The Criminal Law October 2026 Roundup captures the important legal developments during the month, featuring notable decisions from different High Courts along with key legislative updates. Covering issues relating to individual liberty, criminal liability, procedural safeguards, juvenile offenders and POCSO-related offences, bail, contempt of court, quashing of criminal proceedings.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH
Kerala High Court | Kerala HC permits use of Aadhaar database for fingerprint comparison in double murder investigation; Rejects privacy objection
While considering a writ petition filed by the State seeking assistance from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in investigating an unresolved double-murder case, a Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., held that the statutory restrictions under Sections 28 and 29, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act), would not bar disclosure ordered under Section 33 and that the investigating agency’s request did not involve transmission of core biometric information. The Court consequently permitted Aadhaar database access in criminal investigation and directed UIDAI to conduct fingerprint comparison and furnish information regarding persons whose fingerprints were found matching with those recovered during investigation. Read more Here
[State of Kerala v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 18775, decided on 14-10-2026]
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Allahabad High Court | Juvenile found guilty of murder ‘cannot go unpunished’: 27 years on, Allahabad High Court upholds conviction; leaves sentence to JJ Board
In a criminal appeal against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the appellant under Section 302, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000, the Division Bench of Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ., upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence and remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board) for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, as the appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of the offence. Read more Here
[Karuna Shanker Singh v. State of U.P., CRLA No. — 253 of 2002, decided on 13-10-2026]
Madhya Pradesh High Court | “Prolonged detention when natural guardian ready to take responsibility contrary to reformative objective of JJ Act”: MP HC grants bail to Class 12 student in murder case
In a criminal revision petition filed by a Class 12th student, through his father, against the rejection of a bail application in a murder case, the Single Judge Bench of Alok Awasthi, J., allowed the petition, holding that the Courts below did not properly apply the parameters of Section 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The continued incarceration of the juvenile was not in his best interest. The Court stated that though the observations in the Social Investigation Report (SIR) regarding the surrounding environment and the possibility of the child falling into undesirable company were relevant, the statutory scheme of the JJ Act does not permit denial of bail solely on generalised observations when the three exceptional circumstances enumerated in the proviso to Section 12(1) were not clearly and specifically made out. Read more Here
[Child in Conflict with Law v. State of M.P., Criminal Revision No. 3824 of 2026, decided on 27-10-2026]
Rajasthan High Court | Can 4.5 years in custody earn bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA? Rajasthan High Court on Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case
In the present appeal, the Court dismissed a batch of criminal appeals against the rejection of bail in the Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case. The Division Bench of Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ. and Sameer Jain, J., held that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie true case under Section 43D(5) UAPA, and that the accused could not secure bail merely on the basis of prolonged custody when the trial was proceeding at a fast pace. Read more Here
[Wasim Ali v. NIA, New Delhi, D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 438 of 2024, decided on 3-10-2026]
POCSO
Kerala High Court | Placement of penis on vagina constitutes penetrative sexual assault; Kerala HC distinguishes between “touching” and “placing” under POCSO Act
While considering an appeal challenging conviction for offences under Section 376-AB, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(a) read with Sections 4(2) and 5(m) read with Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), a Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen, J., held that the placement of penis on vagina constitutes penetrative sexual assault and could not be treated merely as sexual assault under Section 7, POCSO Act. The Court, however, observed that the accused cannot be separately sentenced under Section 376-AB IPC after sentence under Section 6, POCSO Act, and accordingly, set aside the separate sentence imposed under IPC. Read more Here
[Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 18776, decided on 13-10-2026]
Also read: Penetration “to any extent” is penetrative sexual assault: HP HC
Delhi High Court | Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest violates Articles 21 and 22: Delhi High Court grants bail in POCSO case
In a matter concerning the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., reiterated that failure to furnish the grounds of arrest to an arrestee in writing and in a language understood by them infringes their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and renders the arrest illegal, irrespective of the statute under which the arrest is made. Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail to an accused booked under Sections 363, 366-A, 370, 376, 506, 120-B and 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Sections 3 and 4, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, after noting that the prosecution had admitted that the grounds of arrest had neither been communicated orally nor furnished in writing to the accused. Read more Here
[Bhola v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. 2434/2026, decided on 9-10-2026]
Delhi High Court | Young age, prior romantic relationship, differing statements: Delhi HC grants bail in POCSO case
While considering a regular bail application for offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna*, J., granted bail to the applicant, who had been in custody for about 3 years, observing that the prosecutrix’s contradictory statements, the documented romantic relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, their young ages, the applicant’s prolonged incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial was likely to take time constituted mitigating circumstances tilting the balance in favour of bail. Read more Here
[Vicky v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7791, decided on 6-10-2026]
SEXUAL OFFENCES
Delhi High Court | Woman can be charged with gang rape for sharing common intention; “Persons” under Section 70 BNS is gender neutral: Delhi HC
In a matter concerning whether a woman can be charged with gang rape despite not physically committing the act of rape, a Single Judge Bench of A.J. Bhambhani, J., held that gang rape under Section 376-D, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 70, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is a separate and substantive offence, and that the word “persons” in it is gender neutral. A woman who forms part of a group or acts in furtherance of a common intention to have rape committed on the victim, can therefore be charged with the offence. The Court clarified that a woman alone cannot be charged with gang rape and expressed no opinion on whether a woman can commit rape or whether the word “man” in Section 63 BNS is gender neutral. Read more Here
[ANSXXX v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7997, decided on 15-10-2026]
BAIL
Calcutta High Court | ‘There are trappings of corruption’: Here’s why Calcutta HC refused anticipatory bail to ex-Minister Indranil Sen
In an application filed by Indranil Sen, former West Bengal Minister and erstwhile Chairperson of the West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case alleging cheating, forgery and conspiracy involving government tenders and alleged diversion of public funds, Tirthankar Ghosh, J., rejected the anticipatory bail prayer, holding that, having regard to the merits of the case and the materials in the case diary, the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the relief sought. Read more Here
[Indranil Sen v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 16721, decided on 15-10-2026]
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Karnataka High Court | Advocate’s duty is to assist the Court, not insist on a favourable order: Karnataka High Court holds lawyer for contempt
In a criminal petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner sought quashment of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 200, 404, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 426, 464, 467 and 468, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of H.P. Sandesh, J., while considering the matter, deprecated the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel for repeatedly insisting that the Court pass an order in his favour despite being directed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased complainant on record. Read more Here
[V.M. Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka, CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020, decided on 17-10-2026]
Bombay High Court | “Apology is not a weapon of defence”: Bombay High Court holds two lawyers who threatened a Judge guilty of criminal contempt
In a criminal contempt reference arising from allegations that 2 advocates threatened a judicial officer during judicial proceedings, the Division Bench of Urmila Joshi Phalke* and Raj D. Wakode, JJ., held the respondents guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; stated that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea. Read more Here
[Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid v. Sagar Durgadas Rathod, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 14695, decided on 5-10-2026]
FIR AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Delhi High Court | Can staying on at a protest beyond permitted hours attract Section 223(a) BNS? Delhi HC quashes FIR
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashment of FIR registered against a Staff Selection Commission (SSC) aspirant over his alleged participation in a protest at Ramlila Maidan beyond the permitted hours. A Single-Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J., quashed the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings, holding that mere presence among protesters, without material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 223(a) and 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), i.e. disobedience of a duly promulgated order by public servant, was insufficient to justify continuation of criminal proceedings. Read more Here
[Khurshid Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 8323, decided on 13-10-2026]
Bombay High Court | Mere promotion of religion or persuasion to convert does not amount to outraging religious feelings under Ss. 299 and 302 BNS: Bombay HC
While considering an application seeking quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet registered for offences under Sections 299 and 302 read with Section 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of M.W. Chandwani, J., held that mere promotion of religion or persuasion to convert does not amount to outraging religious feelings under Sections 299 and 302 BNS. The Court observed that the allegations merely disclosed promotion of Christianity and efforts to persuade the complainant and his wife to convert from Hinduism to Christianity. The Court accordingly quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings. Read more Here
[Joseph v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 16581, decided on 6-10-2026]
Also read: Kar HC: Distributing pamphlets about teachings of Islam not religious conversion
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court | Administrative report cannot be treated as criminal complaint without following S. 156(3) J&K CrPC procedure: J&K and Ladakh HC
While considering a petition challenging an FIR registered for offences under Sections 447-A and 427, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (RPC), a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., held that information supplied by a Court employee to the Presiding Officer regarding an attempt to occupy a portion of land under the Court’s possession was merely an administrative report which could not be treated as a criminal complaint warranting registration of an FIR without following the procedure laid down in Section 156(3), Jammu & Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 (J&K CrPC). The Court added that the Magistrate had not followed the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 2871, before directing the FIR under Section 156(3), J&K CrPC. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR registered against the public officials. Read more Here
[Qadeer-Ul-Rehman v. State (UT of J&K), 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 1088, decided on 5-10-2026.]
Also read: S. 482 CrPC: SC’s 4 step process to check veracity of quashment prayer by accused
Bombay High Court | Settlement demand extortion or negotiation? Bombay HC quashes FIR over demand of ₹25 lakh each by flat purchasers
In an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of an FIR and the resultant charge-sheet alleging that flat purchasers had demanded ₹25 lakhs each from a builder while threatening to cause trouble and obstruct construction unless the demand was met, a Single Judge Bench of Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J., held that the transcripts of the meetings prima facie reflected settlement talks and negotiations and did not indicate that the complainant was threatened or put in fear of any injury. The Court observed that a general and bare threat with nothing more could not amount to extortion and that merely demanding an exorbitant or disproportionate amount would not attract Section 385 IPC. The Court further held that pursuing pending litigation in accordance with law as an alternative to settlement could not be perceived as an act of extortion. Read more Here
[Pawan Subhash Sarkale v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 13174, decided on 29-9-2026]
Calcutta High Court | Calcutta High Court quashes criminal proceedings against advocate over clients’ property transfer dispute
In a criminal revisional application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 406, 448, 427, 506 and 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with the consequential charge-sheet and criminal proceedings, Uday Kumar, J., allowed the revisional application and held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of the process of law, having regard to the civil and proprietary nature of the dispute. Read more Here
[Subrata Halder v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 15286, decided on 6-10-2026]
Gujarat High Court | Mere sale of garments bearing religious images does not attract Section 295-A IPC absent deliberate and malicious intent; Gujarat HC quashes FIR against Surat textile businessman
In a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 295-A read with Section 114, Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of P.M. Raval, J., allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings qua the applicant, holding that mere sale of garments bearing religious images does not attract Section 295-A IPC absent deliberate and malicious intent. Read more Here
[Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 8364, decided on 7-10-2026]
Also Read:
