Criminal Law August 2025 Roundup

This Criminal Law August 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 reconsideration of final death sentence, Madhya Pradesh HC’s decision to uphold Chemistry Professor’s conviction for electrocuting husband, Gujarat HC’s acquittal order in 2002 post Godhra riots case and Rajasthan HC’s rejection to extend Asaram’s interim bail, 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

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH

JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA CASH-AT-HOME ROW

Lok Sabha Speaker constitutes 3-Member Inquiry Committee to Examine Allegations Against Justice Yashwant Varma

On 12-8-2025, the Lok Sabha Speaker Shri Om Birla announced the formation of a 3 Member Inquiry Committee to investigate allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge, Allahabad High Court, under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Read More HERE

‘DESIGNATED PLACE’ FOR E-RECORDING OF EVIDENCE OF POLICE WITNESSES

Delhi LG’s notification declaring Delhi police stations as “designated places” for E-recording of evidence of police witness, challenged before Delhi HC

On 24-8-2025, a Writ Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality, validity, and constitutional propriety of Notification No. F.97/1/2024/HG/2208-2223 dated 13-8-2025 (‘Impugned Notification’), issued by the Home (General) Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (’GNCTD’), with the approval of the Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor, whereby all police stations in Delhi were declared as “designated places” for deposition of police officers/personnel through video conferencing. The petitioner highlighted that neither the Bar bodies of Advocates nor Judicial authorities were consulted while issuing the impugned notification. Read More HERE

Also read: BCI requests Delhi LG to withdraw notification on Police Stations to be ‘designated place’ for e-recording of evidence of police witnesses

CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN

SUPREME COURT | “Classic example of lackluster and shabby investigation”; Supreme Court acquits two men, including death row convict, in 12-year-old’s rape and murder case

In an appeal filed against the 2018 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the convictions of two individuals, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Lucknow in 2012, a three-judge bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. acquitted both the convicts. [Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No(s). 36-37 of 2019] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Constitutional bar against retrospectively imposing harsher penalty is clear and absolute: Supreme Court modifies sentence in POCSO case

In an appeal challenging the judgment dated 5-9-2023, whereby the appellant’s challenge to his conviction under Section 376-AB of Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that the constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) of Constitution was clear and absolute. The Court stated that the sentence of “imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life”, as per the amended provision under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, did not exist in the statutory framework on the date of the incident. [Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1516] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | POCSO| ‘No mitigation for crimes that subvert notion of family as space of security’; SC upholds father’s life sentence

While considering this petition challenging the affirmation of accused person’s conviction and sentence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Section 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by Himachal Pradesh High Court; the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., confirmed the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. Noting that the accused in the case is the father of the victim, the Court strictly emphasised that incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. [Bhanei Prasad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, ] Read More

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Consent for sexual relation under illegal surrogacy agreement disguised as live-in relationship not valid in law: Bombay HC refuses to quash rape case

In a case where live-in relationship agreement has been executed between accused’s wife and the prosecutrix, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ. rejected the application filed by the accused, specifying that such an agreement practically amounts to agreement of surrogacy. The Court held that that consent obtained under an agreement that is illegal in the eyes of law cannot be considered valid. It further held that when surrogacy in such a form is prohibited, specifically, soliciting surrogacy through payment, which is against public policy, the consent obtained cannot be considered free consent. Therefore, no case was made out for the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Amit Rama Zende v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2777] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Husband’s friend not a ‘relative’ under Section 498-A IPC: Bombay High Court

In the present case, the wife had filed an FIR under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and had included the name of her husband’s friend, who had instigated her husband to commit cruelty against her. The Division Bench of Anil L. Pansare and M.M. Nerlikar*, JJ., held that a friend could not be said to be a relative as he was neither a blood relative nor had any relation through marriage or adoption. Thus, the Court quashed the FIR, emphasizing that a “friend” was not a relative under Section 498-A IPC. Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Sexually assaulting minor boys a heinous crime

