This Criminal Law Roundup of November 2025 explores various important criminal cases, ranging from acquittal of Surendra Koli in Nithari killings to false promise to marry, from ban on online betting games to child sexual assault, from economic offences to hate speech, and much more.
TOP STORIES
ACQUITTAL
SUPREME COURT | Surendra Koli’s acquittal in the 13th criminal case connected to Nithari Killings
While considering this petition filed by Surendra Koli, whose conviction in Rimpa Haldar case was affirmed by the Supreme Court whilst his acquittal in 12 companion prosecutions connected to Nithari Killings was upheld; the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath*, JJ., allowed the curative petition and acquitted Surendra Koli of the charges under Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), thereby allowing him to go free in the 13th criminal case related to the horrific Nithari Killings. The Court stated that to allow a conviction to stand on evidentiary basis that Supreme Court itself has since rejected as involuntary or inadmissible in the very same factual matrix, offends Article 21 of the Constitution. It also violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since like cases must be treated alike. Arbitrary disparity in outcomes on an identical record is inimical to equality before the law. “The curative jurisdiction exists to prevent precisely such anomalies from hardening into precedent”. [Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2384, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BAIL
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Compromise cannot wipe out criminal liability in cheating affecting public trust: Anticipatory bail denied
A petition was filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail in case where he was accused of cheating and conspiracy involving deliberate deception and monetary fraud of Rs 4,50,000. Despite the petitioner-accused settling the matter with the complainant by returning the money, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that the alleged compromise could not wipe out the criminal liability in offences of cheating which affected public trust and were not merely private in nature. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and stated that the accused did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail as the alleged act, by its nature, constituted offence against the State as well as public at large. [Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 13597, decided on 30-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | No anticipatory bail to law student who harassed complainant, posted obscene content, and made derogatory posts against Judge and Police
In an application filed by the accused , a law student, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to seek anticipatory bail in FIR filed for offences under Sections 77, 87, 324(1), 351 and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., noted that the accused had been posting photographs of the complainant on social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube, using inappropriate language and had not even spared the judicial officer as well as the investigating agency, in his social media posts. Accordingly, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a law student, noting that he had been using obscene and derogatory language against the complainant and had been calling her at odd hours. The Court further observed that such conduct of the accused clearly indicated that, if granted anticipatory bail, he would misuse the liberty to continue harassing the complainant and her daughter. [Vivek Deep v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7323, decided on 13-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Umesh Pal murder case | Granting bail would send wrong signal: Atiq Ahmed’s brother-in-law’s Bail plea denied
In the appeal filed by Akhlakh Ahmad, brother-in-law of Atiq Ahmed, who was accused of collaborating in murder of Umesh Pal (‘deceased’), prime witness in MLA Raju Pal’s murder, challenging the judgment passed by the Special Judge wherein bail was denied to him, a Single Judge Bench of Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J., held that granting bail in a case of such magnitude and societal impact could send a wrong signal and undermine the administration of justice. Accordingly, the Court rejected the appeal and stated that the possibility of the accused, a relative of a key conspirator, influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out. [Akhlakh Ahmad @ Ekhlakh Ahmad v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7321, decided on 7-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PATNA HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail granted to YouTuber Manish Kashyap accused of tarnishing image of railways by uploading video of people tampering with train tracks
In an anticipatory bail application filed by YouTuber Tirupurari Kumar Tiwari, famously known as Manish Kashyap, regarding an FIR filed against him for a video he uploaded about people inserting stones between railway tracks, the Single Judge Bench of Chandra Shekhar Jha, J., allowed the application, considering that the video was, prima facie, gathered from social media without changes in its content for informing the Ministry of Railway. [Tirupurari Kumar Tiwari @ Manish Kashyap v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3139, decided on 12-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CONVICTION
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | “Trial Court failed to appreciate evidence”: Newspaper editor’s acquittal for defaming police officer set aside; 6 months imprisonment ordered
In an appeal filed by the complainant-appellant, a police officer, under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to set aside the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III acquitting the respondent, editor of Hello Mysore News Paper, for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of S Rachaiah, J., held that it is defamatory when an officer is accused of accepting illicit activities in the area where he is assigned, such as allowing prostitution, running a club to play cards, selling adulterated kerosene, playing single-number lottery, etc., and there are no public complaints to substantiate any of these accusations. The Court held that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly and set aside the impugned order. Further, the Court convicted the respondent of 6 months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000. [S.N. Suresh Babu v. T. Gururaj, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20843, decided on 3-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CORRUPTION
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Hearing accused public servant before directing investigation mandatory under Sec. 20 of Lokpal Act’
Explaining the scope of the procedural safeguards under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (the Act), the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal, J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J*, held that requirement of considering the explanation of the accused public servant under Section 20(3) of the Act is mandatory in nature and leaves no scope for discretion. Accordingly, the Court allowed the instant writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. [Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8481, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
SUPREME COURT | Direction requiring former NUJS VC to include its order on alleged incidents of sexual misconduct in his resume, deleted
While considering an application moved by Dr Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, former Vice Chancellor, WBNUJS (Respondent) for expunging para Nos. 33 and 34 in X8 v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1964 dated 12-9-2025 but particularly, the sentence beginning from ‘Thus’ and ending with ‘personally’ contained in para 34 of the judgment; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., allowed the application thereby deleting the sentence beginning from ‘Thus’ and ending with ‘personally’ contained in Para 34 of the judgment, which required the Respondent to make Supreme Court’s order dated 12-9-2025, a part of his resume. [X v. Dr Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2523, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Conviction in sexual assault on 5-year-old girl based on circumstantial evidence upheld
In an appeal against a judgment wherein the accused was convicted for sexually assaulting a 5-year-old girl, a Single Judge Bench of Shyam C. Chandak, J., while dismissing the appeal, held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstantial evidence, the natural conduct of the witnesses, and corroborative testimonies were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. [Kalim Attarli Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4463, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Offence was not pre-meditated’; Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment of man who raped and killed his 5-month-old cousin
In a capital case filed for confirmation of death sentence to a man who raped his 5-month-old cousin, the Single Judge Bench of Rajnish Kumar* and Rajiv Singh, JJ., upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment till the natural life of convict without remission, holding that the convict had no criminal history and there was no evidence that offence was pre-meditated. [State of U.P. v. Premchandra, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7562, decided on 18-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CRUELTY
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Allegations of spending habits, household contribution, or mobile usage, without proof of severe mental harassment, not cruelty”
In an appeal filed by the husband against the Family Court’s judgment whereby his application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was rejected, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and B. P. Sharma*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment, holding that there was no error or perversity warranting interference and the Family Court correctly held that the husband had failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion. [C v. D, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 8458, decided on 06-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mere statements by parents about daughter’s emotional distress not sufficient to establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC
In an appeal wherein the appellant-husband challenged his conviction and sentence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, on the ground that the evidence on record did not establish cruelty or abetment to suicide beyond reasonable doubt, a Single Judge Bench of M. M. Sathaye, J., quashed the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and held that the necessary ingredient of cruelty likely to drive a woman to suicide or harassment to coerce unlawful demands was not clearly spelt out, much less proved. The Court noted that no instance of instigation was attributable to the husband and that there was also no proximate link between the event of suicide and the alleged demand for money. [Ramprakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4226, decided on 04-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Deriving pleasure from difficulties & tension of other is cruelty”: Divorce granted to woman after husband’s refusal despite irretrievably broken marriage
In an appeal filed by the wife against the Family Court’s judgment whereby her divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was rejected, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat* and B.P. Sharma, JJ., allowed the appeal as well as the divorce petition, holding that the husband was treating the wife with cruelty by not giving her an option to live her life freely according to her choice and unnecessarily opposing the divorce when she was already living with another man. However, their marriage was invalid. [D v. E, First Appeal No. 789 of 2022, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction not “cruelty” under Section 498A
In a petition filed seeking quashing of FIR dated 13.05.2022 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the petitioners, Amit Mahajan, J., quashed FIR and all consequential proceedings as the allegations against them were vague, general, and lacked material particulars, the petitioner’s non-residence in the matrimonial home and absence of specific acts of cruelty or misappropriation ruled out any prima facie case; and continuing proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process. [Shashi Arora v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8282, decided on 03-11-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Elderly wife’s silent suffering is not consent, marriage doesn’t entitle men to unquestioned authority
