This Criminal Law October 2025 Roundup provides an overview of important cases and key legislative updates of criminal law that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court’s take on discouraging HC’s from entertaining anticipatory bail applications and its dismissal of IAS Anil Tuteja’s bail plea, Delhi HC’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Ajaz Khan, Bombay HC’s decision that Plea of alibi cannot be raised while filing charge-sheet, and more. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning offences against women and children, bail, conviction, acquittal and other aspects of criminal law.
TOP STORIES
SC Issues Notice on Plea to Club Chargesheets in Senthil Balaji Cash-for-Jobs Case
SC relief for crime committed in 1981 by 12-year-old convict
RTI reply on pendency of cases before Supreme Court
All HC rejects PIL seeking law to protect men from illegal prosecution by women
BHC:Apprehension of delay sufficient for filing condonation
Raj HC: Only strong and cogent evidence warrants summoning a new accused under S. 319 CrPC
Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Teacher for Caning Students
Guj HC in Sanjiv Bhatt case: No absolute right to choose jail
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH
SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court urges High Courts to encourage filing of anticipatory bail applications first before Sessions Court; discourage direct interference
The present appeal was filed by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 12-3-2024, passed by the Patna High Court, whereby Respondents 2 and 3-accused persons were granted anticipatory bail, who had allegedly got the appellant’s wife murdered with the aid of contract killers. The Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., after noting the appellant’s assertion that the respondents used to run a racket of granting loans at higher interest rates and later extorted the said money, opined that the High Court did not appreciate the gravity of accusations and granted them anticipatory bail in such a heinous offence. Thus, the order dated 12-3-2024 passed by the High Court, was set aside. [Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108] Read More HERE
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case
In a criminal appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the convict was held guilty under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar-X, J., acknowledged that the judgment in Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800, fundamentally changed the legal landscape for sexual intercourse with minors in the context of marriage. Prior to 2017, a man could not be convicted for marital intercourse with a minor wife aged 15-18, as it was exempted under Section 375 IPC. Post-2017, after the Independent Thought ruling, such intercourse with a minor wife is statutory rape, and consent does not matter. The Court found that in the present case, as the occurrence took place in 2005, the convict could not be held guilty under the laws as they stood at the time. Since the victim was above 16 years and the marriage was consensual, the Court held that the convict was not guilty of rape under Section 376 of the IPC. [Islam @Paltoo v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5974] Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay High Court slams Trial Court for granting bail to gang rape accused based on his upcoming marriage
In the present application, the State had sought recall of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, wherein the Sessions Court had enlarged the accused, who was alleged to have committed the offence of gang rape, on bail, subject to the ground that his marriage was scheduled in the near future. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., while cancelling the bail, held that the offence was that of gang rape and that the alleged acts attributed to the accused were heinous in nature. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the Trial Court had ignored the relevant material available on record and had failed to consider the gravity of the offence. [State of Maharashtra v. XYZ, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3575] Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay HC directs psychiatric evaluation of former CRPF personnel who allegedly under alcohol influence beat his wife to death for not serving meal
In the present bail application, the applicant, a former CRPF personnel, sought bail in connection with offences in which he was accused of beating his wife to death while under the influence of liquor, allegedly because she could not provide a meal as per his immediate demand. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J., while disposing of the application, emphasised that if such mentally ill persons are released on bail, they continue their illegal acts and pose a constant threat due to their propensity to commit crimes against society, particularly against family members who were weaker sections and unable to confront them. Therefore, instead of releasing such persons on bail without proper treatment and rehabilitation, it is beneficial to treat them for their mental illness in the interest of society’s safety. [Pramod Wamanrao Dhule v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3568] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court grants anticipatory bail to Ajaz Khan over sexually explicit remarks against Harsh Beniwal’s family
An application was filed by Ajaz Khan, an Indian actor, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR filed by Harsh Beniwal’s mother, regarding the sexually explicit remarks he had made against her and her daughter. A Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., held that there was no need for Ajaz Khan’s custodial interrogation because the relevant documents, i.e., his i-phone and i-Pad were in the custody of Bombay police. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to him and stated that every content on the internet should be uploaded with great caution, especially when the uploader had a large audience and exercised influence in society. [Ajaz Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6381] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Friendship gives no license to rape, confine and beat mercilessly: Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail in POCSO case
An application was filed by the accused seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 64(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) stating that he and the victim were friends. A Single Judge Bench of Swarna Kanta Sharma, J., held that even if they were friends, friendship did not give any license to rape the victim repeatedly, confine her and beat her mercilessly. Accordingly, the Court rejected the application. [Sumit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 4008 of 2025] Read More HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | ‘Trial Court justified to declare trial futile after prosecutrix turns hostile and no incriminating evidence is adduced’: J&K and Ladakh HC upholds acquittal in rape case
The present application was filed by the State challenging the judgment of the Fast Track Court, Doda (‘Trial Court’), and seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against acquittal. Through a separate application, the State also prayed for leave to file the acquittal appeal. The Trial Court, by its order dated 30-07-2022, had acquitted the accused persons of offences under Sections 366, 376, 344, 147, and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (‘RPC’). The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar*, JJ., dismissed the prayer for condonation of delay and declined to grant the leave to file acquittal appeal, observing that the State could not demonstrate any compelling circumstance warranting the grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal after the prosecutrix turned hostile and there was lack of further evidence. [State (UT of J&K) v. Shah Din, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 987] Read More HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Know why Karnataka High Court denied bail to 68-year-old accused for gangrape of minor
In a criminal appeal filed by the 68-year-old senior citizen against the bail rejection order by Addl. Sessions Judge, in case of gang rape of a minor victim, the Single-Judge Bench of S Rachaiah, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that the accused’s act of committing sexual assault on a minor girl by taking advantage of her poverty and innocence was a ruthless act and should be condemned. The Court further observed that the accused being an elderly person should have advised and instructed others not to commit such a heinous offence, or he should have brought to the notice of elders of the village to prevent it. Instead, he committed sexual assault which was outrageous. [Channappar v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20135] Read More HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Kerala HC grants bail to 25-year-old murder accused; rules out sexual assault claim
In the case where the accused, charged under Sections 333, 76, 64, 105 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), had sought bail in relation to a case wherein that he had attempted to sexually assault a 19-year-old woman and when she attempted suicide, smothered her resulting in her brain death, a Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas, J., directed him to be enlarged on bail, noting his young age, medical opinions and the remote possibility of an immediate trial. [Anoop K.M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 9666] Read More HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Photograph of place of occurrence revealing impossibility of rape is relevant to the trial proceedings: Kerala High Court
The present petition challenged the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) to permit the defence counsel to confront a witness during cross-examination by showing two documents which dealt with the place of occurrence of the offence, during a rape trial. A Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., held that a photograph depicting the interior of the place where the rape took place was not irrelevant to the proceedings and the Trial Court was wrong to refuse the defence counsel from asking questions related to it. The Court directed the Trial Court to permit the defence counsel to confront the prosecution witness with the said photograph. [Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 10479] Read More HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Photograph of place of occurrence revealing impossibility of rape is relevant to the trial proceedings: Kerala High Court
The present petition challenged the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) to permit the defence counsel to confront a witness during cross-examination by showing two documents which dealt with the place of occurrence of the offence, during a rape trial. A Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., held that a photograph depicting the interior of the place where the rape took place was not irrelevant to the proceedings and the Trial Court was wrong to refuse the defence counsel from asking questions related to it. The Court directed the Trial Court to permit the defence counsel to confront the prosecution witness with the said photograph. [Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 10479] Read More HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Read why Madhya Pradesh HC denied bail to advocate accused of rape and human trafficking
In a regular bail application filed by an advocate regarding an FIR filed against him under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2), 370, 419 & 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 3 and 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (“POCSO”), the Single Bench of Vishal Mishra, JJ., rejected the application, holding that the allegations of human trafficking and rape required further investigation. [A v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 7200] Read More HERE
CONVICTION
MADRAS HIGH COURT | “No grievous hurt or use of weapons reported by victim”; Madras HC sets aside Section 397 IPC conviction of man accused of robbing senior citizen
In the present appeal, the appellant-accused sought to set aside the Trial Court’s judgment for an alleged robbery involving theft of jewellery and cash from a senior citizen contending false implication and inconsistencies in witness statements and flaws in identification, including that the complainant-victim had seen him at the police station before the parade and other witnesses did not support her identification. A Single Judge Bench of M. Nirmal Kumar, J., while partly allowing the appeal, set aside the accused’s conviction under Sections 392 read with 397 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), holding that the victim had not reported grievous hurt or threat to life, and neither the appellant-accused nor the absconding accused had used any arms or weapons. However, the accused was convicted under Sections 392 read with 394 of the IPC, since there was no suggestion to the victim as to why she would falsely enact a drama or give a false complaint. [R. Suresh v. State of TN, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 8492] Read More HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rajasthan High Court converts conviction from murder to culpable homicide of father who inflicted fatal blow on son neck
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused father, against the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for infliction of fatal blow on his son’s neck with a sharp edged tool, a Division Bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur* and Anuroop Singhi, JJ., partly allowed the appeal observing that in ordinary circumstances, no parent would cause fatal injury to their children, howsoever frustrated or dejected he or she may be. The Court, while setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, held that there was no intention or pre-meditation to cause death. Consequently, the conviction was converted to one under Section 304 Part II IPC and the accused was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years. [Laxman Das v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5147] Read More HERE
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT | ‘Conviction more than shocking’: Uttaranchal High Court suspends POCSO conviction; grants bail after victim pleads for accused’s liberty
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused seeking the suspension of his sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (‘POCSO’) and bail, a Division Bench of G. Narendar, CJ*, and Alok Mahra, J., suspended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and allowed the bail application. The Court held that the conviction, particularly under the POCSO was based on no evidence at all, observing that the victim had turned hostile and denied a physical relationship, the medical report showed no signs of forceful sexual assault, and the forensic evidence did not establish any link between the traces of semen found and the accused. The Court observed that the victim had fervently pleaded for the accused’s (victim’s husband) release. [Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Utt 3615] Read More HERE
ACQUITTAL
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Government Servant acquitted after 39 years in a Rs. 100 bribe case: Inside Chhattisgarh HC Ruling
In a criminal appeal filed by a former government servant who was convicted under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’) for accepting bribe of Rs 100, the Single Judge Bench of Bibhu Datta Guru, J., held that held that the failure of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification rendered the proceedings unsustainable and the charges against the appellant were not proved. [Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 9632] Read More HERE
QUASHING OF FIR
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “No abetment by the Company running Shaadi.com”: Inside Allahabad HC order quashing extortion case against Shaadi.com CEO Anupam Mittal
In a writ petition filed by Anupam Mittal, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Shaadi.com, seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him under Sections 420, 384, 507, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), the Division Bench of Madan Pal Singh and Siddhartha Varma, JJ., allowed the petition holding that, since there was no cheating on the part of Anupam Mittal and he had the protection of Section 79 of the IT Act, the offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act were not made out. [Anupam Mittal v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 6444] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | FIR registered to ‘wreak vengeance’ can be quashed: Delhi High Court quashes 17-year-old attempt to murder case against Madhu Kishwar
In the present case, a petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR under Sections 307, 323, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) filed subsequent to a registered FIR, which resulted in conviction of the complainant-Respondent 4, for wreaking vengeance upon him. A Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., held that while FIR should ordinarily not be quashed at the inception when there were disputed questions of fact, however, it is settled law that this Court was empowered to quash the FIR when the record suggested that the same had been registered to wreak vengeance. Thus, the Court quashed the said FIR. [Prof. Madhu Kishwar v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. No. 2250 of 2008] Read More HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Karnataka High Court quashes proceedings against man accused of rape by his Bumble date
In a writ petition filed by a man accused of rape by his Bumble date, challenging the proceedings in a criminal case arising from the alleged incident of sexual assault, a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., allowed the petition, quashing the First Information Report (‘FIR’) and the consequential proceedings. The Court held that permitting the prosecution to continue would be a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of the law. The Court observed the nuanced distinction between consensual intimacy and the grave allegation of rape, noting that the relationship in question was born of mutual volition. [Sampras Anthony v. State of Karnataka and another, Writ Petition No. 31144 of 2024] Read More HERE
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
SUPREME COURT | ‘Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts’; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case
In two criminal appeals filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court, which set aside the acquittal of the appellants-accused persons in a premeditated assault resulting in the death of one person and grievous injury to two others, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi*, JJ. noting that the appellants were not passive spectators but integral participants in a premeditated and violent assault, upheld their conviction. The Court held that, irrespective of their individual actions, once the accused shared a common object and actively participated as members of an unlawful assembly, they were vicariously liable under Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). [Haribhau v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2301] Read More HERE
BAIL, PAROLE AND FURLOUGH
SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court dismisses 13 SLPs in Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam case, including bail plea by former IAS Anil Tuteja
In a batch of 13 Special Leave Petitions (‘SLPs’) filed in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, the division bench comprising of M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. dismissed all the petitions. The SLPs challenged various FIRs registered in the States of Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh, an Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’), as well as the rejection of bail applications, including one filed by IAS officer Anil Tuteja. [Anil Tuteja v Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2110] Read More HERE
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, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2104] Read More HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Accused not named in FIR, Name surfaced during investigation’; Allahabad HC grants bail in case linked to Umesh Pal murder
In a bail application filed seeking release of the accused for offences under Sections 147, 384, 506, 201, 120B, 195A, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Section 42 B of Jail Act and Section 8 read with Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, during pendency of the trial in the court below, the Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J. granted bail to the accused, observing that he was not named in the FIR and that his name had surfaced only during the course of investigation. The only allegation against him was that he had illegally met Ashraf in jail, with no other direct accusations on record. The Court further reiterated that mere criminal antecedents cannot be a ground to deny bail when a strong prima facie case is made out and the accused has been in prolonged incarceration. [Sadakat Khan v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 6698] Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Magistrate’s ‘seen’ remark, without reasoned order, insufficient: Bombay HC grants default bail for delay in filing chargesheet under S. 187 BNSS
In the present petition, the accused persons challenged the Sessions Court’s order denying their default bail application. They argued that the Investigating Officer failed to file the chargesheet within the mandatory 60 day period under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and that no reasoned order was passed to justify the extension of their judicial custody. A Single Judge Bench of Sachin S. Deshmukh, J., while allowing the petition, held that when the Court extended the detention of the accused persons beyond the prescribed period under the law, it was obligatory for the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution vis-à-vis the accused persons. The Court further noted that, to invoke Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to seek an extension of time for filing the chargesheet. [Ranganth Tulshiram Galande v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3773] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Long incarceration without Parole/Furlough can lead to anarchy in jail’: Delhi High Court slams State Agencies for not following Prison Rules
A petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of parole for one month in FIR under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for his mental health and on account of the ill-health of his father, however, no order was passed even though more than one month had passed. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., criticized the State Agencies for not following Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (‘Prison Rules’) and showing their defiance to the very objective of introducing provisions of furlough and parole. Accordingly, the Court granted the same to the petitioner and disposed of the petition. [Lalit@Lucky v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6452] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi HC grants bail to foreign national in NDPS case; highlights lapses in sample testing and prolonged pre-trial incarceration
In a bail application filed by a foreign national accused of carrying commercial quantity of contraband, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga, J, held that since the contents of individual packets had been mixed before being sent for testing, it was difficult to say whether the quantity of contraband seized qualified as ‘commercial quantity’. Thus, the Court granted bail to the accused. [Quentin Decon v. Customs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6299] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Technology boon effectively misused to evade law enforcement’: Delhi High Court denies pre-arrest bail in digital fraud case
In an application filed by the applicant-accused seeking pre-arrest bail in alleged digital fraud of Rs 1,75,00,000, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., while dismissing the same, held that such serious crimes of digital manipulation were on the rise and involved intricate methods and multiple communication devices to mislead unsuspecting victim which required thorough investigation. The Court stated that such a requirement ought not to be curtailed by granting a pre-arrest bail considering how difficult it had gotten to crack such cases due to the boon of technology misuse. [Mohit v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6382] Read More HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Balasore self-immolation case: Read why Orissa HC refused bail to FM College HOD and Principal, but granted conditional relief to two students
In the present applications, the petitioners, a college Assistant Professor, Principal, and two students sought bail after being arrested for their alleged involvement in the suicide of a 20-year-old student of Fakir Mohan Autonomous College, Balasore, who reportedly faced persistent sexual harassment, mental torture, and threats from faculty members. A Single Judge Bench of Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., while disposing of the bail applications held that the genesis of such a drastic step by a young student lied in the hierarchy of the college administration and its inaction towards the harassment complained of by the victim. The Court emphasised that the statutory requirements were duly followed and found no illegality in the decisions of the Trial Courts, therefore, the arrest and detention were not arbitrary. [Samira Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 9219 of 2025] Read More HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Orissa HC quashes POCSO Court’s bail denial to school Principal accused of failing to report sexual harassment complaint of student
In the present application, the petitioner, Principal of Swami Arupananda Higher Secondary School of Education & Technology, Kurtanga, sought bail before the Special Court, Jagatsinghpur, for allegedly failing to report a sexual harassment complaint made by a female student against a Math Lecturer, in violation of Sections 19 and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). A Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., while allowing the application, quashed the order remanding the petitioner to jail custody by refusing bail and directed his release on bail. The Court held that the Special Court failed to take notice of the allegation and erroneously remanded the petitioner to custody by refusing to grant bail, in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. [Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 10425 of 2025] Read More HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Inside Punjab and Haryana HC order dismissing anticipatory bail plea of alleged mastermind in Indo-Pak drone drug smuggling case
A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused, who was alleged to be the mastermind behind the drugs supply chain from Pakistan, in FIR under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Rupinderjit Chahal, J., expressed concern that there was a steady increase in cross border smuggling of illicit drugs through drones and the same from Pakistan posed a grave threat not only to the security of the nation but also impacted its youth. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition by denying the anticipatory bail to the accused in the interest of magnitude and nature of the offence. [Robert Masih v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 12297] Read More HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Denying bail solely because accused lacks permanent residence is miscarriage of justice: Punjab and Haryana High Court
In a petition filed by the accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail which was opposed on the ground that he did not have a permanent abode, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara, J., held that in today’s era of highly speculative and inflated property prices that were largely unaffordable, many people could not afford to buy properties. The Court further stated that when such individuals were arraigned as accused, it would be a miscarriage of justice to deny them bail solely because they lacked permanent residence. Further, adding such indispensable criterion to the purpose and objectives of bail would give it a narrow meaning. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the accused. [Sanjay Gordhanbhai Darji v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 10552] Read More HERE
PREVENTIVE DETENTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay High Court quashes detention order served after unexplained delay of 11 months; Directs State to pay Rs 2 Lakhs as compensation
In the present petition, the petitioner, who was the original detenue, challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, alleging it was deliberately withheld and served only after his release on bail, nearly 11 months later, despite being in judicial custody at the time of issuance. The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar*, JJ., while allowing the petition held that the criminal proceedings, which formed the basis of the impugned detention action, resulted in the petitioner being kept in illegal detention for over a year, thus affecting his fundamental rights to life and personal liberty. The Court emphasised that the authorities abused the preventive detention law, an extraordinary measure meant to be used sparingly against genuine threats to public order. [Dikshant v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3484] Read More HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Know why J&K and Ladakh HC quashed preventive detention order executed after 45-days delay
In the present petition, the father of the detenue challenged the detention order issued by the Divisional Commissioner for involvement in drug trafficking, alleging that the grounds of detention were vague and that the order was executed after a delay of 45 days thereby defeating its object. A Single Judge Bench of Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J., quashed the preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PIT NDPS Act’), holding that delay in executing the detention warrant without sufficient cause vitiated the order. [Adil Hussain Shah v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1015] Read More HERE
ENDANGERING SOVEREIGNITY OF INDIA
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Forwarding ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ post does not endanger sovereignty, unity, integrity of India: Inside Allahabad High Court Ruling
In a bail application filed by a man accused of being a separatist for forwarding a post regarding ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, the Single Judge Bench of Santosh Rai, J., allowed the application, holding that merely posting a message supporting any country would not attract the ingredients of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). [Sajid Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 6277] Read More HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Allahabad HC grants bail to man accused of sharing WhatsApp video featuring PM Modi and Pakistan PM
In a bail application filed by the accused seeking release during the pendency of the trial in a case registered under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), the Single judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deswal, J., said that the video uploaded by the accused on his WhatsApp status did not attract the ingredients of Section 152 BNS. [Javed v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 6699] Read More HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Participating in conspiracy to disturb peace and communal harmony; J & K and Ladakh HC reinstates charges against two accused in cross-border terror plot
In the present appeal, the order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Judge, NIA) (‘Trial Court’) was challenged whereby the accused were discharged regarding the accusation of preparation to commit terrorist acts, as the prosecution’s evidence was not admissible. The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar*, JJ., while allowing the appeal, observed that the Trial Court’s finding of no evidence was incorrect and at the charge stage it should not have probed the evidence exhaustively, but only determined whether the record disclosed a grave suspicion which justified framing charges. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court for it to return a finding whether charges could be framed. [State (UT of J&K) v. Mohd. Anas, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 978] Read More HERE
HATE SPEECH
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Explained | Why Allahabad High Court ruled that even “unsaid words” in WhatsApp message are likely to promote enmity, hatred between religious communities
In a writ petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR lodged under Sections 299 and 353(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNS’), against the accused for allegedly sending inflammatory messages regarding religious conversion of women and his brother’s arrest, the Division Bench of J.J. Munir And Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the matter required investigation as the message sent by the accused conveyed an underlying and subtle message that his brother had been targeted in a false case because he belonged to a particular religious community. [Afaq Ahmad v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21834 of 2025] Read More HERE
PROCEDURE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay HC orders single trial in a case with multiple charge-sheets; first charge-sheet to be treated as principal and others as supplementary
The present petition challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court which had held the five different charge-sheet as maintainable even though the said charge-sheets arose from same transaction and against same accused and formed the basis for the registration of 5 different cases. A Single Judge Bench of Valmiki Menezes, J., held that as per the provisions of Section 220 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) the Sessions Court shall try all five charge-sheets under one trial at which witnesses arraigned in all five charge-sheets shall be examined in a single trial. It was opined that the first charge-sheet shall be treated as principal charge-sheet while the other as supplementary. [Ameet Savant v. State of Goa, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3608] Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Plea of alibi cannot be considered at stage of filing the charge-sheet: Bombay High Court
In the present case, the issue for consideration arose that whether plea of alibi could be taken by the accused at the stage of filing of charge-sheet. A Single Judge Bench of Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J., stated that Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’) states that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him. Thus, it was for the petitioner to establish his case by adducing evidence before the Sessions Court, and therefore, at this stage, his contention as regards presence or absence on the spot could not be considered. The Court stated that as per the Section 106 of the IEA the ground of alibi could not be considered at the stage of the filing of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and held that the order passed by the Sessions Court was correct and proper and did not require any interference. [Prashant Bhausaheb Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3776] Read More HERE
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
DELHI HIGH COURT’S AMENDED BAIL APPLICATION RULES
Inside Delhi High Court’s Amended Bail Application Rules
On 25-9-2025, the Delhi Government notified an amendment to the Delhi High Court Rules & Orders, revising the procedure for bail applications. This change came into effect from 6-10-2025. Read More HERE