In a case where the applicant, accused of raping two minor boys, sought regular bail in connection with an FIR under Sections 377 and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and under Sections 3, 4, 5(g), 6, 7, 8, 9(g), 10, 11(ii), 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), and Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Madhav J. Jamdar, J., held that the applicant could not be granted bail due to his active involvement in the serious and heinous crime of raping minors with sufficient material-on-record to establish a prima facie case against him. [Nilesh Suryakant Netake v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2835] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Paternal Uncle set free after 10 years as Bombay HC quashes conviction in 3-year-old niece’s sexual assault case due to non-examination of victim and insufficient evidence

In an appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, dated 30-09-2015, convicting him under Sections 376(2)(f), 377, and 363 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Suman Shyam* and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., allowed the appeal and held that the failure to examine the victim or the Police Sub-Inspector (‘PSI’) without any explanation amounted to denial of a fair trial. The Court emphasised that this deprived the Accused of an opportunity to prove his innocence and concluded that the conviction under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC was liable to be set aside by giving the benefit of doubt. [X v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2922] Read More HERE

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Calcutta High Court: Vague allegations of workplace harassment by merely using words “harassed” or “abused” insufficient to constitute offence under Section 509 IPC

The petitioner approached the Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR lodged over alleged workplace harassment, which had resulted in a chargesheet under Section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The allegations pertained to incidents between 2016-2017, reported over a year after the complainant’s resignation. A Single Judge Bench of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., while allowing the petition, held that only using the words “harassed” or “abused”, did not demonstrate the requisite intention or knowledge which could lead to the conclusion that any alleged act of the petitioner constituted an insult to the complainant’s modesty. The Court emphasised that mere harassment at workplace or abusing her at workplace might not constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, unless essential ingredients were fulfilled. [X v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6172] Read more HERE

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “No evidence that victim was minor”: Chhattisgarh HC modifies life sentence to 10 years imprisonment for man who raped his niece

In a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted of raping his niece, the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey* and Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ., partly allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. Accordingly, the Court modified the conviction from Section 376 (3) to Section 376 (2) (f) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. [A v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 8326] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Cyberbullying can be as traumatic as physical abuse’; Delhi HC upholds POCSO conviction; Bats for safer digital spaces for children

In an appeal filed to assail the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- 1, POCSO, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarna Kanta Sharma J., while upholding the judgment of Trial Court observed that creating a safe environment for children cannot be restricted to physical spaces alone and equal protection be extended to digital spaces also especially given increased online activity post-COVID. The Court observed that cyber threats, even without physical contact, cause real and lasting trauma, warranting strong deterrence. The Court further observed that the crime involved a deliberate misuse of modern technology, however, it was reassuring that the same forensic and technical expertise enabled agencies to trace the crime and establish a clear chain of electronic evidence. The Court also noted the severe psychological impact of such acts on children, affecting their mental health, dignity, and self-esteem. [Rajesh Gambhir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5180] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘One accused can be convicted in gang-rape case’: Delhi High Court upholds conviction of one accused where co-accused could not be apprehended

In an appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 (‘CrPC’) on behalf of the appellant (‘convict’) to set aside the judgment dated 10-5-2024 (‘impugned judgment’) wherein the Trial Court held the convict guilty for the offence of kidnapping and gang-rape, the Division Bench of Pratibha M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta*, JJ, upheld the impugned order and stated even one offender could be convicted and punished for the offence of gang-rape if the other offender had managed to escape. [Praveen v. State NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5583] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Mere crying of woman does not prove dowry harassment: Delhi High Court upholds discharge of husband and in-laws in dowry death case

The present petition was filed by the deceased’s father under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 Constitution against the impugned order dated 3-4-2017 vide which the District and Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) discharging Respondents 3 to 5 under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna J., finding no merit in the petition, dismissed it stating that merely because the deceased woman was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. The Court stated that there was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any harassment of the deceased for fulfilling respondents’ demand for money. [Gainda Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5444] Read More HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Can clicking a woman’s photograph attract the offence of stalking under S. 78 BNS? Himachal Pradesh HC answers