In an appeal filed under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the wife, an octogenarian, challenged her husband’s acquittal by the Appellate Court, seeking restoration of the Trial Court’s conviction and six-month sentence. It was alleged that the conviction was based on a misreading of evidence and failure to consider sustained mental and emotional cruelty, A Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri, J., while allowing the criminal appeal, held that the Appellate Court misapplied the law by assuming that the absence of a dowry demand forecloses Section 498-A IPC. The Court emphasised that Explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC covers wilful conduct causing grave mental injury, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the husband based on sustained cruelty such as isolation, denial of food, religious obstruction, and financial coercion, corroborated by the police compromise. [X5 v. Y1, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9367, decided on 31-10-2025]
Read more HERE
CYBER CRIME
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | 19-year-old cybercrime accused restrained from using Telegram and WhatsApp during trial
In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) by a 19-year-old, accused of being involved in a cybercrime, a Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J., considered his age and allowed him to be released on bail. However, it restrained him from using any social media application, apps like telegram and WhatsApp during the continuation of the present matter and trial. [Manraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5300, decided on 17-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Lawyer’s plea to quash defamation case over sharing book extracts on Mamata Banerjee’s personal life rejected
In a revisional application filed by the petitioner, an advocate and politician, challenging the summons issued in a defamation case for sharing pages from a 2015 book containing personal allegations and a letter about the Chief Minister of West Bengal, which he claimed was publicly available and not subject to any ban, a Single Judge Bench of Apurba Sinha Ray, J., while dismissing the application held that republication of defamatory imputations makes the person liable in the same manner as the original author. The Court emphasised that every republication gives rise to a new cause of action, and the absence of action against the original publication does not shield the subsequent publisher from legal consequences. [Koustav Bagchi v. State of W.B., 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 8528, decided on 31-10-2025]
Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Plea to quash defamation case against man accused of creating estranged sister-in-law’s fake social media accounts, dismissed
In a petition filed by the petitioner, accused of defamation, identify theft, cheating by personation and publication of sexually explicit material, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash proceedings against him, a Single Judge Bench of M.I. Arun, J., dismissed the same and held that if allegations of creation of sister-in-law’s fake social media accounts stood proved against the petitioner, then they would be considered defamatory in character. [Pramod Shivashankar v. Vaishnavi, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20758, decided on 30-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DETENTION
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Advisory Board approval not required for extending detention period in light of SC’s Pesala Nookaraju (2023) ruling
While adjudicating a writ petition challenging successive preventive detention orders passed under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (‘2002 Act’), the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that once the Advisory Board had opined sufficient cause for detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending detention up to the maximum period of twelve months. The Court opined that in light of Pesala Nookaraju v. State of A.P., (2023) 14 SCC 641, no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention. The Court noted that the petitioner’s contention regarding illegal extension on the same facts and absence of Advisory Board approval was unsustainable in law and accordingly dismissed the petition. [Upendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3615, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
ECONOMIC OFFENCES
SUPREME COURT | Notice issued in petition seeking ban on online gambling/betting games operating in the guise of e-sports games
While considering a petition filed by Centre for Accountability Systemic Change (CASC) seeking issuance of appropriate writ directing the Respondents to prohibit online gambling and betting games operating in the guise of social and e-sports games; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued notice in the matter. [Centre for Accountability Systemic Change v. Inion of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2353, decided on 03-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Former stockbroker Ketan Parekh’s liberty to travel abroad, protected, Replaced Rs 27 crore bail condition with Rs 5 lakh in each case
In a case concerning the imposition of onerous bail conditions linked to permission for foreign travel, a Single Judge Bench of N. J. Jamadar, J., allowed the petitions filed by an accused in prosecutions under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’), challenging the order of the Special Judge. The Court held that the requirement to deposit Rs 27.06 crore as a prerequisite for travel abroad failed the tests of reasonability, proportionality and nexus with the object of ensuring presence at trial. The Court accordingly quashed the impugned condition and substituted it with a lighter requirement of Rs 5 lakh in each case as security, while leaving all other conditions imposed by the Special Judge unaltered. [Ketan V. Parekh v. SEBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4605, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Issuing fresh show-cause notices against quashed inspection report illegal: Interim relief granted to Foundever against ESI Corpn
