This Criminal Law Roundup of January 2026 explores various important criminal cases, ranging from bail denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam to Rohingya Funding Syndicate, from marital rape to Romeo-Juliet clause, POCSO, and much more.
TOP STORIES
BAIL
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Bodily freedom recognized even in a marriage’; Anticipatory bail refused to husband accused of sexually assaulting wife
In an application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, where the applicant-husband had been accused of sexually abusing and mentally and physically torturing his wife, the Single Judge Bench of Divyesh A. Joshi, J, rejected the application stating that the severity of allegations made out in the FIR demanded custodial interrogation. Recognising bodily freedom in married couples, Court also stated that even though marriage has been seen as an automatic grant of sexual consent since decades, the modern legal frameworks increasingly recognize the bodily freedom of an individual, even within a marital relationship. [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 71, decided on 5-1-2026] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “His right to earn livelihood cannot be curtailed”: Bail granted to father who repeatedly raped his minor daughter
The Division Bench of Siddharth and Prashant Mishra-I, JJ., granted bail to father who repeatedly raped his minor daughter, holding that there was a remote possibility of hearing of his appeal in the near future. [Pravesh Singh Tomar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8161, decided on 12-12-2025] Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail denied to two men for staging demonstration, manhandling police inside Courtroom in Ashutosh Chaitanya Case
In a set of two anticipatory bail applications filed by two men who staged demonstration and obstructed police inside Courtroom in Ashutosh Chaitanya case, the Single Judge Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the applications, holding that, prima facie, their conduct could not be viewed lightly, particularly when it involved interference with judicial proceedings and physical obstruction of law enforcement officers. [Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 357, decided on 06-01-2026] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Anguished over callous approach of Investigating Officer; Anticipatory bail denied to alleged Kingpin of Rohingya Funding Syndicate
In an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the order passed by the Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) rejecting his anticipatory bail application in case under Foreigners Act, 1946 (‘Foreigners Act’), the Division Bench of Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Rajesh Singh Chauhan, JJ., expressed serious displeasure and anguish on the callous and careless approach of the Investigating Agency, particularly the Investigating Officers, for not taking appropriate and proper steps to apprehend the appellant in an issue where not only allegations were related for committing cognizable offences but on account of those offences the security, safety, peace and harmony of the country might likely be jeopardized. Accordingly, the Court denied the appellant’s plea in the present case. [Abdul Ghaffar v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 20, decided on 9-1-2026] Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘After giving birth, wife needs her best companion’: Six week’s bail granted to husband in NDPS case
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of interim bail for two months to look after his wife and newly born child, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Vashisth, J., held that at the given stage, a wife would require company of her best companion, that is, her husband. Thus, the Court granted six weeks bail to husband to support wife after child birth. [Ajay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 417, decided on 8-1-2025] Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Conditional bail granted to Film Director in casting couch allegations as investigation already crossed crucial stage
In a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), concerning charges under Sections 74, 75(1), and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), in a case dealing with an Assistant Film Director accused of casting couch, a Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J., while acknowledging the gravity of the allegations and the affront to the dignity of women, held that further judicial incarceration would serve no useful purpose since the investigation had crossed its major stages, and consequently, granted bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and protection of the complainant. [Dhinil Babu v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 15033, decided on 30-12-2025] Read more HERE
CORRUPTION
SUPREME COURT| State Police or its specialised agency can investigate Prevention of Corruption Act offences against Central Government Employees
In a Special Leave Petition (SLP) examining whether offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), allegedly committed by a Central Government employee within a State, can be investigated by the State Anti-Corruption Bureau, or whether jurisdiction to investigate Prevention of Corruption offences vests exclusively with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., affirmed the view of the Rajasthan High Court and held that — The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the State of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to register and investigate offences under the PC Act even where the accused is a Central Government employee. There is no requirement in law that prior approval or consent of the CBI must be obtained before such investigation. A charge-sheet filed by the State ACB in such cases is valid in law. [Nawal Kishore Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 103, Decided on 19-01-2026] Read more HERE
CRUELTY
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | “Section 498A IPC not panacea for all matrimonial ills”; FIR against husband and his family, quashed
While considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’) where quashing of FIR, against the Petitioner 1-husband and his family, under Sections 498-A and 504 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (‘DP Act’) was sought, a Single Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., held that Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills, it is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so willful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry. Hence, the Court quashed the said FIR and stated that Section 498A of the IPC did not criminalize incompatibility, nor did it punish imperfect marriages. [Abuzar Ahmed v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 54, decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Forced unnatural sex by husband is cruelty under S. 498A IPC, not rape”: Rape, Section 377 IPC charges quashed
In a petition filed by a husband for quashing a rape case filed against him by his wife, the Single Judge Bench of Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J., partially allowed the petition, holding that forced unnatural sex by a husband is cruelty, but cannot be prosecuted as rape. [Shubham Mangal v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 177, decided on 07-01-2025] Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Amit Malviya’s undertaking enforced; Defamation complaint against RSS Member stayed
In an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) filed by Santanu Sinha, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) member, who was being prosecuted for criminal defamation against Amit Malviya (‘respondent 2’), a BJP politician, President of I.T. Cell, Co-In charge of West Bengal Chapter, regarding a Facebook post, seeking direction against respondent 2 to comply with and abide by his undertaking as recorded in order dated 03-03-2025, a Single Judge Bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., directs respondent to remain bound by undertaking and not to press complaint in Amit Malviya defamation case after Facebook posts were taken down. [Santanu Sinha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 218, Decided on 16-01-2026] Read more HERE
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Medical negligence cases should be referred to doctors’ board for independent & competent opinion; Complaint against practicing doctor quashed
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the petitioners for allegedly not properly performing surgery of respondent’s wife resulting in her death, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., held that the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners and did not refer the matter to a board of doctors for obtaining an independent and competent medical opinion. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition. [Vijay Kumar Dhawan v. Gurpreet Singh, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 547, decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE
POCSO
SUPREME COURT| Victim’s Age determination; ‘Romeo-Juliet clause’ to curb misuse: Inside the important judgment on POCSO Act
While considering this appeal concerning nature of the legal duty cast on the police to draw up a medical report determining the age of a victim while investigating POCSO Act offences, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that determination of age of the victim is a matter of trial and not at the stage of bail. Furthermore, taking note that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of POCSO Act the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo — Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc. [State of UP v. Anurudh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40, decided on 9-1-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Rubbing penis against child’s private part not ‘Penetrative Sexual Assault’ under POCSO Act; sentence modified
In a criminal appeal filed by accused, a Doctor, challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Section 342 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for committing sexual assault upon a minor girl aged about nine years inside his clinic, a Single Bench of Chandrasekharan Sudha,* J., held that rubbing penis against child’s private part does not constitute ‘Penetrative Sexual Assault’ under POCSO Act but amounts to ‘aggravated sexual assault’ under Section 9(m), punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The Court modified the sentence awarded by the trial court to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years. [Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 215, Decided on 15-01-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | DNA doesn’t lie! POCSO Conviction of father who impregnated minor daughter upheld
In a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, accused of committing rape, criminal intimidation, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon his own minor daughter, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Madhu Jain, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that the conviction in was based on credible testimony corroborated by conclusive scientific evidence and therefore, no interference was warranted with the POCSO conviction of the accuses father who impregnated minor daughter. [Dry v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 236, Decided on 15-01-2026] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Fair Trial Protects Interests of Accused, Victim and Society; Application to recall witness after six years from cross-examination in POCSO case, rejected
While considering an application challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) whereby the application seeking recall of Opposite party 3 for further cross-examination was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Kumar Singh, J., held that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Accordingly, the Court rejected the application at hand and stated that it was preferred either to delay the trial or to win-over the victim, who has already been examined and cross-examined at length. [Neelam v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 51, decided on 12-1-2026] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Bail granted to accused in POCSO case where victim allegedly eloped willingly
While considering a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) in offences under Sections 64(1) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Pramil Kumar Mathur, J., granted bail to the petitioner-accused without going into the merits of the case. [Sachin v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 472, decided on 12-1-2026] Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUPREME COURT| Personal appearance of accused before appellate/revisional court on every date after suspension of sentence & grant of bail not warranted
In an appeal while deciding whether, after suspension of sentence and grant of bail in a criminal appeal, the appellate/revisional court is justified in insisting upon the personal appearance of accused on every date of hearing and in cancelling bail with issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), a Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., held that directing personal appearance of accused before appellate/revisional court on every date after suspension of sentence & grant of bail is not warranted. [Meenakshi v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 94, Decided on 07-01-2026] Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | FIRs Against Public Servants Can’t Be Ordered Just Like That: Magistrates Must Follow Two-Tier Safeguard Under Sections 175(3) & 175(4) BNSS
While considering this appeal which involved interpretation of certain provisions of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), especially Section 175(4), the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ., held that Section 175(3) and Section 175(4) are not isolated silos but must be read in harmony, with sub-section (4) forming an extension of sub-section (3). In the case of public servants, where the allegation is that an offence was committed in course of the discharge of official duties, the law (BNSS) now provides a two-tier protection. The first operates at the threshold stage, in the form of additional safeguards under sub-section (4) of Section 175 (when a prayer is made seeking an order for investigation against a public servant), and next under sub-section (1) of Section 218 (before cognizance is taken of the offence alleged). The second tier operates at the stage of taking cognizance when the “previous sanction” of the concerned Government is required. The Court further laid down several principles in order to guide Judicial Magistrates on invoking Section 175(4) BNSS. [XXX v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 114, decided on 27-1-2026] Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Writ Court can’t compel filing of charge-sheets or fix rigid trial timelines; it may affect Investigating Officers’ discretion
In a writ petition, challenging Madras High Court’s directions issued for completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheets within a fixed period, and expeditious disposal of pending trials, a Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., deemed the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the High Court’s order as “unwarranted and uncalled for” and directed for their deletion. [A. Shankar v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120, decided on 16-01-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Magistrate can’t discharge accused at Section 251 CrPC stage in Summons Case after issuance of summons
In a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the discharge order dated 06-02-2023, in a summons case at the stage of Section 251 CrPC, a Single-Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., set aside the discharge order and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for further proceedings. The Court held that — Magistrates cannot recall summons in complaint-based summons cases; Magistrate can’t discharge accused at Section 251 CrPC stage; Discharge under Section 239 CrPC is impermissible in summons trials; and Section 251 CrPC is not a stage for adjudicating the sufficiency of evidence. [Tulip Multispecialty Hospital (P) Ltd. v. Akhil Saxena, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 63, Decided on 05-11-2026 Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Contempt proceedings against Sub-Inspector for Arrest without Section 41-A CrPC notice, closed and unconditional apology accepted
In a contempt petition initiated by the Court on its own motion seeking initiation of criminal contempt against the respondent/contemnor, a Sub-Inspector posted at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for arrest without Section 41-A CrPC Notice in violation of Supreme Court Guidelines, a Division Bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, JJ., accepted the unconditional apology and closed the contempt proceedings. [Court on its Own Motion v. Yogesh Poonia, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10519, Decided on 22-12-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Summoning of accused in decade-old bank fraud case based solely on S. 161 CrPC statements, stayed
In a petition challenging the legality of a summoning order passed at an advanced stage of a criminal trial in a decade-old bank fraud prosecution case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a Single-Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., stayed the operation of the summoning order based solely on Section 161 CrPC Statements till next date of hearing. [Manoj Garg v. CBI, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 194, Decided on 13-01-2026] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Alleged Misuse of Police Powers under Gangsters Act: UP Home, Police Department slammed for non-compliance with Court orders, “lackadaisical approach” flagged
In an application filed for quashing of two FIRs, the Court had been questioning alleged misuse of police powers under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”). After repeated failures of the State Authorities to comply with the Court orders, the Single Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., issued a ‘show-cause notice’ to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) seeking an explanation of the reasons and the legal impediments, if any, which resulted in the repeated failure of the Home Department to furnish the specific and pointed details sought by the Court. [Rajendra Tyagi v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 42, decided on 09-01-2026] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Wife outshines uncle in closest legal heir test”: Relief denied to uncle for transferring investigation to CBI in Lucknow Ajeet Singh Murder Case
In a set of two criminal writ petitions filed by uncle of deceased Ajeet Singh in the Lucknow Ajeet Singh Murder Case seeking transfer of investigation to CBI, the Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ., disposed of the petitions, holding that the uncle had no locus to seek such relief and allowing the petitions would tantamount to allowing a stranger to interfere in ongoing criminal proceedings. The Court also held that the wife outshines the uncle in the closest legal heir test. [Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8105, decided on 18-12-2025] Read more HERE
PRISONS AND PRISONERS
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Forcing an arrestee to strip, photographing him/her and circulating images is institutional humiliation; direct assault on human dignity
While considering a petition raising disturbing practice alleging that whenever a person is arrested, the police compel such arrestees to sit at the police station and strip, thereafter, taking colored photographs and circulating the same widely through newspapers and various social media platforms, a Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., held that forcing an arrestee to strip or partially disrobing such person, photographing him or her in a degrading condition, and thereafter circulating those images on social media or in newspapers, amounts to institutional humiliation and a direct assault on human dignity. [Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 409, decided on 20-1-2026] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rs. 1 Lakh fine of man languishing in jail despite release order recalled; Advocates on strikes over working Saturdays called out
While considering an application filed by the accused-applicant, who was released by the High Court in October 2025, however he was languishing in jail as he could not deposit the fine amount due to poverty, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., considered that the applicant’s counsel did not appear in order to participate in the lawyers’ strike over working Saturdays, the Court stated that going on strike and remaining absent from Court work is not a solution. The right to protest must be balanced with the rights of other citizens, such as the right to life and personal liberty and in the case at hand, the personal life and liberty of the applicant was at stake. Thus, the Court held that poverty and penalty should not hinder an accused persons’ right of life and personal liberty, who has been released from jail, as Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and liberty. Accordingly, the Court recalled the imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and directed the Trial Court to release him. [Rajesh Kushwah v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 575, decided on 24-1-2026] Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
DELHI HIGH COURT | Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; FIR against Security Guard, quashed
In an application filed under Sections 482 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and orders framing charges against petitioners, two security guards, who were accused of wrongfully restraining and assaulting the modesty of the widow of a company director while preventing her from entering office premises, a Single-Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that petitioners acted in good faith in discharge of their duty as security guards and consequently quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and orders framing charges under Sections 341/34 and 354 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). [Manoj Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 16, Decided on 05-01-2026] Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Deposit of passport’ cannot be imposed routinely as bail condition: Bail condition in idol demolition case, quashed
In a petition filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby anticipatory bail was granted to him along with a direction to deposit passports before the Trial Magistrate, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that the discretionary power upon Criminal Courts of ordering for ‘deposit of passport’ as a bail condition ought not to be exercised in a rote or routine manner. Accordingly, the Court modified the said anticipatory bail order by quashing the bail conditions of depositing passports. [Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 18390, decided on 22-12-2025] Read more HERE
SC/ST ACT
KERALA HIGH COURT | Mere statement of aggrieved person disclosing prima facie ingredients of the offence sufficient to sustain charges under SC/ST Act
In an appeal revolving around whether the accused was entitled to discharge from charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), a Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen, J., held that the Special Court’s order dismissing the plea of discharge did not warrant interference as the aggrieved person’s (complainant) testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the charge under the SC/ST Act, as it disclosed a prima facie case against the accused. [Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 588, decided on 13-1-2026] Read more HERE
TERRORISM
SUPREME COURT | No Bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam; 5 Accused get bail: Inside the Big Verdict in 2020 Delhi Riots Case
While considering the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Gulfisha Fatima who were booked under several provisions of Penal Code, 1860, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), Arms Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, for their alleged involvement in 2020 Delhi NCR communal riots and larger conspiracy; the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., refused to grant bail to Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, expressing satisfaction that the prosecution material prima facie discloses attribution of a central and formative role by the 2 accused persons. Vis-a-vis Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Gulfisha Fatima, the Court decided to grant them conditional bail having regard to the role attributed, the nature of the material relied upon, and the present stage of the proceedings. [Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10, decided on 5-1-2026] Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Bail denied to man accused of terrorist activities financed through Cryptocurrency from online handler
In an appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008, the appellant-Accused 4 challenged the order passed by the Trial Court denying him bail since he was allegedly involved in the terrorist activities and receiving funds through Cryptocurrency from online handler utilized to carry out the terrorist activities, the Division Bench of H. P. Sandesh* and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ., held that that the Trial Court in detail discussed the material collected against the Accused 4 which substantiated the prima facie case against him, thus, no ground was made out to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly, the Court denied the appeal at hand. [Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 405, decided on 22-1-2026] Read more HERE
TRAFFICKING
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Major victim cannot be detained in protective home against her wish; Detention under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unsustainable
While hearing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of N.J. Jamadar, J., held that detention of a major victim in a protective home under Section 17(4) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘PITA’) is impermissible when justified solely on the grounds of absence of relatives or financial support. The Court emphasised that prostitution per se is not a criminal offence under the Act, and victims cannot be punished or confined against their wishes. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge were quashed, and the victim’s immediate release was directed. [XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 185, decided on 16-01-2026] Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Five-year delay in SIT formation reflects police unconcern; State directed to frame guidelines to regulate outsiders linked to trafficking
While considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench comprising Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., observed that the five-year delay in constituting the Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) after the lodging of the FIR reflected serious unconcern on the part of the police authorities. The Court emphasised that crimes of child trafficking cause devastating consequences for the physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional development of children. In this backdrop, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’) to explain the steps taken against the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station and further requested the Home Department to frame appropriate guidelines to regulate the entry of outsiders into the State who may be involved in human trafficking. [Chandramuni Urain v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 82, decided on 21-01-2026] Read more HERE
In News
-
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of reported abduction and rape of a 14-year-old girl in Kanpur
-
Maharashtra notifies Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2026 to modernise Criminal Justice System