In a petition filed by the accused for a pre-arrest bail in a case registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 221, 224, 351(2) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., allowed the present petition, observing that Section 78 BNS was the only non-bailable offence and its ingredients were not satisfied in the present set of facts and further held that the custodial interrogation of the accused was also not needed, making his detention useless. [Krishan Kumar Kasana v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 3602] Read More HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Himachal Pradesh High Court confirms 16-year-old juvenile’s trial as an adult for raping 7-year-old girl

The present revision petition was directed against the judgment dated 10-06-2024, passed by the Sessions Judge (‘Appellate Court’), vide which the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’), of trying the petitioner (accused) as an adult for raping a 7-year-old girl, was upheld. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., observed that both the subordinate courts had rightly held that the accused had sufficient mental and physical capacity to know the nature and consequences of his act and therefore, dismissed the present revision petition. [V (a juvenile) v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 3353] Read more HERE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | ‘POCSO Act is gender neutral’; Karnataka High Court refuses to quash sexual assault case against Woman

In a criminal petition filed by a 52-year-old woman for quashment of allegations of sexual assault against a minor boy, a single-judge bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) being a progressive enactment, is intended to safeguard the sanctity of childhood. It is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficent object being the protection of all children, irrespective of sex. Therefore, POCSO Act is gender neutral. The Court further held that a woman can be prosecuted for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court observed that delay in registration of the crime cannot become a reason for quashment of the proceedings owing to the nature of offence and tender age of the victim. [Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 17687] Read More HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rajasthan High Court denies Abortion for 32-weeks Pregnant minor deaf and mute rape survivor; Outlines Pre and Post-delivery care plans

In a writ petition filed by a minor rape survivor seeking permission to terminate her 32-week pregnancy, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. refused termination of pregnancy, holding that the termination would be unsafe and life-threatening for both the minor and the fetus, especially given the opinion of a medical board. The Court observed that the fetus was viable with a heartbeat and that the victim’s own health was weak, with a blood deficiency and low blood pressure. However, the Court directed a safe delivery and ordered that the child be handed over to the Child Welfare Committee. [Victim (Minor) v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11932/2025] Read More HERE

RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL DEATH SENTENCE

SUPREME COURT | Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers

While considering this writ petition challenging the imposition of death sentence on the convict and seeking its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the 3 Judge Bench of Vikram Nath*, Sanjay Karol** and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court in cases related to capital punishment, to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty to ensure that the guidelines mandated in Manoj (supra) were followed. “This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the Manoj (supra) safeguards in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing, and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person”. [Vasant Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823] Read More HERE

CONVICTION

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court upholds jail official’s conviction for facilitating undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt

In a case wherein an appeal was filed against judgment and order dated 4-5-2023 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby conviction and sentence dated 31-10-2014 of the appellant, Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana (accused) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, was upheld, for facilitating undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt from custody. The Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., stated that the use of a private vehicle associated with the appellant, the involvement of unidentified persons, the stop at scheduled location under false pretext, and the appellant’s inaction during the violent assault despite being in a position of official authority, formed a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that pointed toward his complicity in the conspiracy. [Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1669] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Brandishing/Exhibiting knife to generate fear or apprehension in the victim’s mind sufficient under Section 397 IPC: Delhi HC upholds conviction in robbery case

In an appeal filed to assail the judgement of conviction dated 20-5-2024 vide which the appellant was convicted under Sections 392, 397, 411, and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. A Single Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Ohri J., dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 397/392/411/34 IPC stating that simple exhibition, brandishing or even holding sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife openly to generate fear or apprehension in the victim’s mind is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 397 IPC. [Azam v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5349] Read More HERE

