The Criminal Law September 2026 Roundup captures the significant developments in criminal law during the month, featuring notable decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, along with key legislative updates. Covering issues ranging from cognizance of crime against women and children, re-arrest after illegal arrest and detention, presumption under NDPS Act and POCSO, cruelty, false promise of marriage, victim’s testimony in rape cases, and quashing of proceedings under DV Act, this roundup provides a concise overview of the major criminal law developments in September 2026.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH
SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Crimes Against Women and Children; Directs 4-Week Safety Audit Across Delhi-NCR
In view of a series of deeply disturbing news reports detailing egregious crimes against minor girls and women across Delhi-NCR, a Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., initiated suo motu proceedings to examine the safety and security of public spaces and the broader institutional mechanisms in place to protect women and children. Emphasising that the right to live with dignity, free from the fear of violence, is an intrinsic facet of Article 21, the Court observed that public spaces cannot be permitted to become zones of high risk due to inadequate illumination, poor surveillance, lax patrolling or other preventable administrative deficiencies.
The Court directed the authorities to submit comprehensive status reports on existing safety mechanisms and, within 4 weeks, undertake vulnerability mapping, strengthen patrolling, conduct lighting and CCTV audits, utilise citizen grievance mechanisms and intensify vehicular inspections. The Court also sought details regarding Fast Track Special Courts and Exclusive POCSO Courts, emphasised responsible reporting of sexual offences, appointed Liz Mathew, Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae, and listed the matter for 5 October 2026.
[In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2018, decided on 28-9-2026]
Read More Here
ARREST, BAIL & CUSTODY
SUPREME COURT | Re-Arrest After Article 22 Violation Requires Judicial Imprimatur; SC Lays Down Additional Safeguards
While dealing with a question of “wide constitutional import”, i.e., whether an accused who has suffered breach of both Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution can thereafter be re-arrested for the same offence; and, if so, under what circumstances and through what procedure, the Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ., held that re-arrest after illegal arrest/detention requires judicial imprimatur and provided additional safeguards for re-arrest after Article 22 violation in addition to the ones in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500.
[Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1939, decided on 21-9-2026]
Read More Here
DELHI HIGH COURT| Not Named in Initial Statement, No Specific Role: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused in Murder Case After 2Years 8 Months of Custody
In a case concerning an application for regular bail in a murder case, a Single Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J., granted bail to the applicant, who had been in custody for over 2 years and 8 months in connection with FIR No. 438 of 2023 registered under Sections 302/201, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court noted that the material relied upon by the prosecution primarily comprised CCTV footage showing the applicant in the company of the co-accused prior to the deceased being picked up, and the supplementary statement of a co-accused alleging that the applicant had exhorted the others to kill the deceased.
However, the Court observed that the applicant was not named in the earlier statement of the co-accused or in the alleged extra-judicial confession of another co-accused, and that no specific role in the assault, strangulation or disposal of the deceased’s body was prima facie attributed to her. Taking into consideration, inter alia, the absence of CDR material placing the applicant at or around the place of occurrence, her status as a woman and mother of 3 minor children, absence of criminal antecedents and prolonged incarceration, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail at that stage.
[Sunita v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6695, decided on 1-9-2026]
Read More Here
Also Read: Orissa HC denies pre-arrest bail to media editor in bribery allegations case | SCC Times
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT| Disclosures by Co-Accused Cannot by Itself Justify Continued Custody; Parity and Absence of Specific Role Favor Grant of Bail: Himachal Pradesh HC
While considering an application for regular bail under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in a case involving offences under Sections 103, 127(2), 125(2), 61(2) and 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., held that disclosures by co-accused while in police custody cannot by itself be used against another co-accused to justify continued custody. The Court further held that, where similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail, no specific role had been attributed to the applicant, and the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, thereby entitling the applicant to be enlarged on bail.
[Shantanu v. State of H.P., 2026 SCC OnLine HP 5782, decided on 9-9-2026]
Read More Here
MANIPUR HIGH COURT| Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration Meets Twin Test of Section 37 NDPS Act: Manipur HC Grants Bail
The Single Judge Bench of A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., granted bail to the petitioner-accused who had served three and a half years of custody for offences under Sections 21(c), 29 and 60(3), NDPS Act. The Court after being satisfied on the twin test of Section 37 of the Act, held that the statutory presumption under Section 35 is rebuttable. The Court noted that the applicant had no previous similar criminal involvement and the trial had not made substantial progress. It emphasised that long custody alone is insufficient, unless the statutory threshold under Section 37, NDPS Act is met.
[Seiminthang Mate v. State of Manipur, 2026 SCC OnLine Mani 497, decided on 10-9-2026]
Read More Here
CRUELTY
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT| Section 498-A IPC Prosecution Maintainable in Relationships in The Nature of Marriage, Where Formal Marriage is Absent
In a petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash a case under Sections 498-A, 420 and 384, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with charge-sheet dated 28 August 2022 currently pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uday Kumar, J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in FIR alleging that after meeting the petitioner in 2019, he falsely represented himself as an unmarried orphan, entered into a relationship with her, persuaded her to convert to Islam, and solemnised a registered Muslim marriage with her on 2 July 2020. They allegedly lived together as husband and wife in a rented house until she discovered that the petitioner was already married and had a pregnant wife. She further alleged that, upon confronting him, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was assaulted and driven out of the house on 1 May 2022.
[SK Azharuddin v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 12953, decided on 2-9-2026]
Read More Here
Also Read: Section 498-A IPC: A Double-Edged Sword — Protecting Dignity Or Enabling Misuse? Supreme Court Rulings Explored
FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE
SUPREME COURT | Subsequent Failure to Fulfil Promise of Marriage, Without Initial Deceitful Intent, Does Not Constitute Offence Under Section 69 BNS: Supreme Court
In a significant judgment, while examining the scope of Section 69, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in the context of an allegation that sexual relations were established on the promise of marriage, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., distinguished a promise to marry made with a fraudulent intention from the outset from a genuine promise that is subsequently not fulfilled because of circumstances arising later. The Court held that a mere subsequent failure or refusal to marry does not, by itself, attract Section 69 BNS. There must be material indicating that the promise to marry was made without any intention of fulfilling it when the promise was made. The Court quashed the FIR, holding that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a consensual relationship and did not establish deceitful conduct within Section 69 BNS.
[Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1818, decided on 7-9-2026]
Read More Here
Also Read: False Promise of Marriage Cases: Allahabad HC On Pre-Trial Quashing Under Section 69 BNS
DELHI HIGH COURT| “Predator of Innocent Girls”: Delhi HC Denies Bail to Man Accused of Using Fake Matrimonial Profiles to Induce Women into Sexual Relations on False Promise of Marriage
In a bail application arising out of FIR registered under Sections 69, 64(1), 79, 75(2) and 351(3), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., refused to grant bail to an accused alleged to have operated 9 different matrimonial profiles using varying identities and particulars. The Court observed that the creation and operation of multiple matrimonial profiles, including one in which the accused posed as a woman, prima facie lent credence to the prosecution’s case that he was a “predator of innocent girls” and held that the case was not fit for grant of bail.
[Gaurav Jaiswal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7438, decided on 22-9-2026]
Read More Here
KERALA HIGH COURT| Mere Promise to Marry Allegation by a Married Woman Insufficient to Establish Induced Consent Under S. 69 BNS
In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J., considered whether allegations of sexual intercourse pursuant to a false promise to marry constituted an offence under Section 69 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), when the complainant’s marriage was subsisting at the relevant time. The Court observed that while settlement between the parties could not, by itself, justify quashing of proceedings as the case involved a serious offence, including an element of societal interest. The Court, after examining the merits, held that the allegations in the FIR failed to establish that the complainant’s consent was induced by a false promise to marry or by any other deceitful means and therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 69 of the BNS were not made out. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
[Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 14895, decided on 3-9-2026]
Read More Here
PMLA
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT| No Objection Before Cognizance, Full Participation Thereafter: Allahabad HC Rejects Belated Challenge
In a petition filed under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging an order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 3 and 4, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), on the ground that the accused was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before cognizance was taken, the Single Bench of Subhash Vidyarthi, J., held that although the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS mandates an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance, the belated challenge could not be entertained in the facts of the present case. The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared before the trial court, participated in the proceedings, had charges framed in his presence, cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and had his statement recorded under Section 351 BNSS [Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)], without raising any objection regarding denial of pre-cognizance hearing.
[Brijkishore v. Enforcement Directorate, 2026 SCC OnLine All 28729, decided on 1-9-2026]
Read More Here
Also Read: Delhi HC Raises Key Question On BNSS Cognizance, Seeks Larger Bench Clarity
POCSO
SUPREME COURT | Inappropriate Conduct or Corporal Punishment Without Sexual Intent Does Not Amount to Sexual Assault; Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Proceedings Against School Teacher
In a case concerning allegations of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against a Geography teacher accused of beating 2 minor girl students and touching their backs, waists and necks while teaching them, a Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., examined whether such conduct, in the absence of the requisite “sexual intent”, could constitute sexual assault under Section 7, POCSO Act and attract the aggravated offence under Section 10. The Court held that although a teacher is expected to exercise greater sensitivity while dealing with young students, particularly girl students, inappropriate physical conduct or corporal punishment, by itself and without the requisite sexual intent, could not justify prosecution under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause extreme prejudice to the accused; the Court quashed the criminal proceedings.
[Bhaskar Paul v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1833, 8-9-2026]
Read More Here
SUPREME COURT | Presumptions Under Sections 29 And 30, POCSO Act Are Rebuttable: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted for Penetrative Sexual Assault
In 2 appeals challenging the Delhi High Court judgment dated 3 July 2025, which had upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 363, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30, POCSO Act are rebuttable and do not dispense with the prosecution’s obligation to establish the foundational facts of the offence and prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. On examining the evidence, the Court found material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with medical and forensic evidence which did not support the allegation of penetrative sexual assault. Holding that the appellant had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption and that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted him of the offences under Section 363 IPC and Section 6, POCSO Act.
[Deepak in JC v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1914, decided on 17-9-2026]
Read More Here
BOMBAY HIGH COURT| Suspends Sentence in Teacher-Student POCSO Case Over Material Contradictions and Lack of Electronic Evidence
While considering an application seeking suspension of sentence imposed by the Special Court (POCSO) (trial court) in a teacher-student POCSO case pending disposal of a criminal appeal, a Single Judge Bench of S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J., held that the record disclosed material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the prosecutrix’s version, coupled with absence of electronic evidence, thereby indicating fair chances of acquittal, and therefore, the Court suspended the sentence imposed by the trial court.
[Mahesh Chanekar v. State of Goa, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 11691, decided on 4-9-2026]
Read More Here
Also Read: Touching Child’s Chest with Sexual Intent Is Sexual Assault Under POCSO: Ker HC
KERALA HIGH COURT| Applying Mouth to a Child’s Private Part Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault Under S. 3(D), POCSO Act; Kerala HC Upholds Conviction
While considering an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court for offences under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) and Section 10 read with Section 9(l), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), a Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen, J., held that the evidence proved the accused’s act of applying mouth to a child’s private part which constituted penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(d), POCSO Act. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
[Thomas Thomas v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 13623, decided on 1-9-2026]
Read More Here
QUASHMENT UNDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT
KERALA HIGH COURT| DV Act Prescribes No Limitation Period for Approaching Magistrate Under Section 12; Mere Delay Does Not Warrant Quashing of Proceedings: Kerala HC
In a petition filed under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), a Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J. held that mere delay in approaching the Magistrate, the timing of the proceedings, or the existence of disputed allegations cannot, by themselves, justify quashing proceedings under the PWDV Act.
[X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 14871, decided on 10-9-2026]
Read More Here
RAPE
DELHI HIGH COURT| Directs Release of Man Convicted In 2009 Minor Rape Case; Notes Parties Are Now Married and Settled Separately
The present appeal was filed by the appellant to challenge his conviction and sentence under Section 363 read with Sections 366 and 367 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Vimal Kumar Yadav, J., stated that the appellant and the prosecutrix are living their married life with their respective spouses. Therefore, sending the appellant to jail, who has otherwise, clean antecedents, would be nothing short of a travesty of justice. Thus, the Court accepted the appellant’s submissions and treated the period of custody already undergone by the appellant as sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice, and accordingly directed the appellant to be released.
[Vakul Kapoor v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7015, 7-9-2026]
Read More Here
MADRAS HIGH COURT| Victim’s Credible Testimony Enough to Sustain Rape Conviction Despite No External Injuries
In a criminal appeal, a division bench comprising N. Sathish Kumar and K. Rajasekar JJ., considered whether the conviction of appellant/accused for rape and allied offences could stand on the basis of the victim’s testimony, corroborative circumstances, and medical evidence despite the absence of external injuries and held that the victim testimony can sustain rape conviction when it inspires the confidence of the court and is natural, consistent, and trustworthy. While affirming the core prosecution version, the Court modified the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC to Section 376(1) IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 354A(2) IPC, and maintained the conviction under Section 366 IPC.
[T. Thanaraj v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 7886, decided on 1-9-2026]
Read More Here
SUICIDE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT| Suicide Note Absolving Accused Weakens Prima Facie Case for Abetment of Suicide; Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail to Husband
While considering a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 read with Section 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., held that a suicide note absolving the accused weakens prima facie case for abetment of suicide. The Court observed that the suicide note stating that the deceased was committing suicide on her own and that no person should be harassed, carried greater prima facie value than earlier diary entries and letters alleging matrimonial harassment. Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner (husband) subject to stringent conditions.
[Himesh Karki v. State of H.P., 2026 SCC OnLine HP 5784, decided on 9-9-2026]
Read More Here
Also Read:
