Criminal Law September 2025 Roundup

This Criminal Law September 2025 Roundup includes key cases that made news this month, like Bombay HC’s decision to acquit the accused in the 2012 Pune blasts case, Delhi HC preserved the case diary but denied its reconstruction in Devangana Kalita’s plea, Karnataka HC’s direction to implement Cyber Command Centre, Allahabad HC quashes defamation summons against journalists over Brij Bhushan letters and Supreme Court’s clarification that bail cancellation cannot be replaced by the Witness Protection Scheme, and more. These decisions, alongside other notable rulings, help trace the evolution of legal principles in key areas, particularly in matters related to offences against women and children, bail, conviction, acquittal, and other aspects of criminal law.

TOP STORIES

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH

Allahabad High Court | Allahabad High Court ruling that prompted UP Govt. banning caste mentions in police records, public signs, vehicles, etc

In an application filed seeking the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, summoning order, and chargesheet arising out of a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Sections 60 and 63 of the Excise Act, a Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J. after reviewing the records and documents, found that it was prima facie established that the accused had been arrested on the spot. The investigation further revealed that the accused was allegedly the gang leader involved in liquor smuggling across state borders. [Praveen Chetri v. State of UP, Application u/S 482 No. — 31545 of 2024] Read more HERE

Bombay High Court | Bombay HC grants bail to accused in 2012 Pune serial blasts case, citing 12.5 years of pre-trial custody and remote chance of trial completion

The instant appeal was filed against the order passed by the Special Judge (MCOCA) denying bail to the accused (appellant) in Pune Serial blasts case. The Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., held that the accused had already undergone pre-trial incarceration of more than 12.5 years and the possibility of trial concluding in the near future appears to be remote. Additionally, the accused had no criminal antecedents and he was not charged under Sections 307, 120-B as well as Section 302 the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Thus, the Court quashed and set-aside the order of the Special Judge (MCOCA) and granted conditional bail to the appellant. [Farooq Shaukat Bagwan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3139]. Read more HERE

BAIL

Supreme Court | High Courts must dispose of pending bail applications within 2 months from date of filing; Avoid indefinite adjournments.

While considering the instant appeal against common judgment of Bombay High Court dismissing appellants’ bail applications, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., opined that applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while the applicants remain under a cloud of uncertainty. “The consistent line of authority of this Court makes it abundantly clear that bail and anticipatory applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating the parties to a state of indefinite pendency”. [Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1974] Read more HERE

Andhra Pradesh High Court | Anticipatory bail maintainable only before High Court in absence of prima facie case under SC/ST Act

In the present case, a reference was made by the Single Judge, while considering the anticipatory bail applications. One of the questions that arose for adjudication was regarding maintainability of anticipatory bail applications, in cases where alleged offences did not attract the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’). The Division Bench of K. Suresh Reddy* and V. Sujatha, JJ., held that if prima facie case is not made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, then the application for anticipatory bail made under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is maintainable only before the High Court and not before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act. [Vidadala Rajani v. State of A.P., Crl. P. 1461 of 2025] Read more HERE

Calcutta High Court | Calcutta High Court grants anticipatory bail in POCSO case acknowledging 17-year-old victim as wife of accused.

In an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail for protection from arrest in connection with an FIR under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 based on the doctor’s information that the complainant was a minor and pregnant, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J., granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. [In Re| An application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Rangli Rangliot Police Station Case No.01 of 2025 dated 06.01.2025 under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7832] Read more HERE

Delhi High Court | Delhi HC orders probe against Magistrate and Sessions Judge for staying arrest despite dismissal of bail application by High Court and Supreme Court

In an application for anticipatory bail, wherein the accused had already filed four anticipatory bail applications as well as two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) that had been dismissed by the Sessions Court, High Court and Supreme Court, the Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J, opined that the entertainment of another anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court despite dismissal orders from both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court amounted to judicial indiscipline and impropriety. Thus, the Court dismissed the application and directed further investigation into the matter. [Nikhil Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. No. 1516 of 2025] Read more HERE

Delhi High Court | “Bail is the rule and jail the exception”: Delhi High Court grants bail in cheating case citing 9-month custody and lack of incriminating evidence

In an application filed seeking bail during pendency of the trial in the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR dated 25-4-2024, for cheating, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga J., stated that taking into consideration the accused’s 9-month custody, slow trial progress, lack of flight risk, and no incriminating evidence against him continued detention served no purpose and would amount to punitive confinement before conviction, contrary to the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The Court, thus, taking a wholesome view allowed the bail application. [Sumant Batra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5738] Read more HERE

Himachal Pradesh High Court | Himachal Pradesh HC grants interim bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, awaiting Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah case

The petitioner filed the present petition seeking regular bail in a case registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., ordered the petitioner’s release on interim bail till the Supreme Court pronounces its judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra1. [Chet Ram v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4250] Read more HERE

Kerala High Court | Bar on anticipatory bail under S. 18 SC/ST Act inapplicable if substantive offence not established

The present set of appeals were filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), by Accused 1 and 2, challenging the dismissal of their anticipatory bail application by the Special Judge vide order dated 27-08-2025, in relation to a crime registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Gopinath P., J., while setting aside the dismissal order, held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would only be applicable, if prima facie the alleged offence was established, but since in the present case, the prosecution could not do so, the Court directed the accused to be released on anticipatory bail. [Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 8602] Read more HERE

Punjab and Haryana High Court | Bail cannot be cancelled merely for seeking exemption on few hearing dates; cannot be inferred as willful absenteeism or hampering of trial

In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for quashing the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda whereby bail of the accused was cancelled, bail bonds had been forfeited and non bailable warrants had been issued in case arising out of FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) on account of his absence. A Single Judge Bench of Yashvir Singh Rathor J., while quashing the order, held that merely because the accused sought exemption on three out of six dates of hearing, it could not be inferred that he had willfully absented himself or was hampering the trial and bail should not be denied over it. [Dipesh Jain v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7526] Read more HERE

Punjab and Haryana High Court | ‘Once released on bail, prisoner’s custody beyond necessary period is illegal’; Punjab & Haryana HC grants bail to an alleged undocumented Bangladeshi migrant

In a petition filed by the accused, who was allegedly an undocumented migrant from Bangladesh, seeking regular bail in FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act 1946, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara J. granted the bail, stating that once an accused was released on bail, any custody of the prisoner concerned beyond the period necessary to complete the procedures for a formal release from prison, would be illegal, if delayed on flimsy grounds, systemic mediocrity, or bureaucratic red tape. [Farida Praveen v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 6508] Read more HERE

Rajasthan High Court | ‘No social media for 3 years’: Rajasthan High Court’s bail condition for 19-year-old accused of circulating obscene content

In a bail application filed by the 19-year-old accused seeking bail for offences under Sections 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act (‘’IT Act), a Single-Judge Bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., granted bail to the accused observing that the accused was 19-year -old 2nd year college student with no criminal antecedent. Further, the Court imposed strict conditions including the 3-year social media ban for the accused on Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat or like platform in any form either in his own or fictitious name. [Akash v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4839] Read more HERE

Rajasthan High Court | “Everyone has failed to discharge their responsibility”; Rajasthan High Court acknowledges delays in Bail Process as Two women held for 43 days in bailable offence

In a bail application filed by two women kept in detention for 43 days in bailable offence after their bail applications were rejected by Judicial magistrate and Additional district and sessions judge, a Single-Judge Bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., while granting bail expressed anguish and pain, observing that the judicial officers failed to exercise their discretion properly, thereby leading to the accused being kept in custody for 43 days. The Court also observed that the application filed by the accused could not be taken up on priority due to heavy pendency of bail applications before it, thereby leading to further delay [Meetu Pareek v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4174] Read more HERE

CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Supreme Court | Supreme Court grants interim bail in POCSO case; Orders housing, employment, and counselling support to facilitate convict’s reunion with prosecutrix and minor child

In a special leave petition filed against the judgment filed passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein the Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a man under Sections 363 and 366 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (‘POCSO’) Act, 2012, the division bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. granted interim bail to the convict to enable him to reunite with the prosecutrix (now his wife) and their minor child, after both expressed their desire to live together as a family. [Hemchand v. State of Chhattisgarh, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No. 10896/2025] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | Supreme Court stays Rajasthan High Court’s directions containing adverse remarks against POCSO Judge

In a Special Leave Petition filed not to challenge the conviction but solely to seek expunction of adverse remarks made against the trial judge and to quash any disciplinary or consequential proceedings arising from those remarks, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. granted a stay on the operation of the Rajasthan High Court’s order, wherein the High Court had passed strictures and made adverse observations against a judicial officer serving as Special Judge, POCSO Court. [Sonika Purohit. v State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1885] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | “Legal process cannot be misused to re-traumatise child abuse survivors”: SC rejects POCSO convict’s plea to recall 11-year-old niece for cross-examination.

In an appeal filed by a man convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 11-year-old niece, the division bench of Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, JJ. upheld the 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded by the Special POCSO Court and affirmed by the Gauhati High Court. [Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 34304/2025] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | “Procedure is not supposed to control justice”; SC restores conviction & sentence of men who raped a minor girl in 2016

While considering a criminal appeal challenging the setting aside of the Respondents’ convictions under Sections 376(2) of Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 by Patna High Court, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ., set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Respondents’ conviction and sentence as given by the Trial Court, while pointing out that, in the present case, a fairly consistent and creditworthy case of the prosecution was discarded on basis of misapplication of procedure. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1878] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | Supreme Court upholds Kerala HC Verdict: Political Parties are not workplace and not liable to constitute Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act

In a special leave petition filed against the Judgment of Kerala High Court, wherein it was held that it was not compulsory for political parties to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) to address sexual harassment complaints as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, (‘POSH Act’), since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members, the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. refused to entertain a petition seeking to bring registered political parties under the ambit of the POSH Act. [Yogamaya v State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2011] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | NUJS Vice-Chancellor’s resume to now include this Supreme Court order on alleged incidents of his sexual misconduct

While considering an appeal wherein the appellant challenged the decision of Calcutta High Court’s division Bench whereby it had reversed the Single Judge Bench’s order directing the Local Complaint Committee (LCC) to rehear the appellant’s complaint on an alleged incident of sexual harassment committed by the Vice Chancellor (VC) of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS); the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., opined that the High Court’s Division Bench did not commit any error in law in restoring the decision of the LCC that the complaint of the appellant was time barred and liable to be dismissed. [X v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1964] Read more HERE

Delhi High Court | ‘Stigma of rape should not be on the victim but the perpetrator’; Delhi HC refuses to quash FIR in POCSO case; Imposes Rs 10,000 as costs

In a petition seeking quashing of FIR for offence under Sections 137/65(1)/351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) whereby the accused had submitted that quashing the proceedings would be in the interest of the prosecutrix and save her from stigma; a Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia J., while dismissing the petition, sternly emphasised that the stigma of rape should lie on the perpetrator and not on the rape victim. [Altaf v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5729] Read more HERE

Karnataka High Court | Inside Karnataka HC’s order rejecting bail of a married man accused of sexually assaulting Scheduled Caste minor.

In a criminal appeal filed by the accused seeking regular bail in kidnapping and sexual assault of Scheduled Caste minor victim, a Single-Judge Bench of S. Rachaiah, J., rejecting the bail held that the act of committing sexual assault on a minor girl by a married man is unpardonable and must be viewed strictly to restore confidence in the minds of children and women and to send a strong signal to the society. The Court further observed that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste, and she is so susceptible to persons like accused, for the purpose of exploitation and hence society at large has to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society. [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 18847] Read more HERE

Kerala High Court | S. 198-B CrPC bars Magistrate from taking cognizance of rape under S. 376-B IPC without complaint by separated wife

The present petition was filed by the accused-husband under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the proceedings against him for allegedly raping his wife while they were separated, thereby committing offences under Section 376-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’). A Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., quashed the proceedings initiated against the husband on the ground that the cognizance was based on police report and not the wife’s complaint, contravening the mandate of Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). [X v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 7738] Read more HERE

Rajasthan High Court | ‘Rape allegations cannot be disregarded merely because they were made for the first time in S. 164 CrPC statement’