While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein Foundever CRM India (P) Ltd. (‘Foundever’) challenged fresh show cause notices issued by the Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. (‘ESI Corpn.’), the Division Bench of R. I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, JJ., held that reliance on an inspection report already quashed by the Court’s earlier judgment amounted to willful disobedience of judicial directions and was therefore illegal and invalid. Thus, the Court restrained ESI Corpn. from proceeding further on the basis of the impugned notices, granted ad-interim relief to Foundever, and directed both the parties to complete pleadings before the next hearing on 07-01-2026. [Foundever CRM India (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4613, decided on 19-11-2025]
Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ICAI’s proposal of 5 years debarment of CA in MMCB Scam case quashed for non-application of mind
In a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (‘Act’) concerning allegations of professional misconduct against Chartered Accountant S.N. Valera, a Division Bench of *A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ., set aside the recommendation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to remove the respondent’s name from the Register of Members for five years. The Court held that the Council had failed to record independent findings as mandated by the Act and the Chartered Accountant Regulations, 1988 (‘Regulations’), and had instead reproduced the Disciplinary Committee’s report verbatim without adequate consideration of the respondent’s representation. [Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. S.N. Valera, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 4888, decided on 19-11-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Liberty granted through bail remains illusory as he is still languishing in jail’; Consolidated bail bonds permitted for accused in CSR Funds Scam
The issue was whether an accused facing multiple criminal cases could be permitted to execute a consolidated bail bond instead of separate bonds in each case. A Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Joseph, J., emphasising the peculiar circumstance where bail had already been granted in various cases relating to CSR Funds Scam, yet the accused was still in custody, held that a single surety bond executed within each district could be treated as sufficient for all cases pending in that district. [K.N. Anand Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12372, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | SEBI consent settlement does not absolve accused of criminal liability in IPO fraud
While hearing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioners were seeking quashing of criminal prosecutions initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, (‘CBI’) in relation to alleged irregularities in the in the Initial Public Offerings (‘IPO’) of Yes Bank Ltd. (‘Yes Bank’) and Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (‘IDFC’), the Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale*, JJ., held that the Consent Order passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) in December 2009 was only in respect of administrative and civil proceeding and did not refer to or deal with the pending criminal proceedings. The Court observed that to quash proceedings merely because payments were made to SEBI would be unwarranted and misplaced sympathy and highlighted that such quashing would amount to an absolute abuse of process of law. [Manoj Gokulchand Seksaria v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4444, decided on 15-11-2025]
Read more HERE
EVIDENCE
SUPREME COURT | ‘Fact Thereby Discovered’ under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, interpreted
Determining the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with how much of the information as received from the accused, in Police custody may be proved, the bench of JK Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ interpreted the phrase ‘fact thereby discovered’ and held that only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’. [Govind v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2456, decided on 14-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Recording of evidence of US-based witness allowed through Video Conferencing in an Official Secrets Act case
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) assailing the order dated 6-4-2023 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Trial Court had dismissed an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) seeking leave to examine a USA-based individual “CE” (‘witness’) as a prosecution witness through video-conferencing in a case under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (‘Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J, allowed the petition. The Court held that the objective of the provisions under Official Secrets Act mandates that proceedings must be conducted in a manner preserving the secrecy of the subject matter and such conditions would be met through a Court-controlled, view-only mode of exhibition and, where strictly necessary, sanitised certified copies can be transmitted through the Consulate. [Central Bureau of Investigation v. SH Abhishek Verma, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7113, decided on 28-10-2025]
Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | No DNA Test unless Section 112 Presumption of Legitimacy is rebutted and paternity question linked to offence
In a case where the central question was whether to direct DNA testing to establish paternity in a criminal investigation predicated on allegations of an extra-marital relationship between a doctor and his patient’s wife, which purportedly led to the birth of a child, the bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., held that a DNA test to challenge paternity cannot be directed as a matter of routine unless the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been rebutted. The Court held that in the absence of strong, unambiguous evidence of non-access between a married couple, compelling the third party for DNA testing would be an unjustified intrusion into privacy and dignity, especially when the paternity issue was collateral to the core offences of cheating and harassment. [R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2372, decided on 10-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Production of Call Details in Criminal Trial prevails over Police Privacy Rights; Accused to prove necessity
In a petition filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby his application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking call data records (‘CDRs’) and mobile location data was dismissed in FIR under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Yashvir Singh Rathor, J., held that the denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which stood admissible under Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’) in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order. [Mukesh Dutt v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 14470, decided on 20-11-2025]
Read more HERE
FALSE PROMISE TO MARRY
DELHI HIGH COURT | False promise of marriage not same as breach of promise: Anticipatory bail granted in Rape case
In an application filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR filed under Section 376 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Ravinder Dudeja, J., granted anticipatory bail and directed that in the event of petitioner’s arrest, he be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/IO/SHO concerned, subject to certain conditions. [Sumit v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8193, decided on 31-10-2025]
Read more HERE
HATE SPEECH
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “Reliefs sought amount to micromanagement of investigation”: Inside order rejecting petition against politician Amit Baghel for hate speech
In a writ petition filed against politician Amit Baghel, belonging to Johar Chhattisgarh Party, for his hate speech against, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru*, J., rejected the petition, holding that the reliefs sought were neither maintainable nor substantiated by any exceptional circumstance justifying deviation from established legal principles governing criminal investigation. [Amit Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 11313, decided on 21-11-2025]
Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Authorities must act immediately in Protection pleas; Delay attracts liability
In the present case, a young married couple filed a petition with the relevant authorities, requesting protection from the girl’s father and brother after apprehending threat to their lives,however, no action was taken. A Single Judge Bench of Parmod Goyal, J., held that in case protection is not awarded immediately on receipt of application made by citizen especially in case of marriage then the authorities shall be made liable for their inaction for not giving timely protection and seeking one or other report if any untoward incident takes place. Further, the Court stated that in protection related cases, authorities should act quickly, and matter should not be allowed to be tangled in bureaucratic administration. [Mandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 12776, decided on 24-10-2025]
Read more HERE
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Prosecution against anaesthetist posing as gynaecologist for medical negligence and cheating, upheld
In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the accused, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceeding for a case of medical negligence and cheating, the Single-Judge Bench of Anand Sharma, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution was valid. The Court held that the investigating agency was not barred from conducting further investigation and filing a charge sheet even after submitting a negative final report under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), and the subsequent prosecution for medical negligence was rightly initiated as it was supported by expert medical opinion, thereby complying with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1. [Vinay Suren v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5451, order dated on 29-10-2025]
Read more HERE
NDPS
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Recovery of commercial quantity of charas bars bail unless Section 37 NDPS Act twin conditions are met
In a case revolving around the issue as to whether bail could be granted in a case involving recovery of a commercial quantity of charas under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) based on prolonged incarceration and absence of conscious possession, a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the twin conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied, and that delay in trial alone could not justify bail in such cases. [Nittu v. State of H.P., Cr. MP (M) No. 2286 of 2025, decided on 24-11-2025]
Read more HERE
POCSO
MADRAS HIGH COURT | “Expected protector became source of suffering”: Life sentence of father for sexual harassment of minor daughters, upheld
In a case where a father was accused of sexual harassment of his minor daughters, the Division Bench of N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman*, JJ., upheld the life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court and observed that, “A father’s paramount duty is to ensure the safety, emotional wellbeing, and moral upbringing of his children, and when such responsibility is let down, it strikes at the foundation of the family and society. The Court therefore found no mitigating factor warranting interference with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld the life imprisonment imposed.” The accused had challenged his conviction and life sentence under Sections 4 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) on the ground that the case was falsely framed owing to a ten month delay in lodging the complaint, further asserting that the victims never disclosed the incidents to either neighbours or their mother. The Court, however, found no mitigating factor and dismissed the appeal. [X v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9864, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUPREME COURT | Communicating the grounds of arrest mandatory; Non-compliance would render the arrest and subsequent remand as illegal
While considering these criminal appeals wherein the appellants raised concerns over violation of their rights Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC (Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”]) asserting that they were not informed of grounds of their arrest in writing, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., and Augustine George Masih*, J., held the following vis-a-vis communicating the grounds of arrest to the arrested person:
-
The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under Penal Code, 1860 (now BNS, 2023)
-
The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; In cases where the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.
-
The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
-
In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.
[Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356, decided on 06-11-2025]
Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | “Investigation cannot continue endlessly”: Directions issued
In a significant exposition of criminal procedure, the bench of Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ acknowledged the practical complexities of investigation but made clear that investigations cannot continue endlessly and hence, issued the following directions in this regard. [Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511, decided on 20-11-2025]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Summons cannot be issued against ‘a post’ in criminal cases, as it is not a juridical person
In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to quash the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereunder a case was made against one person and the Plant Head of the petitioner-Company for offence under Section 24 and 26 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. A Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar Choudhary, J., held that it is a settled principle of law that summons in a criminal case to face trial could not be issued against post, as it was not a juridical person and thus, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the post of ‘Plant Head’ would amount to abuse of process of law. [Tata Pigment Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3553, decided on 10-9-2025]
Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | S. 359 BNSS not a bar on High Court’s inherent power under S. 528 to quash FIRs
In the present petition, the petitioner sought quashment of an FIR and the resultant charge-sheet pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate, Electricity, Jammu (‘Special Judge’), on the ground of an amicable settlement of his matrimonial dispute with Respondent 2 (‘complainant’). A Single Judge Bench of Mohd. Yousuf Wani, J., while allowing the petition, quashed the charge-sheet and held that in view of the mutual settlement, continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise. The Court clarified that Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) is not a bar on the inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIRs or other proceedings. [Sidharth Mahajan v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1069, decided on 31-10-2025]
Read more HERE
CHHATTISHARH HIGH COURT | No more long adjournments: Trial Courts directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments, fix short and continuous dates
In a bail application filed by an accused in relation to an FIR filed against him under Section 20-B(II)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), the Single Judge Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the application, holding that the accused had failed to provide a sufficient reason for possessing the contraband and the three prosecution witnesses turning hostile amounted to tampering with the evidence. However, the Court also directed the Trial Court to pre-pone the next date and possibly conclude the trial within 4 months. [Hariom Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 10516, decided on 03-11-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Complainants or legal heirs must be informed when accused dropped from FIR during investigation
A Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J. has directed the State Police Chief to issue instructions to Investigating Authorities to give notices to de facto complainants or their legal heirs whenever an accused in the FIR is removed from the list of accused during the course of an investigation. The ruling came while dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 29-09-2025 wherein a writ petition filed to seek further investigation in a case under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), was dismissed. [Shareena v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12067, decided on 06-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PRISONS AND PRISONERS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Undertrial/Convict cannot remain confined due to administrative laxity’; Directions to ensure timely release of undertrials and convicts on bail
In a bail application filed by an accused in an FIR filed against him under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”), 2023, by a father who claimed that he allegedly enticed his daughter to leave her home, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., allowed the application. Furthermore, the Court provided a set of directions to ensure the timely release of undertrials and convicts on bail after it is granted. In a bail application filed by an accused in an FIR filed against him under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”), 2023, by a father who claimed that he allegedly enticed his daughter to leave her home, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., allowed the application. Furthermore, the Court provided a set of directions to ensure the timely release of undertrials and convicts on bail after it is granted. [Sohrab v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 7186, decided on 04-11-2025]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | DLSA directed to inspect jails for food quality provided to inmates
While deciding a criminal appeal challenging the management of food supply and canteen facilities within the jail premises, wherein it was contended that inmates were not being provided food in accordance with the jail manual and that the permission granted to a committee of inmates to run the canteen required judicial scrutiny, the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., upheld the permission to operate the canteen and held that strict responsibility must be placed on the Jailor. The Court further directed that the District Legal Services Authorities (‘DLSA’) conduct frequent inspections to ensure compliance with the jail manual and to assess the quality of prison food to determine whether it is being supplied to the inmates as provided therein. [Akash Kumar Roy v. National Investigating Agency, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3617, decided on 26-11-2025]
Read more HERE
PROBATION
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Denying such relief would be punishment for his family’; Probation granted to rash driving convict after 20 years
The present criminal revision was filed against the judgment dated 05-06-2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandi (‘Appellate Court’), wherein the convict’s appeal against his conviction for rash and negligent driving dated 19-03-2009, was dismissed. The convict later stated that he did not want to continue with the revision and prayed for his release on probation. A Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., while partly allowing the revision, modified the sentence and released the convict after 20 years of trial, on probation of good conduct for two years, holding that denying the relief would be a punishment for his family. [Ram Krishan v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 5248, decided on 27-10-2025]
Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘No implementation or execution of mutually settled agreement’: FIR in matrimonial case not quashed
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) based on the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties in the Family Court, a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held the averment made in the petition itself reflected that though a settlement was entered between the parties, but there was never any implementation or execution of the same. Therefore, the Court stated that there was no ground for quashing the present FIR and disposed of the petition. [Arvind Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7266, decided on 29-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Relief denied to accused in Bareilly Violence Case
In a writ petition filed by a man accused of being involved in the Bareilly Violence Case, the Division Bench of Ajay Bhanot and Garima Prashad, JJ., dismissed the petition, thereby rejecting the plea for quashing the FIR. [Adnan v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 7707, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Prior consensual relationship does not amount to rape if accused marries another lady in search of ‘greener pasture’
In a case revolving around the question whether an eight-year long consensual relationship, allegedly induced by a promise of marriage, could be classified as rape, a Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., observed that the facts did not satisfy the essential requirements for prosecuting the accused for the offence of rape, and therefore, the proceedings against the accused were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. [Pradeep v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12351, decided on 17-11-2025]
Read more HERE
WARRANTS
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Can arrest warrants be converted into bailable warrants in economic/heinous offences? Larger Bench to decide
In a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) wherein his application under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants in offence involving fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’), was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that ordinarily the difficulty before this Court in deciding the matter is that there are two conflicting views on the same issue by the different Division Benches of this Court of equal strength. Accordingly, the Court stated that it had no other option but to refer the matter to the Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy was put to rest in accordance with law. [Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5858, decided on 13-11-2025]
Read more HERE
TERRORISM
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Bail denied to alleged Al-Qaeda operative recruiting youths to terror groups
In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking release in connection with a case pending before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, wherein the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18(B), 20, 21, 28, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) read with Section 124(A) of the Penal Code, (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., held that prolonged detention in custody could not entitle the petitioner to bail in view of the serious allegations of indulging in unlawful activities and propagating anti-national ideology. Thus, the Court held that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and did not consider it proper to grant bail, especially when the petitioner was already convicted in another case and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. [Mohd. Abdur Raheman v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4047, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Person already on bail cannot be subjected to preventive detention under MPDA Act
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a preventive detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (‘MPDA Act’), the Division Bench of M.S. Karnik* and Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ., while quashing the detention order held that the Detaining Authority failed to consider the bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court and that preventive detention on the same charges was not the proper remedy. The Court highlighted that the in-camera statements relied upon were recorded prior to the enlargement of the petitioner on bail, and there was nothing on record to indicate that after being released on bail, the petitioner indulged in any criminal activities. [Haridas Shankar Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4349, decided on 11-11-2025]
Read more HERE
In News
-
NHRC issues notice over reported Rajasthan bus fire tragedy killing two, injuring ten
-
Grieving Father allegedly forced to bribe Ambulance, Police & Crematorium Staff; NHRC intervenes
-
Supreme Court of India Expresses Deep Condolences Over Delhi Car Blast Tragedy