated conte...
(9) SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction
A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 9—Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949—Section 3—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Legislative function—Held: Determination and alteration of municipal limits under S. 3 MMC Act is a legislative function exercised by the State—Validity of such exercise cannot be challenged in a civil suit by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief—Civil Court lacks jurisdiction—High Court rightly set aside order of Civil Court. (Paras 33–36, 44) B. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966—Section 149—Bar of jurisdiction—Planning authority action—Held: Actions taken by Municipal Corporation as planning authority under MRTP Act are protected by statutory finality—Civil Court jurisdiction expressly barred in respec...
(10) SUPREME COURT
Eviction
A. Government Grants Act, 1895—Sections 2 and 3—Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Section 14(1)(a)—Eviction—Applicability of rent control law—Held: Where occupation flows from a Government grant embodied in a perpetual lease, rights and obligations are governed exclusively by the tenor of the grant—Statutory tenancy under rent control law does not arise—Delhi Rent Control Act held inapplicable—Eviction proceedings under DRC Act without jurisdiction. (Paras 45, 51–55) B. Government Grants Act, 1895—Section 3—Scope and interpretation—Held: Section 3 confers overriding effect of widest amplitude—Terms, conditions and limitations of Government grant prevail notwithstanding any rule of law or statute—Provision cannot be narrowly confined to exclusion of the...
(1) JAMMU & KASHMIR
Interim compensation
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143-A—Sections 138 and 142—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Interim compensation—Discretionary power—Held: Power under S. 143-A NI Act to grant interim compensation is discretionary and not mandatory—Use of expression “may” requires judicial application of mind—Court must prima facie evaluate complainant’s case and defence of accused before granting such relief—Mechanical exercise of power without consideration of defence (such as denial of signature) is impermissible—Impugned order granting 10% compensation set aside. (Paras 16 to 20, 23 to 25) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143-A—Interim compensation—Requirement of reasons and quantum—Held: Grant of in...
(2) ORISSA
Appeal against acquittal
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 372 proviso, Section 2(wa), Section 378(4)—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 413, Section 2(1)(y), Section 419(4)—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Appeal against acquittal—Complainant as “victim”—Maintainability—Held: In cheque dishonour cases, complainant who suffers pecuniary loss is a “victim” within meaning of S. 2(wa) CrPC / S. 2(1)(y) BNSS—Such complainant has independent statutory right to file appeal against acquittal under proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS—Resort to S. 378(4) CrPC / S. 419(4) BNSS not mandatory—Victim’s right of appeal is substantive and not diluted merely because case instituted on complaint. (Paras 11 to 18, 21) B. Code of Criminal Pro...
(3) ALLAHABAD
Eviction, Rent Law
A. Constitution of India—Article 227—Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 21(2)(b), 4(3) and 4(7)—Eviction—Scope of supervisory jurisdiction—Held: High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal where landlord-tenant relationship and statutory default stand proved—Non-compliance with S. 4(3) constitutes a valid ground for eviction under S. 4(7)—Eviction orders upheld. (Paras 2–4) B. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 21 and 4—Grounds of eviction—Statutory non-compliance—Held: Even if default prior to commencement of Act may not independently justify eviction, admitted non-furnishing of tenancy particulars under S. 4(3) is sufficient—Eviction le...
(4) MADRAS
Rebuttal of
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Sections 118 and 139—Dishonour of cheque—Dismissal of complaint—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Appellant/complainant failed to establish source of funds for alleged loan of Rs 5,00,000 and did not produce demand promissory note—Contradictions in her evidence regarding financial capacity and prior dealings created serious doubt—Respondent successfully rebutted statutory presumptions under Ss. 118 and 139 by cross-examination and by producing defence documents (Ex. D1 and Ex. D2)—Burden shifted back to complainant, who failed to discharge it—Trial Court’s dismissal of complaint held justified and based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2 to 5) B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 145—Contradictions—U...
(5) MADRAS
Statutory presumption
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Statutory presumption—Rebuttal—Financial capacity—Evidentiary value—Held: Presumption that cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt is rebuttable—Accused can discharge burden by raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities—Where accused questions complainant’s financial capacity and genuineness of transaction, burden shifts on complainant to establish source of funds—Failure to produce contemporaneous evidence such as income tax returns, bank statements or reliable records casts serious doubt on existence of debt—Documents prepared belatedly without supporting material lack probative value—In such circumstances, presumption stands re...
(6) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Compromise
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Conviction—Compromise between parties—Setting aside of conviction—Held: Petitioner convicted and sentenced under S. 138 NI Act and appeal dismissed—Subsequently, parties entered into compromise and complainant received entire compensation and expressed no desire to pursue proceedings—In view of settlement, judgment of conviction and sentence set aside—Petitioner acquitted subject to condition of depositing 10% of cheque amount with H.P. Legal Services Authority within stipulated time—Failure to comply to render order ineffective and petitioner liable to undergo sentence—Revision allowed and petitioner directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. (Paras 5 to 11) ...
(7) CHHATTISGARH
Presumption
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Section 138—Presumptions and rebuttal—Acquittal—Held: Statutory presumptions regarding consideration and legally enforceable debt operate in favour of complainant but are rebuttable—Accused can discharge burden by raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities and need not prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Where complainant fails to establish existence of legally enforceable debt, particularly in cases involving large cash transactions unsupported by documentary evidence, presumption stands rebutted—Appellate Court justified in reversing conviction and acquitting accused—Further, where statutory notice is sent to correct address and returned unserved, presumption of due service arises unless rebutted by accused. (P...
(8) BOMBAY
Divorce, DNA Test
A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(i)—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 112—Divorce—Paternity—DNA test—Husband disputing paternity of child born during subsistence of marriage—DNA test directed by trial court—Held, DNA test may be ordered to aid adjudication of matrimonial dispute, including allegation of infidelity—However, it cannot be used to declare child illegitimate unless presumption under Section 112 is rebutted by proof of non-access. [Paras 12–13, 17] B. Evidence Act, 1872—Section 112—Presumption of legitimacy—DNA evidence—Strong statutory presumption in favour of legitimacy of child born during marriage—Held, such presumption can be displaced only by clear proof of non-access—DNA test alone insufficient to rebut presump...
(9) MADRAS
Time barred debt
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Indian Contract Act, 1872—Section 25(3)—Limitation Act, 1963—Time-barred debt—Legally enforceable liability—Held: Cheque issued in year 2004 on basis of transactions of years 1997–1998—No acknowledgment or fresh agreement to repay within limitation—In absence of a valid promise under S. 25(3) of Contract Act, debt remains time-barred and unenforceable—Cheque issued for such liability does not attract S. 138—Acquittal justified. (Paras 12–13) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Company complaint—Power of attorney—Authorization—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Complaint prosecuted through power of attorney holder without production of Board resolution authorizi...
(10) MADRAS
Settlement
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Sections 118 and 139—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 320—Dishonour of cheque—Conviction—Settlement and compounding—Held: Respondent initially convicted by Trial Court for dishonour of cheque and sentenced to imprisonment with compensation—Appellate Court set aside conviction noting discrepancies in evidence including variance in signature—During pendency of further proceedings, parties entered into amicable settlement and agreed amount paid through demand drafts—In view of compromise, continuation of proceedings held unnecessary—Statutory presumptions under Ss. 118 and 139 stood eclipsed by settlement—Offence treated as compounded and respondent acquitted—Appeals dismissed accordingly. (Paras 1 to 5) ...
