LawLoveLegal

Introduction: A Liberty-Centric Recalibration of Criminal Procedure In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty, the Supreme Court has held that no person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years should be arrested unless such arrest is absolutely warranted . Emphasising that issuance of notice to cooperate with investigation is the norm , the Court ruled that arrest must remain a rare and carefully justified exception . This judgment assumes heightened importance as it offers one of the first authoritative interpretations of arrest-related provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 , which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with effect from 1 July 2024 . Background of the Case and Reference Before the Court The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh , while answering a reference concerning the scope and mandatory nature of Section 35 of the BNSS . The cor...

Courts Cannot Recall Signed Orders Except for Clerical Errors I. Background of the Case In a rare and procedurally significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India restored anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a narcotics case after holding that the Patna High Court acted without jurisdiction in recalling a bail order that had already been signed. The case highlights a critical question of criminal procedure: Can a court undo a signed judicial order because of an internal staff error? The Supreme Court answered with a clear no . II. FIR and Allegations Under NDPS Act The case originated from an FIR registered in October 2024 in Vaishali district, Bihar , under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) . Key Allegations: 6.33 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from a co-accused During interrogation, the co-accused claimed that the contraband was meant to be delivered to Rambali Sahni No recovery was made from Sahni S...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of personal liberty under the Constitution, holding that pending criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for indefinitely denying the renewal of a passport . The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih , allowing an appeal filed by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal , an accused in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case related to alleged extortion and terror funding activities in Jharkhand’s coal mining belt. The Court set aside judgments of the Calcutta High Court , which had earlier upheld the refusal of passport renewal by the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Kolkata. Factual Matrix Mahesh Kumar Agarwal’s passport expired in August 2023 . At the time: He was facing trial in an NIA case pending before a Special Court in Ranchi. He was also convicted in a CBI coal block allocation case , though his sentence had been suspended by t...

Introduction In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty and criminal procedure safeguards, the Bombay High Court has held that an accused cannot be remanded to judicial custody merely for not applying for bail , particularly when the individual was never arrested during investigation and consistently appeared before the court pursuant to summons . The ruling underscores the constitutional limits on judicial power and reinforces the settled principle that custody is a legal status, not a procedural assumption . Background of the Case The ruling arose from a criminal case registered in 2023 , involving allegations that partners of AS Agri and Aqua Limited Liability Partnership defrauded investors of approximately ₹350 crore by promising unusually high returns. Alleged Offences The FIR invoked the following provisions: Section 406, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Criminal breach of trust Section 420, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Cheating Section 427, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhi...

Background of the Case The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling dated 7 November , declined to grant police protection to a couple claiming to be in a live-in relationship. The petition was filed by Sonam and her alleged partner (referred to as petitioner no. 2), who sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the woman’s husband and the police from interfering in their lives. The Court emphasized that the woman was still legally married under the Hindu Marriage Act , and therefore, the claimed “live-in relationship” could not be accorded legal protection. Court’s Key Observation: Freedom Cannot Override Legal Rights Freedom vs. Statutory Rights Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that although an adult has autonomy over personal choices, including relationships, such autonomy is not absolute . The Court clarified that the right to personal liberty under the Constitution cannot be exercised to violate the statutory rights of another person . Quote from the judgment: “A spouse has sta...