Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Supreme Court granted bail to Tamil Nadu's former Transport Minister V. Senthil Balaji, in custody for over 15 months under the PMLA, though it could not say there was no prima facie case. Inordinate trial delay and a higher bail threshold cannot go together: Constitutional Courts may grant bail under Article 21 when the trial cannot end within a reasonable time, as with over 2000 accused and 600 witnesses here (paras 13, 14, 17, 25, 27, 29).

The Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had quashed a prosecution because the accused had only downloaded and kept child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on his phone. Section 15 of the POCSO Act punishes storing or possessing such material with the specified intent, without any actual transmission; viewing it online can be constructive possession; and the Section 30 presumption of a culpable mental state can apply even at the quashing stage (paras 81, 122, 222, 261).

In Arvind Kejriwal's appeals against the CBI, the Supreme Court granted him bail but its Judges differed on his arrest. Surya Kant J. held that the CBI, which arrested him in judicial custody in the ED case with the Trial Court's leave, complied with Section 41A CrPC; Ujjal Bhuyan J. found the timing suspect and evasive replies no ground for arrest. The arrest appeal was dismissed and the bail appeal allowed (Surya Kant J., paras 23, 36, 40; Bhuyan J., paras 23-24; Order, para 2).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused under Section 25 of the NDPS Act as the owner of a vehicle in which a co-accused was caught carrying opium (paras 2, 8). He was not arrested at the spot, was not the registered owner and was implicated through a purchase agreement, and nothing on record suggested that he had permitted the vehicle’s use for the offence (para 6). The Court held the rigour of Section 37 satisfied (para 7).

The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act does not absolutely bar anticipatory bail: it applies only where the complaint prima facie discloses every ingredient of an offence under the Act. An insult to a Scheduled Caste member is an offence under Section 3(1)(r) only if it is because of caste, and the Court granted pre-arrest protection to a YouTube channel editor (paras 41, 48, 60, 88-89).

The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court judgment that had used Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC to acquit a man of raping a fourteen-year-old girl on the view that the relationship was consensual and 'non-exploitative'. Consent below eighteen is irrelevant, proven offences cannot be quashed out of sympathy, and judges must not air personal opinions. It also faulted the State's failure to rehabilitate the victim (paras 14, 19, 21, 37).

The Supreme Court granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the CBI and ED excise-policy cases, holding that about 17 months in custody with the trial not even begun violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The right to bail for long incarceration is read into Section 45 PMLA, and courts must recognise that 'bail is rule and jail is exception' (paras 24, 32, 44, 49-54).

The Rajasthan High Court held that the police bear a constitutional responsibility, flowing from Articles 14 and 21, to protect adults who choose their partners or spouses and face extra-legal threats, following Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini (paras 21-24). Disposing of a married couple's protection petition, it laid down a time-bound Nodal Officer procedure for such representations and directed the State to set up Police Complaints Authorities as required by Prakash Singh (para 30).

The Rajasthan High Court held that a court's order for DNA profiling of an accused does not, by itself, violate the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), because the accused may still refuse to give a blood sample and bear the legal consequences (paras 22-25). As the application was filed after 1 July 2024, the BNSS applied, and its Section 193(9) lets the trial court permit further investigation during the trial (paras 11, 13).

The Rajasthan High Court declined to entertain a petition to quash an FIR under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act, holding that at the preliminary stage a quashing plea could not rest merely on self-serving affidavits (para 7). The petitioners should first have approached a superior police officer under Section 36 CrPC; the petition was disposed of with that liberty, the alleged offences being bailable (paras 8-9).

The Supreme Court set aside bail granted to an HIV-positive woman accused of possessing 1.040 kg of heroin, because the Meghalaya High Court granted it only on her HIV status without recording satisfaction of the twin conditions in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. It ordered her surrender, but directed the trial court to decide her case on priority under Section 34(2) of the HIV and AIDS Act, 2017 (paras 5-13).

The Supreme Court held that courts can judicially review an arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, and that the 'reasons to believe' must be supplied to the arrestee and must weigh exonerating material too, but declined to quash Arvind Kejriwal's arrest on that limited review. It referred to a larger Bench whether the 'need and necessity to arrest' is a separate ground of challenge, and released him on interim bail (paras 21, 36, 55, 65, 84-85).