In a criminal revision petition filed by the accused challenging the framing of charges under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) based on allegation made for the first time in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) statement, a Single-Judge Bench of Sandeep Shah, J., dismissing the petition held that simply because the allegation of the rape has been alleged for the first time during the course of statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC, it cannot by itself be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charge. The Court observed that balance needs to be created between the rights of the accused and the victim. [Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4757] Read more HERE

ACQUITTAL AND DISMISSAL OF CHARGES

Supreme Court | ‘Circumstantial evidence chain broken’; Supreme Court acquits two, including death row convict, in rape and murder of 7-year-old girl

In a criminal appeal filed by the convicts against the judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court, which had partially upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge (POCSO), a Three Judge Bench comprising Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., held that, upon considering the evidence in its entirety and bearing in mind the principles governing cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the convicts. [Akhtar Ali v State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1949] Read more HERE

Bombay High Court | ‘Classic case where prosecution failed to establish guilt’: Bombay HC acquits accused in murder case

A petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court whereby, the accused was convicted for offence under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and sentenced with life imprisonment based on the testimony of the sister of deceased and other circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ., held that the it was a classic case where the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, as there were several inconsistencies in the testimony of primary witness i.e. the sister of deceased, and there was no other cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime, except the inadmissible extra-judicial made by him to the police. [Vijeyendra v. State of Maharasthra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3174] Read more HERE

Bombay High Court | Occasional absence on court hearing dates not enough to justify dismissal & acquittal for non-prosecution under S. 256 CrPC

In the present application, the appellant sought leave to appeal against an order by which the Magistrate, taking note of the appellant’s absence, had dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), resulting in acquittal of the accused. A Single Judge Bench of M. M. Nerlikar, J., while allowing the appeal, held that opportunity of hearing and right to present the case were statutory incorporation of natural justice by mandating procedural safeguards, and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have taken a harsh and hyper-technical view by dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution, which accordingly violated procedural safeguards. [Amit Sunarlal Shahu v. Hare Madhav Electronics, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3143] Read more HERE

Punjab and Haryana High Court | Punjab and Haryana HC acquits man, who being asleep while travelling, carried only Punjab licensed weapon into Chandigarh.

In the present revision petition, the accused challenged the judgment of conviction, for carrying licensed weapon outside allowed jurisdiction, passed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’). He also challenged the order of sentence whereby he was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1,000. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Vashisth, J., held that it was not reasonable to infer that he had willfully committed an offence by carrying the weapon in an unauthorized area without requisite permission considering that he travelled a short distance of approximately 100 yards into Chandigarh and that he was asleep during the journey. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted him of all the charges. [Amritpal Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 8664] Read more HERE

PAROLE, FURLOUGH AND EXTERNMENT

Bombay High Court | ‘S. 59 of Maharashtra Police Act is heart and soul of externment proceedings’: Bombay HC quashes order passed without hearing.

A writ petition was filed challenging the externment order passed by the Sub Divisional Police officer under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (‘the Act’), on the ground that it was issued without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The order was based on7 criminal cases, wherein the petitioner was accused of various offences under Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). [Bharat Shatrughana Bhosale v. Commr., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3283] Read more HERE

Himachal Pradesh High Court | Mere registration of FIR invalid ground to deny parole: Himachal Pradesh HC grants 42-days parole for agricultural purposes

In a writ petition filed by the petitioner-accused under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking his release on parole in a case where he was sentenced for offences under Section 354-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 6 and 14(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), and Sections 66-E and 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), but his parole request was rejected by the District Magistrate, Kangra, a Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., quashed the order of rejection and held that mere registration of an FIR, while the accused was previously released on parole, could not be the ground to deny his request because the prisoners must be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. [Sachin Kumar v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4720] Read more HERE

DEFAMATION

Allahabad High Court | Allahabad HC quashes summoning order against Journalists in defamation case over publication of former MP Brij Bhushan’s letters to CM

In a case concerning a summoning order issued against two journalists in a defamation case filed by a lawyer, related to the alleged publication of a letter written by former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Lavania, J. held that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, had failed to consider all relevant aspects of the case, including the applicable legal principles, while passing the impugned order dated 10-04-2023. [Divya Srivastava v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5794] Read more HERE

PROCEDURAL AND INVESTIGATIVE ISSUES

Supreme Court | Witness Protection Scheme cannot substitute bail cancellation; rendering provisions of bail cancellation otiose

The present appeal arose from the order passed by the Allahabad High Court (‘the High Court’) whereby the appellant’s application to cancel the bail of the accused person was dismissed on the ground that with the appellant’s remedy was under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (‘Witness Protection Scheme’) and thus, declined to cancel the bail. [Phireram v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1915] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | Supreme Court lays down 4-step process to determine veracity of quashment prayer raised by an accused under S. 482 CrPC

While deciding this appeal arising from an order passed by Allahabad High Court by which the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s petition seeking quashment of summoning order, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., laid down certain steps which must be followed to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | Article 226 cannot be invoked to quash FIR, once cognizance of offence has been taken; remedy under Section 528 BNSS can be availed| Supreme Court

In the present case, the petitioner filed the special leave to appeal, challenging the order dated 1-7-2025, passed by the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’), whereby the petition to quash the FIR was disposed of on the ground that after the charge sheet was filed, the petition had become infructuous. The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., stated that so long the cognizance of the offence was not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226 of Constitution. However, once cognizance is taken, power under Section 528 of the BNSS was available to quash the FIR/charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance, provided the same was placed on record along with the requisite pleadings. [Pardnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | Supreme Court reiterates need for HC to timely upload reasoned order after pronouncing operative part of judgment, following a notable delay of almost 2.5 years in a case

The present appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 18-2-2016 (‘impugned judgment’) passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction passed by the Trial Court, was dismissed. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that only because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the appellant, was not recovered or discovered, at any point of time during the investigation, would not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses, doubtful. The Court opined that the Trial Court and the High Court had well appreciated the oral version of the two eyewitnesses and thus dismissed the appeal. [Rajan v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1952] Read more HERE

Supreme Court | Supreme Court issues bailable warrants against Advocate to account for FIR in 1971 Forgery Case; Stays arrest of 71-year-old woman

In a special leave petition filed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court rejected a 71-year-old woman application for anticipatory bail in a forgery case, the three-judge bench of Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. took strong exception to the conduct of respondent 2, a practicing advocate, who was found to be evading service in a case pertaining to an FIR lodged at his instance. The FIR alleged forgery of a sale deed dated 21-08-1971, and was registered in 2023, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against a 71-year-old woman. [Usha Mishra v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2023] Read more HERE

Allahabad High Court | “No licence for police to arbitrarily enter names in surveillance register”: Allahabad HC quashes police order refusing closure of man’s history sheet

In a writ petition filed by an accused seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar (‘SP’), whereby his plea for the closure of his history-sheet was rejected, the Division Bench of Siddharth and Santosh Rai*, JJ., allowed the petition, holding that there was no sufficient ground to entertain a reasonable belief that surveillance was required in the case of the petitioner. There was no evidence to support the act of opening of his history sheet [Mohammad Wajir v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 5354] Read more HERE

Andhra Pradesh High Court | Section 179(1) BNSS does not empower police with unlimited jurisdiction; notice cannot be issued beyond own or adjoining station

The petitioner filed a writ petition, aggrieved by the repeated notices sent to him, to appear before the investigating officer in Vijayawada, pursuant to a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) wherein he was not the accused. A Single Judge Bench of Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., opined that the petitioner being the resident of Noida was territorially restricted from being called at Vijayawada Police Station. Section 179(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) does not empower the Police Officer with unlimited jurisdiction to issue such notice to any person, who is residing far away. [V.D. Moorthy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3099] Read more HERE

Bombay High Court | Bombay High Court orders release of detenue held without evidence; Takes note of judicial and investigative failures under S. 189 BNSS

The present petition was filed by the detenue’s sister, who sought a writ of habeas corpus for his release from Taloja Central Prison alleging illegal detention despite reports indicating insufficient evidence against him. The Division Bench of Sarang V. Kotwal and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., while allowing the petition, held that the Investigating Officer failed to fulfil his duty under Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), which mandates release of an accused when evidence was deficient. [Afreen Abubakar Tayal v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3207] Read more HERE

Bombay High Court | ‘Failed to show due diligence during trial’; Bombay HC dismisses plea to lead additional evidence at appellate stage

The present writ petition was filed against the order of the Sessions Court wherein the Court had rejected the petitioner’s application of leading additional evidence. A Single Judge Bench of M.M. Nerlikar, J., held that since the petitioner was part and parcel of the entire criminal proceedings from the inception but had failed to show due diligence during the course of the trial, therefore, he could not be permitted to fill in the lacunae by leading additional evidence at the appellate stage when there was no irregularity in conduct of the trial. [Dhanraj v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3146] Read more HERE

Calcutta High Court | Can Section 91 CrPC be invoked to compel an accused to produce incriminating material? Calcutta High Court examines

The instant matter dealt with two criminal revisional applications, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) moved by the revisionist seeking quashing of two separate complaint proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalimpong, also challenging the orders dated 13-05-2025 of the Trial Court directing the accused to produce certain rent receipts, as well as the orders dated 23-07-2025 of the Sessions Judge, Kalimpong, which had affirmed the trial court’s directions. [Ram Kishan Mittal v State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6945] Read more HERE

Delhi High Court | Delhi Riots: Here’s why Delhi HC rejected accused Devangana Kalita’s plea for reconstruction of case diary but allowed for its preservation.

In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside an order dated 6-11-2024, wherein the trial Court had declined the plea of Delhi Riots accused Devangana Kalita for preservation and reconstruction of case diary, the Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J, held that even though case diary is not evidence, its absence may affect fairness of trial. Thus, the Court allowed for the preservation of case diary but rejected the plea for reconstruction of the same. [Devangana Kalita v. State NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6130] Read more HERE

Himachal Pradesh High Court | ‘SDM couldn’t have initiated preventive proceedings in private dispute’; Himachal Pradesh HC quashes summoning notice under S. 111 CrPC

In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’), Una, who had summoned him under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) in a private dispute, after believing that there was a possibility of breach of peace. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., quashed the order passed by the SDM, observing that it failed to meet the requirements of Section 111 CrPC and that the SDM could not have initiated the preventive proceedings in a private dispute. [Ajay Thakur v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4728] Read more HERE

Orissa High Court | Test to invoke S. 319 CrPC is whether unrebutted evidence would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned

The present application was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada, whereby he was summoned under Section 319(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to face trial. A Single Judge Bench of Chittaranjan Dash, J., while allowing application took note of the informant’s allegation that his son was murdered by his daughter-in-law, who was in a love relationship with the petitioner and held that the depositions implicating the petitioner rested entirely on suspicion and surmises, without even a semblance of evidence showing his participation in the preparation or commission of the offence. [Hrushikesh Panda v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3500] Read more HERE

ABETMENT TO SUICIDE

Supreme Court | Heated neighbourhood quarrels cannot constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC

In a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, wherein the Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. held that the evidence did not establish the ingredients of abetment to suicide. The Court observed that the quarrels between the appellant’s family and the victim’s family were in the nature of heated exchanges that occur in everyday life and could not be construed as instigation to such an extent that the victim was left with no option but to commit suicide. It therefore concluded that the appellant was not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and acquitted her of the charge. The appeal was accordingly allowed; the judgment of the Karnataka High Court was set aside. [Geeta v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1938] Read more HERE

NDPS AND SERIOUS OFFENCES

Supreme Court | Mere non-production of seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure

While considering this appeal challenging Bombay High Court’s decision to direct re-trial of a NDPS case and remanding the appellant to judicial custody, who was originally convicted by the Trial Court after recovery of contraband; the Division Bench of Manoj Misra* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., opined that mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material. [Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1977] Read more HERE

Bombay High Court | Amid NDPS probe, Bombay HC directs UIDAI to reveal demographic information of Israeli national who obtained Aadhaar card despite ineligibility

In the present application, the State sought disclosure of the demographic information under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act (‘the Act’), 2016 (‘Aadhar Act’) of the respondent, an Israeli national, who was found residing in Goa without valid travel documents and alleged to have obtained an Aadhaar card despite being ineligible. A Single Judge Bench of Valmiki Menezes, J., while allowing the application, held that the respondent admittedly had no passport or valid visa at the time the Aadhaar card was issued, or his demographic information was collected. [State of Goa v. Unique Identification Authority of India, Criminal Application (Main) No.13 of 2025] Read more HERE

Madhya Pradesh High Court | “Rightly detained for his conduct”: Madhya Pradesh HC denies relief to man who opened fire in public and uploaded the video on social media

In a writ petition filed by a man who open fired in a residential area and uploaded a video of it challenging the detention order passed against him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (‘NSA’), the Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and Pushpendra Yadav, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the accused was rightly detained for his conduct. [Shivang Bhargav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 6580] Read more HERE

CYBERCRIME

Karnataka High Court | Karnataka High Court directs robust implementation of Cyber Command Centre to tackle burgeoning menace of cybercrime.

In a pending writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of mandamus for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to conduct, supervise and monitor investigation in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(B) and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) and Sections 318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., issued a continuing mandamus, ensuring the implementation of its earlier order regarding the establishment of a Cyber Command Centre (‘CCC’). [Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 18864] Read more HERE

Patna High Court | Patna High Court stalls circulation of AI generated video of PM Narendra Modi and his late mother

In a civil writ petition filed by petitioner seeking removal of AI generated video clipping of PM Narendra Modi and his late mother, a Division Bench of the P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ*, and Alok Kumar Sinha, J., while directing the respondents not to circulate the video clipping until further orders held that, prima facie, humiliating a sizeable class of persons in exhibiting video clip cannot be countenanced in a constitutional democracy governed by the principles of dignity, liberty, and fraternity. [Vivekanand Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2933] Read more HERE

ELECTRONIC/DIGITAL EVIDENCE

Rajasthan High Court | Who must submit the Section 65B Evidence Act certificate? Rajasthan HC reiterates requirements

In a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Rent Tribunal permitting the respondent to present electronic evidence along with a certificate issued by himself under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 must be provided by the person who originally recorded the video, not by the person to whom the recording was subsequently transferred. [Shwetabh Singhal v. J.K And Sons, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12210/2025] Read more HERE

NATIONAL SECURITY

Supreme Court | Supreme Court comes to the aid of 2023 Akola City communal riots assault victim; Directs constitution of SIT & sensitisation drive for Police Dept.

While considering this matter whereby the appellant was aggrieved at the dismissal of his complaint regarding police inaction apropos the attack and assault on him during communal riots in Akola City, Maharashtra on 13-05-2023 by Bombay High Court after expressing suspicions on the appellant’s bonafides; the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., directed the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team (SIT), comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to undertake an investigation into all the allegations made by the appellant, by registering an FIR in connection with the assault upon him, and take appropriate action thereon as warranted. [Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1955] Read more HERE

Allahabad High Court | “Posts indicate glorification of anti-national ideology”: Allahabad HC denies bail to man accused of insulting national flag by making a dog pee on it

In a bail application filed by a man who was arrested for allegedly making social media posts against India and in support of Pakistan, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., rejected the application, stating that the said posts were provocative, objectionable, and capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public peace and order. [Vasik Tyagi v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5791] Read more HERE

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court | S. 21 NIA Act cannot be invoked to override complete mechanism provided under S. 25 UAPA in seizure matters| Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh HC

The present appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) against the order dated 25-01-2025, passed by the Special Judge (UAPA), Anantnag (‘Special Court’), whereby the application for the release of vehicle seized in connection with a terrorist related activity was dismissed. The Division Bench of Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem*, JJ., while dismissing the appeal, held that if a statutory remedy was available under the UAPA, the accused could not bypass it to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 21 of the NIA Act. [Yasir Ahmad Bhat v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 955] Read more HERE

SCC Times

Criminal Law September 2025: Key Highlights from this Month’s Criminal Cases

TOP STORIES

Also Read

Related

Most Read

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

TOP STORIES

Also Read

Related

Most Read

Must Watch

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply