Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, has referred three parole questions to a Larger Bench without deciding nine connected petitions on merits (paras 1, 5). The questions are whether the 1958 or the 2021 Rajasthan parole Rules govern a prisoner convicted before 2021, whether parole amounts to a temporary suspension of sentence, and how the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita affects the 1958 Rules (para 5).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to two men implicated with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act after 167.02 grams of 'MD' was recovered from a co-accused motorcyclist (paras 3, 7, 10). Prima facie, there was no connecting evidence: no call details, no recovery from them, no naming by those on the motorcycle, and only a UPI payment, its purpose never investigated, into a third person's account (para 7). Section 37 was held satisfied (para 8).

The Supreme Court allowed Rajasthan's appeal and cancelled the regular bail the High Court had granted to Jhabra Ram, an Official Secrets Act accused, solely because written grounds of arrest were not furnished. With the grounds conveyed at arrest, a signed Arrest Memo setting out the material, and no objection raised at remand, there was substantial and effective compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS, and no demonstrable prejudice (paras 16, 18, 21-23, 25-26).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur refused a second bail plea over 7 kg 96 g of opium milk, a pistol and five cartridges allegedly recovered from a car at night (paras 7, 17, 19). The seizure officer's evidence showed that the tip-off, received after sunset, was written down and sent to superior officers, with reasons recorded for searching without a warrant (para 11). Following the Supreme Court, a speedy-trial plea could not dilute Section 37 (para 15).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur refused anticipatory bail to Praveen Arora, accused in a CBI case alleging that four ‘mule’ current accounts, opened on false KYC documents for non-existent firms, handled about Rs 537 crore (paras 5, 10). The Court noted that his earlier petition in this FIR had been dismissed as not pressed, a fact not disclosed when he obtained protection in another FIR, and that he had not appeared despite a notice (para 6).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur refused to quash an FIR under Sections 166A, 193, 202 and 218 IPC against a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector concerning a stolen motorcycle's recovery and police records (paras 1, 5, 7). His explanation raised disputed questions of fact (para 5). A departmental warning without a finding of mala fides, or closed Human Rights Commission proceedings, does not by itself justify quashing (para 5.1).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed an accused's petition under Section 528 BNSS against a magistrate's refusal to summon the complainant's income tax returns, bank statements and loan statements in a cheque-dishonour case pending since 2015 (paras 1, 4, 8). The complainant's financial capacity may be relevant under Section 138 of the NI Act, but the party seeking documents must show their necessity and relevance; the power to summon documents cannot be invoked in a "routine or roving manner" (paras 6, 6.1).

The Supreme Court set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a rape and SC/ST Act case on a compromise, reiterating that a heinous, non-compoundable offence cannot be quashed solely on a settlement. Speaking to the survivor by video, the Bench found its apprehension justified: she said she had been coerced into the settlement. The trial will proceed, but the accused, Gopal Lodhi, was granted anticipatory bail on the Trial Court's conditions (opening paragraph, para 2).

The Supreme Court granted bail to J. Ramalaxmi, an accused in a CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Raipur case under Section 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. She had been in custody for more than five months, the charge-sheet had been filed and charges were yet to be framed. Noting that she is a woman entitled to the benefit of Section 480 of the BNSS, the Court set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal of bail (paras 2-7).

The Supreme Court held that Pinarayi Vijayan and the other appellants, who were not parties to the writ petition in which a Kerala High Court Single Judge directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register FIRs on information from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), had locus to appeal, and that the Division Bench wrongly refused them leave. The appeals were restored and the investigation stayed for ten days, with no opinion on the merits (paras 12-18).

The Supreme Court found that a man accused of a Rs.43 crore fake-invoice GST fraud abused the process by seeking bail in the Sessions Court and release in a writ petition while his High Court bail plea was pending, and by getting it listed in the vacation without disclosing the writ court's refusal. He stays on interim bail, but the plea goes back to the High Court; "two weeks hence" should ordinarily exclude a vacation (paras 25-27, 29-30, 34).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a medical-store owner charged by the Narcotics Control Bureau under Section 8/22(c) of the NDPS Act over psychotropic tablets. Holding that Section 37 is not an absolute embargo, it found that more than twenty months in custody with no likely early end to the trial violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, so conditional liberty must prevail (paras 1, 8-11).