ACQUITTAL

GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Conviction not based on corroborative evidence’: Gujarat HC acquits three accused in 2002 post Godhra riots case

In the present case, a criminal appeal by appellant/accused was filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by Fast Track Court (‘Trial Court’) where the trial was conducted against nine accused persons in which four of them were convicted under Sections 143, 147, and 436 read with 148 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and rest five were acquitted. A Single Judge Bench of Gita Gopi, J., stated that the Trial Court erred in the appreciation of the evidence and conviction was not based on reliable and corroborative evidence. The identification of the accused persons had not been proved during the trial and whether they were members of the unlawful assembly, was also not proved. Thus, considering all the material on record, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and accordingly, acquitted the three accused persons in 2002 post Godhra riots case. [Sachinbhai Hasmukhbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 3022] Read more HERE

MURDER

SUPREME COURT | Man who killed family over wife’s alleged infidelity spared death penalty; to remain in prison until natural death: Supreme Court

In the present case, the appellant-convict suspected infidelity of his wife and that his three children were not his own, brutally assaulted them, which resulted in their death. The 3-Judges Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol*, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., while affirming the findings of the Courts below regarding the appellant’s conviction for the barbaric and ruthless murders of his family members, opined that the High Court, despite having considerable information, did not consider it appropriately and sufficiently, in relation to the findings of report that detailed the appellant’s social and psychological backdrop. [Byluru Thippaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1455] Read More HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Madhya Pradesh HC upholds conviction of Chemistry Professor for electrocuting her Doctor husband to death

In a criminal appeal filed by a wife, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, who was convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of her husband and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, the Division Bench of Vivek Agarwal* and Devnarayan Mishra, JJ., rejected the appeal holding that the chain of circumstances had been completed and the guilt of the wife had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. [Mamta Pathak v. State of Madhya, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 5358] Read more HERE

TRIPURA HIGH COURT | ‘Benefit of Doubt cornerstone of criminal justice’; Tripura HC sets aside murder accused’s conviction & life sentence

In a criminal appeal where the convict was punished with life imprisonment under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Division Bench comprising of Dr. T. Amarnath Goud* and Biswajit Palit, JJ opined that there is a significant distance between what “may be true” and “must be true,” which must be covered by clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict. The Court found that there was misappreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and therefore, extending benefit of doubt to the accused, the Court set aside his conviction and life sentence. [Mathura Tripura v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine Tri 505] Read more HERE

ABETMENT TO SUICIDE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Writing ‘wife needs his death’ and that ‘she tortured him’ in suicide note not enough: Karnataka HC quashes abetment to suicide case against wife.

In a criminal petition filed by a wife seeking to quash a complaint and First Information Report (‘FIR’) in the case relating to abetment to suicide of her husband, a Single-Judge Bench of S. Vishwajith Shetty, J., quashed the FIR for abetment of suicide and held that the wife’s alleged torture and a statement in a suicide note that she ‘needs his death’ do not, in themselves, constitute a direct act of instigation necessary to establish the offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). The Court referring to various Supreme Court pronouncements noted that to convict a person for abetment to suicide, an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option is required and the act must reflect intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. [Feebi Gottam v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 17649] Read more HERE

BAIL, PAROLE AND FURLOUGH

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court clarifies bail granting procedure, rules out undertakings as basis for regular or anticipatory bail

In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Bombay High Court, where an interim application was allowed and the bail order was modified, the division bench of JB Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ. made it unequivocally clear through explicit directions that henceforth, no Trial Court or High Court shall grant regular bail or anticipatory bail based on any undertaking furnished by the accused solely for the purpose of obtaining such relief. [Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | ‘Attending meetings of organisation not banned under UAPA isn’t prima facie offence’; SC affirms Karnataka HC’s order granting bail

While considering this matter where the Union of India challenged Karnataka High Court’s verdict in partly allowing a criminal appeal thereby granting bail to the Respondent and denying bail to another accused for offences under Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Arms Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA); the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., upheld the High Court’s decision. [Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1754] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Inside Supreme Court decision to cancel bail granted to actor Darshan & other accused persons in Renukaswamy murder case

While considering the appeal filed by State of Karnataka challenging the grant of bail to actor Darshan and other accused persons in Renukaswamy murder case; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala** and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., finding that Karnataka High Court order granting bail suffers from serious legal infirmities, cancelled the bail granted to the accused persons. The authorities concerned were directed to take the accused persons into custody and direction was given to conduct the trial expeditiously. [State of Karnataka v. Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Read why Supreme Court set aside Delhi HC’s order granting bail to Wrestler Sushil Kumar in Sagar Dhankhar murder case

In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by Delhi High Court, wherein, the High Court granted bail to Olympian Wrestler Sushil Kumar’s (accused) in the Sagar Dhankhar murder case, the division bench of Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. viewed that the High Court had erroneously passed an order releasing the accused on bail. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and directed the accused to surrender before the court concerned within one week. [Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690] Read More HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mere participation in PFI meetings or physical karate training does not amount to terrorist act: Bombay HC grants bail to UAPA accused

In a matter where the appellants (‘accused persons’) was charged for the offence under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), the Division Bench comprising of Nitin B. Suryawanshi* and Sandipkumar C. More, JJ granted bail to the accused and observed that the Popular Front of India Organization (‘PFI’) was not a banned organisation when the FIR was lodged. The Court stated that merely because the accused persons participated in meetings, seminars or physical training of karate etc., prima facie, it cannot be said that they have indulged in any terrorist act. [Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2775] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Police Stations are meant to be symbols of safety: Bombay High Court denies bail to the ex-MLA who opened fire inside station premises

In a bail application filed by an ex-MLA who opened fire in the precincts of Police Station upon his political rivals, the Single Judge bench of Amit Borkar, J, refused to grant bail pointing out that the accused, if released, is likely to abuse the liberty granted to him or interfere with the fair course of justice. It was held that the CCTV footage and ballistic report being objective and technical in nature, lent credible and substantial prima facie material to justify the denial of bail, especially in a case involving serious offences punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The defence of sudden rage did not withstand scrutiny and the material on record disclosed a pre-planned and violent act, which cannot be condoned at the stage of bail. [Ganpat Kalu Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2839] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court denies bail to former promoter of Amtek Group Arvind Dham in approx. 27000 crore bank fraud case

The present application was filed by Arvind Dham, promoter of the Amtek Group under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR dated 21-12-2022 and 29-12-2022 under Sections 120-B/420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 7(c), Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘1988 Act’). Additionally, SFIO investigations disclosed commission of offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., observed that Arvind Dham was allegedly involved in diversion and laundering of multi crores and allegations against him pertained to economic offence of exceptional magnitude, involving complex, deliberate, and sustained criminal conduct causing grave loss to public sector banks. [Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate, Bail Appln. 544 of 2025] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court grants bail in Punjabi Bagh Firing Case at Punjab’s Ex-MLA’s residence linked to Gogi—Lawrence Bishnoi Gangs

In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in relation to FIR dated 04-12-2023 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh under Sections 336 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, a single judge bench of Sanjeev Narula, J., granted bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount subject to certain conditions. [Sombir v. State of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 1938/2025] Read More HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | [NDPS Act] Detention solely on presumption that heroin is likely be found in accused’s blood sample not permissible

The petitioner filed the present petition seeking regular bail in a first information report (‘FIR’) registered for the offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), for being present when the police recovered narcotics from the co-accused’s house. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., while granting bail to the petitioner, observed that the police must connect the person with the commission of a crime before his detention could be justified and thus, a person could not be detained solely on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him. [Mahesh Thakur v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 3441] Read more HERE

JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Without any chargesheet pertaining to past unlawful activity, S. 111 BNS can’t be invoked: J&K and Ladakh HC denies bail in Rs 53 Crore cyber fraud case

The petitioners were accused of being involved in a fraud of Rs 53 crore and were in police custody. Following the investigation, they were charged under Sections 3(5), 61(1), 111(2), and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). The present petition was filed in respect of two previous petitions, one challenging the rejection of petitioners’ bail application with a prayer of grant of bail and another seeking bail in a case under Section 318(4) BNS. While denying bail to the accused persons, as the investigation was still in progress, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J. observed that the invocation of Section 111 BNS against the petitioners by the Investigating Agency (‘IA’) was baseless as no charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners in respect of any unlawful activity, including an economic offence, in the past ten years nor was there an assertion that any Court had taken cognizance of such an offence. [Aamir Bashir Magray v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 721] Read more HERE

KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Trial cannot be concluded in the near future’; Kerala HC grants bail to four PFI Members in BJP Activist S.K. Sreenivasan Murder Case

The two criminal appeals were preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’), by accused persons a against the order of the Special Court that denied their bail applications in respect of a case involving murder of a BJP activist, S.K. Sreenivasan, in furtherance of the agenda of the Popular Front of India (‘PFI’) to establish Islamic Rule in India. The Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar*, JJ., granted bail to the accused persons, observing that the trial cannot be concluded in the near future, even if the stay is vacated and other accused persons in the same case were already out on bail. [Muhammed Bilal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6239] Read More HERE

KERALA HIGH COURT | Read why Kerala HC denied parole to TP Chandrasekharan’s murder convict for son’s Choroonu ceremony

The present writ petition was filed by the convict’s wife seeking emergency leave for him to attend the choroonu ceremony of their child. The convict was serving a life sentence in the T. P. Chandrasekharan murder case, who was an Indian politician and the founder of the Revolutionary Marxist Party. A Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. held that parole could not be granted to a murder convict for every ceremony and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. [Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5582] Read more HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Punjab & Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail to person accused of hoisting saffron flag on Mosque

In a petition filed by the petitioner (accused) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 196, 238, 299, 3(5), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra J. dismissed the same and held that the gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace could not be overlooked. [Vikas Tomar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 5044] Read more HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | “Furlough not a right, can be rejected in rarest of rare case”; Punjab & Haryana HC rejects murder convict’s furlough plea

In a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 2022 (‘Act 2022’), seeking quashing of order dismissing petitioner’s (convict) request for four weeks furlough, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil J. held that since the murder convict was a hardcore prisoner as per Section 4(3) of the Act 2022, he was ineligible to be released on furlough. The Court observed that for the sake of the security of society, furlough can be rejected on the rarest of the rare case. [Sonu v. State of Haryana, CRWP No 5022 of 2025] Read More HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rajasthan High Court Rejects Extension of Asaram Bapu’s Interim Bail

In a criminal miscellaneous application filed by Asaram Bapu for the extension of his interim bail, a Division Bench of Dinesh Mehta and Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ., rejected the interim bail application. The Court’s decision was based on a Medical Board’s report which found Asaram to be clinically stable and not in need of hospitalization or continuous medical assistance. [Asharam @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 485/2025] Read More HERE

LIMITATION PERIOD

JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Bar of limitation period under S. 468 CrPC applies only to penal proceedings under S. 31 DV Act: J&K and Ladakh HC

The petitioner (‘husband’), filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) and to set aside the application filed along with the complaint under Section 23 of the DV Act. A Single Judge Bench of M.A. Chowdhary, J., stated that the bar of the period of limitation under Section 468 of CrPC would be applicable only to the penal proceedings under Section 31 of the DV Act seeking punishment for the breach of the protection order or an interim protection order. The Court thus, dismissed the petition, observed that the husband’s plea of the complaint being barred by limitation was misconceived as Section 468 of the CrPC was not applicable to Section 12 of the DV Act. [Tilak Raj v. Darshana Devi, Crm. (M) No. 864 of 2023] Read More HERE

HATE SPEECH

DELHI HIGH COURT | “Being MLA, he should’ve restrained, but refusing to stay conviction is injustice to him, his electorate”: Allahabad HC stays Abbas Ansari’s conviction in hate speech case

In a criminal revision petition filed by politician Abbas Ansari seeking quashing of order passed by Appellate Court whereby the Appellate Court refused to stay/suspend the conviction passed against him by the Trial Court in a criminal case filed under Sections 171F, 506, 186, 189, 153A, 120B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J., allowed the petition, holding that it was not a case where the prayer to suspend the conviction should be refused. [Abbas Ansari v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 5119] Read More HERE

DEFAMATION

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | No Relief for Kangana Ranaut: Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses plea in defamation case linked to farmers’ protest tweet

In a petition filed by Kangana Ranaut under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya J. dismissed the same and stated that she failed to demonstrate how her retweet was made in good faith. Read more HERE

SEDITION

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Glorification of anti-national ideology’; Allahabad HC denies bail to man arrested for making Facebook posts mocking PM Modi, supporting Pakistan

In a bail application filed by an accused in a FIR filed against him under Sections 152, 352, 197(1)(c), and 353(1)(C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for making allegedly derogatory posts about Prime Minister Narendra Modi (‘PM Modi’) and supporting Pakistan, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., rejected the application, holding that that the said content appeared to be aimed at ridiculing the Indian leadership and promoting a narrative contrary to the interest of national sovereignty, unity and integrity. [Tahir Mewati v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 4661] Read more HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Posting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ on social media without denouncing India, not sedition: Himachal Pradesh High Court

A street vendor (‘petitioner’) was accused of sedition under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) for allegedly sharing a content on Facebook with the words ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, and thus, he filed the present petition seeking regular bail. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, while observing that the complaint had no averment as to bringing hatred or discontent towards the government established by law in India and that merely posting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, without denouncing India, was not seditious, and therefore, directed the petitioner’s release on bail. [Suleman v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4004] Read More HERE

RECORDING REASONS FOR NON-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Recording reasons for non-examination of witness not mandatory under S. 202 CrPC: Bombay High Court

In the present case, the Magistrate passed an order issuance of process under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) as the petitioner’s cheque was dishonoured on the ground of ‘account closed’. The Single Judge Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J., held that it was not mandatory to record the reasons for non-examination of witnesses on affidavit while exercising power under Section 202 of CrPC. Hence, verification of the complaint was sufficient for compliance of Section 202 of CrPC and not conducting inquiry would not vitiate the issuance of process. Therefore, no interference was required in the order passed by the Magistrate. [Pancham International Ltd. v. Shevam, Crl. W.P. 425 of 2024] Read More HERE

JUVENILITY CLAIM

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | At what stage the claim of juvenility can be raised by the accused juvenile?: Rajasthan High Court answers

In a revision petition filed by the complainant against the Trial Court’s order allowing the application of juvenility filed by the accused and directing him to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) in kidnapping and rape case, a Single-Judge Bench of Sandeep Shah, J., while dismissing the petition, reiterated that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the trial or even at the appellate stage, as also before the Supreme Court in SLP, for the very first time. The Court further noted that the yardsticks for age determination are clearly laid out in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’). [Ramesh Jaipal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 242/2025] Read More HERE

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

DELHI BNSS (SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND WARRANTS) RULES, 2025

Delhi BNSS (Service of Summons and Warrants) Rules, 2025 repeal earlier Service of Summons Rules

On 13-8-2025, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi notified the Delhi BNSS (Service of Summons and Warrants) Rules, 2025 to repeal the Delhi BNSS (Service of Summons) Rules, 2025. The provisions came into effect on 14-8-2025. Read More HERE

SCC Times

Criminal Law August 2025: A Dive into the Month’s Biggest Criminal Cases and Laws

Related

Most Read

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related

Most Read

Must Watch

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply