Bail

Anticipatory Bail - Condition for Automatic Custody Upon Charge-Sheet Submission - Such a specific direction, mandating coercive steps for custody, was improper. When granting anticipatory bail, the court should leave it open for the trial court to decide on bail after the charge-sheet is filed and the accused appears. (Para 3) Ritesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Arrest - Defiance of Court Order - Grant of Bail - Police, with knowledge of the protection order, hastily added serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 leading to the appellant's arrest. The Court deprecated this conduct, emphasizing that the police should have sought leave from the Court before arresting the appellant. The Court, considering the mala fide nature of the arrest, allowed the appeal, directing the appellant's release on bail, and made the interim order of protection absolute. (Para 5 & 7) Manish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Cancellation of Bail - Factors - When considering bail in serious criminal offences, courts must consider factors such as the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, role of the accused, criminal antecedents, probability of witness tampering, and likelihood of the accused being available for trial. Bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically, but an unreasoned or perverse bail order is open to interference. Supervening circumstances, post-bail conduct, attempts to delay trial, threats to witnesses, or tampering with evidence are grounds for setting aside bail. Courts must avoid detailed reasons that may prejudice the accused, focusing on prima facie considerations. (Para 15) Shabeen Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Moratorium of 1 year imposed by high court to apply for bail afresh - Such a restriction was impermissible. (Para 3) Md. Gulzar v. State of Bihar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Parameters for granting and setting aside bail – The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals, setting aside the High Court's order granting bail to the accused in a case involving alleged compromise of a public recruitment examination. The Court distinguished between setting aside an order of bail and cancellation of bail, emphasizing that setting aside challenges the legality of the grant order itself, while cancellation addresses misuse of bail or supervening circumstances. The Court reiterated that while granting bail, factors like the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement of the accused are crucial. The Court stressed the importance of maintaining the sanctity of public examinations and the impact of such offenses on society's faith in public administration. The High Court erred in granting bail based on factors like lack of criminal antecedents and period of custody, without adequately considering the gravity of the offense and its societal implications. The Court directed the accused to surrender and clarified that its observations were limited to the bail matter and should not be construed as remarks on the merits of the case. The court allowed the accused to reapply for bail before the trial court after the examination of material witnesses. [Referred: Ansar Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 974; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392 and Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278] (Para 8, 11 & 14) State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Constitution of India

Animosity or Hatred - 75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society. (Para 42 ix) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Article 12 - Police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. Police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens. (Para 29) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Article 19 - Freedom of Speech and Expression - The poem falls under the appellant's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). This right includes dissent and protest, essential to democracy, unless restricted reasonably under Article 19(2). The FIR's registration was a mechanical act, bordering on perversity, and an abuse of process, violating constitutional ideals of liberty of thought and expression. (Para 36) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Article 21 - Duty of Courts - Courts must zealously protect freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democracy and dignified life under Article 21. The effect of words must be judged by reasonable, strong-minded standards, not weak or insecure ones. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows, satire and art, make the life of human beings more meaningful. (Para 38 & 39) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 (Equivalent to Section 528 BNSS) - The High Court wrongly concluded the poem disturbed social harmony without evidence, relying solely on its “tenor” and social media responses. No absolute bar exists against quashing an FIR at a nascent stage if no offence is prima facie made out. The High Court failed to prevent an abuse of process. (Para 35 & 37) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

BNS / IPC

Sections 120B, 468 and 471 IPC - Forgery of a marksheet - Handwriting Expert - Admissibility of Evidence - The conviction was based on the handwriting expert's opinion that the appellant had written the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was sent. Held, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the original postal cover, which was crucial to establish the appellant's handwriting. Without the original document being exhibited and proved, the handwriting expert's report had no evidentiary value. The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., emphasizing that while handwriting expert opinion is relevant, it must be approached with caution and the reasons for the opinion must be carefully examined. The uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert can be accepted if the reasons are convincing and there is no reliable evidence casting doubt. However, in this case, due to the lack of the original document, the expert opinion had no basis. Therefore, the conviction based solely on the handwriting expert's opinion, without proving the original document, was unsustainable, and the appellant was acquitted. (Para 12 & 15) C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Sections 143, 147, 153 (A), 295, 436 and 332 IPC - In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, Courts must be cautious to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of their liberty. In such type of cases, the Courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses who make general statements without specific reference to the accused, or the role played by him. The mere presence of persons, who out of curiosity gathered to witness the incidents, should not be a ground to convict them when there is no overt act alleged against them. (Para 15) Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Section 149 IPC - Unlawful Assembly - General statements by witnesses, without specific attribution of roles, are insufficient to convict individuals in cases involving large crowds, and the police should be cautious to book such individuals who were just bystanders without having any participation in the unlawful assembly. (Para 13) Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Sections 147, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 323, 325, 452 IPC – Incident of 1989 – Accused assaulted multiple persons, including deceased, over a dispute – Trial Court convicted under Section 302/149 IPC with life imprisonment – High Court converted conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, reduced sentence to time served (76 days) with fine, citing advanced age of accused (70–80 years) and 28-year delay –Medical evidence inconclusive on cause of death (asphyxia, 15 days post-assault) – No intent to murder established – Long lapse of time and age of accused justified leniency –Appeal dismissed. (Para 13 & 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Section 196 BNS - Promoting enmity between groups - When an offence under section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have a sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position. (Para 33) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) BNS - The appellant, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, posted a video on social media featured a poem recited in the background, which the informant alleged incited enmity between communities, hurt religious sentiments, and threatened national unity. Held, the poem does not reference any religion, caste, or community, nor does it promote enmity, hatred, or disharmony. It advocates non-violence and resilience against injustice, using symbolic references (e.g., “throne”) to challenge rulers. No offence under Sections 196, 197, 299, or 302 of the BNS is made out, as the poem lacks mens rea or content to incite disharmony, wound religious feelings, or jeopardize national integration. Abetment under Section 57 BNS is inapplicable absent evidence of incitement. (Para 11 – 19) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Section 376 IPC - Child Victim - Evaluation of Evidence - Discrepancies in Testimony - The silence of a traumatized child victim cannot be equated with the silence of an adult and should not automatically benefit the accused. The absence of direct testimony from the victim does not preclude conviction when other compelling evidence exists. Courts must be sensitive to the unique vulnerabilities of child victims and avoid placing undue burden on them. Testimony of persons with disabilities must be given full legal weight, and any judicial attitude that stems from bias and stereotypes against persons with disabilities is to be avoided. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Chatra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Section 298, 353 and 504 IPC - Use of offensive and derogatory terms, such as "Miyan-Tiyan" and "Pakistani," while in poor taste, does not automatically amount to deliberately wounding the religious feelings of another. Essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out. No assault or use of criminal force was established under Section 353 IPC, the alleged remarks did not amount to wounding religious sentiments under Section 298 IPC, and no act was found to provoke a breach of peace under Section 504 IPC. Appeal allowed; criminal proceedings quashed. (Para 19 & 20) Hari Nandan Singhv v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 280

Section 302 IPC – Murder – Accused inflicted the knife stabs on the deceased which could only have been possible if the knife was already with him, which clearly indicates that he had come with prior intention to cause bodily injury by knife which obviously is a weapon sufficient to cause of death. In other words, the intention to kill was very much present from the beginning and is not covered by any exception to Section 300 of the IPC. This persuades to refrain from converting conviction from under Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304-I, IPC. No fault can be found with the Trial Court and the High Court, which have rightly reached the conclusion that the accused was guilty as charged. (Para 23) Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349

Section 302 IPC - Murder - Benefit of Doubt - Reliability of Witnesses - Appellant convicted by trial court and High Court under Section 302 IPC for stabbing deceased during an altercation - Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Eyewitness testimonies unreliable due to inconsistencies, absence of bloodstains on witnesses' clothes despite carrying bleeding deceased, failure to report incident to nearby police, and delayed recording of statements - Prior enmity between appellant and deceased raised possibility of false implication - Conviction unsustainable; appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Judgments of trial court and High Court set aside - Appeal allowed. (Para 21 & 22) Aslam @ Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Section 302 IPC - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the High Court for the murder of his two minor children. The murders were committed allegedly as a result of familial discord over the appellant's sister-in-law's relationship with a co-worker, which the appellant disapproved of. The appellant was also separately convicted for the murders of his sister-in-law and mother-in-law. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution relied on witness testimonies, SMS messages, and call records to establish the appellant's guilt. Whether the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the children beyond reasonable doubt? Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt? Whether the death sentence was appropriate, or should it be commuted to life imprisonment without remission? Held, the Court reiterated the principles governing the imposition of the death penalty, emphasizing that it should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. While the circumstantial evidence in this case was strong, the absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating factors warranted commutation of the death sentence. The judgment also highlighted the importance of considering all mitigating circumstances, including the possibility of reformation, before imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murders of his children. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission, considering the following mitigating factors: (i) The appellant had no prior criminal antecedents. (ii) He had good relations with his family, as testified by prosecution witnesses. (iii) The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and while the evidence was unimpeachable, the Court found that the death penalty was not the only appropriate punishment. The gravity of the crime, involving the murder of innocent children, was undeniable. However, the Trial Court had not adequately considered all mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's lack of criminal history and his behavior during the trial. The appeals were partly allowed. The conviction was upheld, but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission. The appellant will remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life. (Para 16 & 17) Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Section 306 and 420 IPC - Abetment of suicide - Cheating - Quashing of Proceedings – Held, there was no proximate or direct instigation leading to the deceased's suicide. The time gap between the alleged fraudulent acts and the suicide indicated the absence of immediate provocation. FIR quashing under Section 306 IPC upheld, but reinstated under Section 420 IPC. The High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning for quashing the case under Section 420 IPC despite material evidence collected during the investigation. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case under Section 420 IPC, and the accused were given the liberty to seek discharge in accordance with the law. Appeal partly allowed. (Para 15, 18 & 19) R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Sections 306 and 114 IPC - Abetment of suicide - The appellants were accused of abetting the suicide of an individual who allegedly consumed poison due to blackmail by the appellants over compromising photographs and videos. The trial court and the High Court had convicted the appellants. Held, the prosecution failed to prove the charge of abetment to suicide beyond a reasonable doubt. Key issues included the delayed filing of the FIR, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of recovery of incriminating evidence (such as the alleged suicide note, poison, or stolen ornaments), and the absence of proximate instigation by the appellants leading to the suicide. Mere harassment or blackmail, without direct incitement or proximate acts compelling suicide, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The appellants were acquitted. (Para 36 & 40) Patel Babubhai Manohardas v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Section 376 IPC - Rape - Consent - Promise of Marriage - Quashing of Proceedings – The Court reiterated that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of consent. Relationship between appellant and complainant, both major and closely related, was consensual, as evidenced by repeated interactions and voluntary visits to hotel. High Court erred in not exercising inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process. Proceedings quashed. (Para 11 - 13) Jothiragawan v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Section 376 IPC - Rape - False Promise of Marriage - Consensual Relationship - Quashing of FIR - Where a complainant, a highly qualified major woman, alleges rape based on a false promise of marriage after a 16-year long consensual relationship, the allegations are deemed unreliable due to material contradictions and prolonged silence. The deletion of Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage) by the Investigation Officer and the lack of evidence against other co-accused further weaken the complainant's case. The prolonged period of consensual sexual relations, the complainant's independent life and travel to meet the accused, and her portrayal of herself as the accused's wife indicate a live-in relationship gone sour, not rape. Applying the principles of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921; Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 204 the court held that the physical relationship must be directly traceable to the false promise, and prolonged consensual relations negate the claim of vitiated consent. Mere breach of promise does not equate to a false promise, and the accused's mala fide intent must be established. The FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed as an abuse of process. (Para 19, 26, 29, 30, 34, 37 & 39) Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Section 376 IPC - Rape - The High Court had overturned the Trial Court's conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, citing glaring lacunae in the prosecution's case. Key issues included the prosecutrix's lack of cooperation during medical examination, the absence of physical evidence (such as semen or blood), and contradictory testimonies from the prosecutrix's parents, particularly her mother, who turned hostile. The Court noted the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the failure to establish the prosecutrix's mental state conclusively. The High Court's acquittal was based on the benefit of the doubt, and the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere, upholding the acquittal. (Para 10 & 12) State of Himachal Pradesh v Rajesh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Sections 498A and 304B IPC - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Sections 3 and 4 - Dowry Death - Cancellation of Bail - Stringent Judicial Scrutiny Required - Granting bail in dowry death cases despite evidence of direct involvement shakes public confidence in judiciary. In cases of alleged dowry death, particularly where the death occurs within seven years of marriage and exhibits signs of severe physical violence and persistent dowry demands, stricter judicial scrutiny is imperative. Courts must be mindful of the broader societal impact and public confidence in the criminal justice system. Where evidence indicates direct involvement in fatal events, including persistent dowry demands and physical cruelty, bail should be cancelled to ensure a fair and unimpeded trial. The gravity of the offence necessitates a cautious approach, preventing the normalization of such heinous crimes. (Para 15) Shabeen Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Sections 498A and 304B IPC - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Sections 3 and 4 - Dowry Death - A young woman died within two years of marriage with multiple ante-mortem injuries and evidence of dowry demands - Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the father-in-law and mother-in-law, citing their principal role in pressurizing the deceased. However, the bail granted to the sisters-in-law, whose role appeared less direct and who had personal and educational circumstances warranting leniency, was upheld. The Court emphasized that the trial court should proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the judgment and conclude the trial expeditiously. (Para 16 - 21) Shabeen Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278

BNSS / Cr.P.C.

Additional Accused - If a court intends to add a person as an accused, it cannot direct the police to include their name in the charge sheet. Instead, the court may issue a summons to the proposed accused if sufficient grounds exist, even if they are not named in the charge sheet. (Para 3) Gopal Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Criminal Appeal - Old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail. (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Section 50 Cr.P.C. – Mere arrest memo lacking detailed particulars does not satisfy the mandate under Section 50, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Arrest and remand set aside. Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Section 154 Cr.P.C. - When an informant approaches the police with information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the 2 police owes a duty to promptly register an F.I.R. and initiate investigation in accordance with Section 154 of the CrPC. The police authorities are not vested with any discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry to assess the credibility of the information before registering the F.I.R. Any such practice would be contrary to the established principles of criminal law. (Para 34) Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Section 154 and 174 Cr.P.C. - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 18A – Abetment of Suicide - Student suicides due to academic pressure, caste discrimination, and harassment - Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 when information discloses a cognizable offence, such as abetment of suicide or caste-based atrocities, without scope for preliminary inquiry unless exceptional circumstances apply; police cannot limit action to Section 174 inquiry into cause of death. Inquiry under Section 174 is restricted to ascertaining apparent cause of death (suicide, homicide, etc.) and cannot substitute for investigation into alleged cognizable offences under Section 154; premature closure of case as suicide without FIR registration disapproved. FIR registration for offences under SC/ST Act is obligatory without preliminary inquiry; allegations of caste-based discrimination and harassment in educational institutions mandate investigation. (Section 22, 34 & 40) Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. - Before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CrPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support. (Para 8) Ranjit Singh Bath v. Union Territory Chandigarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Section 161 Cr.P.C. - Delay in recording an eyewitness's testimony would not draw an adverse inference against the prosecution's case if the delay is adequately explained. (Para 21) Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349

Section 173 BNSS - Police Duty and Preliminary Inquiry - Under Section 173(1) of the BNSS, registering an FIR is mandatory for cognizable offences, but Section 173(3) allows a preliminary inquiry for offences punishable between 3 and 7 years to ascertain a prima facie case. Here, the police failed to exercise this discretion, which could have protected the appellant's rights. Police, as part of the State under Article 12, must respect constitutional ideals. The Court criticized the lack of sensitization among police regarding Article 19(1)(a) and urged training programs. (Para 30) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Section 173 (3) BNSS - Preliminary inquiry must be conducted before lodging the FIR, if the offences alleged are dealing with speech and expressions. (Para 29) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Section 174 Cr.P.C. – Scope of - Investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death and should not be equated with investigation into cognizable offences under Sections 160 and 161 of the CrPC respectively. The procedure under Section 174 of the CrPC is for the purpose of discovering the cause of death and the evidence taken is very short. The police's closure of the cases as suicides after Section 174 inquiries was premature and bypassed due process. (Para 22 & 40) Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Section 200 Cr.P.C. / Section 223 BNSS - Recording the complainant's statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The object of recording the complainant's statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth. The learned Magistrate is duty-bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth. The examination is necessary to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. After considering the complaint, the documents produced along with the complaint, and the statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, the learned Magistrate has to apply his mind to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then the learned Magistrate has to issue a process in terms of sub-Section (1) of Section 204 of the CrPC. The corresponding provision under the BNSS is Section 227. Setting criminal law in motion is a serious matter. The accused faces serious consequences in the sense that he has to defend himself in the trial. (Para 10) Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Section 200 Cr.P.C. - While filing a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, as the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. (Para 21) Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Section 256 Cr.P.C. / Section 279 BNSS - Non-appearance of a complainant will not always result in the acquittal of the accused. Acquittal under this section is warranted only when the complainant is absent on the date which was set for the appearance of the accused. If the date was set for a purpose other than the appearance of the accused, the absence of the complainant on such a date will not warrant the acquittal of the accused. (Para 19 & 20) Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 369

Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 Part II - Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Accidental Death due to Electrocution - Absence of Intention or Knowledge - Appeal against rejection of discharge applications - Where two employees, engaged in decorating a shop, died due to electrocution and a fall from a height while working on a signboard using an iron ladder, and the appellants, who were the contractor and store operation manager, were charged under Section 304 Part II IPC for not providing safety equipment, held, no prima facie case of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC was made out. There was no intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would likely cause death. The absence of intention and knowledge, crucial ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC, warranted the discharge of the appellants under Section 227 CrPC. At the stage of discharge, the focus is on whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate a criminal trial, not on a threadbare analysis of evidence. Consequently, the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court rejecting the discharge applications were set aside, and the appellants were discharged. [Distinguished: Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 129] (Para 16 - 18) Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Section 319 and 401 Cr.P.C. - Summoning Additional Accused - Revisional Jurisdiction - Relation Back - Trial Court's Functus Officio - Opportunity of Hearing - When a High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC, sets aside a Trial Court's order rejecting an application under Section 319 CrPC, the rectified order relates back to the date of the original Trial Court order. Consequently, a summoning order issued by the Trial Court in compliance with the High Court's revisional order also relates back to the initial rejection of the Section 319 application, deeming it to have been passed before the conclusion of the trial. Unlike initial Section 319 applications, the conclusion of trial does not bar the adjudication of a Section 319 application directed by the High Court in revision. The Trial Court is not rendered functus officio in considering a Section 319 application after trial conclusion when acting on a revisional order. A summoning order issued pursuant to a High Court's revisional order is an extension of that order, effectively replacing the original rejected Section 319 application. A person summoned under Section 319 CrPC does not have a right to be heard before being added as an accused, unless they were previously discharged in the same proceeding before trial. However, if a trial court rejects a 319 CrPC application, and therefore a right accrues to the proposed accused, and the high court in revisional jurisdiction then passes an order prejudicial to that right, the high court must provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused, as mandated by Section 401(2) CrPC. (Para 115) Jamin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 294

Section 406 Cr.P.C. - Transfer of Trial – Principles - Whether the Supreme Court can transfer a case under Section 406 Cr.P.C. if the court where the complaint is filed lacks territorial jurisdiction? Held, lack of territorial jurisdiction alone not sufficient ground. Broad factors to be considered include: (i) Prosecution acting in collusion with the accused. (ii) Likelihood of accused influencing witnesses or causing harm to complainant. (iii) Comparative inconvenience and hardship to parties and witnesses. (iv) Communally surcharged atmosphere affecting fair trial. (v) Hostile persons interfering with the course of justice. These factors are illustrative, not exhaustive. Ensuring a fair trial is the paramount consideration. (Para 49) Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Section 432 Cr.P.C. / Section 473 (1) BNSS – Remission - Accused has undergone more than 14 years and 10 months of actual incarceration and the contention that his case be considered by the provision/policy in vogue at the time of his conviction, if not, a more beneficial policy, could be applied. In this background, the Court gives liberty to the accused to apply afresh with a detailed representation justifying his claim to be considered for pre-mature release accounting for his actual incarceration of over 14 years and with remission included, of over 20 years. Upon such representation being filed, the State Government shall pass a reasoned order expeditiously and latest within 3 months from the date of filing such representation, in line with the legal principles outlined by the Court. (Para 30) Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Preliminary Stage of Investigation - There is no absolute rule that the High Court cannot interfere in a Section 482 CrPC petition if the investigation is at a primary stage. Kulandaisamy v. State represented by its Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process of Law - Repetitive False Allegations - Respondent filing multiple identical FIRs against different individuals - Lack of cooperation with investigation – Where a complainant files multiple, near-identical FIRs alleging serious offenses (including rape and molestation) against numerous individuals across different police stations, and fails to cooperate with the investigation, coupled with lack of other evidence beyond her statement, the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused constitute an abuse of the process of law. In such circumstances, the High Court ought to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as per new Act, under Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR. (Para 5 - 9) Rakesh Walia v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - In the present case, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office. Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases. The appellant's contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the course of investigation and trial. The appellant has adequate remedies under the law, including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate forum. (Para 13) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be transferred under Section 406 Cr.P.C. on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction? Held, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be transferred under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Power to transfer cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly. Mere inconvenience or hardship to the accused, such as travel or language barriers, does not justify transfer unless there is a reasonable apprehension of injustice. (Para 49 & 65) Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Whether the phrase “expedient for the ends of justice” in Section 406 Cr.P.C. encompasses cases where the court lacks territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act? Held, the phrase “expedient for the ends of justice” in Section 406 Cr.P.C. does not include cases where the court lacks territorial jurisdiction. (Para 65) Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Section 138 - Reply to the Statutory Notice - This was a case where very material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath under Section 200. In the statement on oath, the respondent-complainant vaguely referred to a 'false notice reply', but a copy of the reply was not produced by the respondent along with the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the High Court ought to have interfered and quashed the complaint. Complaint and cognizance order set aside, leaving civil remedies open. (Para 20 - 23) Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Section 138 – Return of a dishonoured cheque simpliciter does not create an offence under Section 138 NI Act. The cause of action arises only when a demand notice is served and payment is not made within the stipulated fifteen-day period. (Para 9) Vishnoo Mittal v. Shakti Trading Company, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Section 138 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14 & 17 - Where the cause of action for an offence under Section 138 NI Act arises after the imposition of a moratorium under Section 14 IBC, proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be initiated against the Director of the Corporate Debtor. Upon the imposition of a moratorium and the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) under Section 17 of the IBC, the management of the Corporate Debtor vests in the IRP, and the powers of the Board of Directors are suspended. Consequently, the Director lacks the capacity to fulfil the demand raised by a notice under Section 138 NI Act. The judgment in P. Mohan Raj v. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258 is distinguishable, as in that case, the cause of action under Section 138 NI Act arose before the imposition of the moratorium. Proceedings under section 138 of the NI Act are quashed, when the cause of action arises after the imposition of moratorium, and the director of the company has been suspended from his duties, and the IRP has taken over the management of the company. (Para 11 - 13) Vishnoo Mittal v. Shakti Trading Company, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Section 138 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Transfer Petition – Maintainability - The issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction in complaints filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is a matter to be raised before the Trial Court. The Magistrate has the power to return the complaint for presentation to the proper court if satisfied that the court lacks territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be adjudicated in a transfer petition. (Para 2 & 3) Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions Co, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Section 138 r/w. 141 – Vicarious Liability of Non-Executive Directors – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Held, Non-executive and independent directors cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act for dishonor of cheques unless specific allegations demonstrate their direct involvement in the company's affairs at the relevant time. Mere designation as a director or attendance at board meetings does not create automatic liability. The complaint must contain specific averments establishing a direct nexus between the directors and the financial transactions in question. In the absence of such specific allegations and where records confirm a non-executive role without financial decision-making authority, criminal proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act against non-signatory, non-executive directors are liable to be quashed. (Para 16 & 18) K.S. Mehta v. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Section 138 and 142 (2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Petitioner sought the transfer of a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner argued that the entire transaction, including the loan processing, EMI deductions, and SARFAESI proceedings, occurred in Coimbatore, and no cause of action arose in Chandigarh. The petitioner also cited inconvenience, language barriers, and harassment as grounds for transfer. The Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act, as amended in 2015, the jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 lies with the court where the cheque is delivered for collection through the payee's bank account. The court in Chandigarh had jurisdiction as the cheque was presented for collection there, even if the transaction occurred in Coimbatore. The petitioner's grievances did not meet the threshold for transfer, as the Chandigarh court had valid jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition, holding that no case was made out for transferring the proceedings from Chandigarh to Coimbatore. It is always open for the petitioner accused to pray for exemption from personal appearance or request the Court that he may be permitted to join the proceedings online. (Para 65) Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Section 7 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 61(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Denial of Anticipatory Bail – The petitioner, an audit inspector, was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification for conducting an audit. Co-accused was apprehended red-handed while accepting the bribe, and there was an audio recording corroborating the demand. Held, the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail in corruption cases should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, such as false implication or politically motivated allegations. The Court reiterated that mere demand or solicitation of a bribe constitutes an offense under Section 7 of the Act. The Court emphasized the severity of corruption and the need to uphold public justice, stating that liberty should be denied to accused persons to ensure a corruption-free society. (Para 12, 21 & 24) Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Validity of Sanction – Held, the High Court acted improperly by conducting a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage and quashing the case before the actual case material were brought on record. The issue of conviction prospects and invalid sanction are matters to be determined during the trial. (Para 12 & 14) State v. G. Easwaran, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Section 20 - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Trap Case - Inconsistencies in Complainant's Testimony - Hostile Independent Witnesses - Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal - Where a trap was laid based on a complaint alleging demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants for processing a license application, and the complainant's testimony regarding the amount demanded was inconsistent and contradictory to the written complaint, and the independent witnesses turned hostile and contradicted the prosecution's version of the trap proceedings, and the evidence raised reasonable doubt as to the actual acceptance of the bribe, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were set aside. The prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, precluding the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. (Para 16) Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002

Accused cannot be kept in custody if order taking cognizance of Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint has been quashed. (Para 5) Arun Pati Tripathi v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Amount Involved - Determination of Statutory threshold - The argument that proceedings under the PMLA are invalid due to the amount involved not meeting the statutory threshold of Rs. 30 lakhs (prior to amendment) is rejected. The determination of the threshold must be based on the entirety of the transaction and the overall financial trail, not isolated instances. The alleged proceeds of crime, including land allotment fraud, hawala transactions, and illegal gratification, significantly exceeded the threshold. The totality of evidence, even on a prima facie assessment, indicated that the proceeds of crime were substantially higher than the statutory limit, rendering the appellant's reliance on the threshold baseless. (Para 26 - 29) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Continuing Offence - Offence of money laundering under PMLA is a continuing offence. Act of money laundering does not conclude with a single instance but extends so long as proceeds of crime are concealed, used, or projected as untainted property. Legislative intent of PMLA is to combat money laundering, which involves transactions spanning over time. Continued utilization and concealment of proceeds of crime, even in recent times, extends the offence. Money laundering is an ongoing activity as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy. Proceedings initiated under PMLA for continuing offences are valid. (Para 24 & 25) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Quashing of Proceedings - In cases involving serious economic offences under the PMLA, such as illegal diversion and layering of funds leading to revenue losses, judicial intervention at a preliminary stage must be exercised with caution. Proceedings should not be quashed absent compelling legal grounds. Where allegations suggest significant financial misconduct, a trial is imperative to establish the full extent of wrongdoing and ensure accountability. The cascading effect of such offences necessitates a thorough judicial process to protect state revenue and legitimate investment sectors. (Para 31) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Registration of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) - High Court cannot direct Enforcement Directorate (ED) to register ECIR merely on prima facie finding that predicate offence existed. (Para 5) P. Madhavan Pillai v. Rajendran Unnithan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Seized Property - Person need not be named as accused in complaint to retain seized property under Section 8(3). (Para 10) Union of India v. J.P. Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Preventive Detention

Bail - Preventive detention should not be used merely to circumvent bail granted by a competent court when the ordinary criminal law is sufficient to address the situation. (Para 21) Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Grounds for Detention - Non-application of Mind - Grant of Bail - Failure to Consider Bail Conditions – Effect - Where a person is detained under the COFEPOSA Act based on allegations that are the same as those in a criminal prosecution where the person has been granted bail with specific conditions, the detaining authority must consider the efficacy of those bail conditions. Failure of the detaining authority to examine whether the bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional magistrate are sufficient to curb the alleged activities, which form the basis of the preventive detention, amounts to a non-application of mind. While courts cannot scrutinize the reasonableness of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, they must ensure that the authority has indeed applied its mind to relevant factors, including existing bail conditions. When there is a grant of bail with conditions, the detaining authority has to consider if those conditions are sufficient to prevent the detenu from indulging in the activities that the preventive detention is trying to prevent. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the detention order, directing the detenu's release, due to the detaining authority's failure to consider the bail conditions. (Para 16 - 21) Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Non-supply of an application for cancellation of bail, which was filed after the detention order was passed and not pursued by the department, does not render the detention order illegal. (Para 12) Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Past Narcotics case - A mere reference to a past narcotics case, not forming the basis of the present detention order, does not vitiate the order, especially when used only to highlight the detenu's propensity to engage in illegal activities. (Para 10) Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Life Imprisonment - While conviction under both IPC and POCSO Act may be justified, the High Court erred in enhancing the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life" in an appeal against conviction. Courts have discretion to award life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC, but it is not mandatory that it extend to the remainder of the convict's natural life. In cases where life imprisonment is deemed appropriate but a fixed term is considered insufficient, courts may impose a modified sentence specifying a fixed period beyond 14 years. In this case the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court was reinstated, but without the addition that it will enure till the natural life of the appellant, along with a fine of 5,00,000/- to be paid to the victim. (Para 28 & 31) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh V. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Section 42 - Sentencing - Overlapping Offences - Where acts constitute offences under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, the law providing for the greater degree of punishment applies. (Para 19 & 21) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh V. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Section 42A - Overriding effect - Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which gives overriding effect to the POCSO Act in cases of inconsistency with other laws, pertains to procedural aspects and does not override the substantive provision of Section 42 regarding punishment. (Para 22) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh V. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Section 42A - No plea for a lesser punishment under the POCSO Act can be entertained if the IPC prescribes a higher punishment for certain offences by arguing that Section 42A, as a special law, overrides the IPC, which is considered a general law. (Para 22) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh V. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Sentencing – Enhancement of - High Court erred in enhancing sentence in absence of appeal for enhancement by state The High Court had clarified that the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life. While the trial court had the discretion to award life imprisonment, the High Court could not enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, especially without an appeal for enhancement by the State. (Para 27) Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh V. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Registration of FIR

Blanket Direction - Court cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the appellant or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future cases involving him. Such a direction would not only be contrary to the statutory framework of the CrPC but would also amount to judicial overreach. As rightly observed by the High Court, courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law. (Para 14) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Cognizable Offence - Preliminary Inquiry – Scope of - the landmark decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR. The Lalita Kumari decision reaffirmed "the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the said judgment, is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. However, in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. (Para 12) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Discovery of illicit cash at official premises of a Judge - The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma of Delhi High Court, over the alleged discovery of illicit cash at official premises. The petition, which also challenged the in-house inquiry being conducted by a committee of three judges as per the directions of the Chief Justice of India, was premature. Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Suicide occurring on campus – Responsibility of maintaining the safety and well-being of students rests heavily on the administration of every educational institution. Therefore, in the event of any unfortunate incident, such as a suicide occurring on campus, it becomes their unequivocal duty to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities. Such action is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative to ensure transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of justice. Simultaneously, it is incumbent upon the police authorities to act with diligence and responsibility by registering the FIR without refusal or delay. This ensures that due process of law is upheld, and a thorough investigation can be conducted to uncover the truth and address any underlying causes. The harmonious discharge of these duties by both educational institutions and law enforcement agencies is essential to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies and to preserve trust in societal institutions. In a given case, failure on part of the administration of any educational institution may be viewed strictly. (Para 47) Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987

Section 15 - Rule 15 of TADA Rules - Confession to Police Officer - Admissibility - Procedural Safeguards - Kartar Singh Guidelines - Issue Estoppel - Confessional statements were unreliable and failed to meet the procedural safeguards under the Act, as the recording officer failed to ensure the voluntariness of the accused while taking confessions. The statements of the accused did not contain the time of recording of the confession or indicate from where they were produced. No time was given to the accused for reflection before the recording of the confessional statements, which vitiated the said statements. There was nothing on record to suggest that the witness who recorded the statement was authorized to do so. The procedure laid down in the Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 (e.g., voluntariness, free atmosphere, reflection time) regarding the recording of confessional statements in coercive environments (BSF camp, Joint Interrogation Centres) under the TADA was violated. Accused confession further barred by issue estoppel from prior acquittal in 2002. Eyewitnesses failed to identify accused, and unrecovered murder weapon weakened prosecution case. Special Court's acquittal upheld as no evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; no error or perversity found. (Para 22 - 27) State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 337