Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an SDO's notice/warrant under Sections 97-98 CrPC, issued on a complaint that a husband was illegally detaining his wife and children. These proceedings are a legally valid way to ascertain wrongful confinement, and a husband's claim that he cannot detain his own wife and children may not always hold true where there is evidence or a credible allegation of coercion, threat or abuse (paras 5-6). No coercive steps may be taken against the petitioners (para 10).

The Supreme Court deleted two bail conditions imposed on a foreign national accused in an NDPS case: dropping a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer, and producing a certificate of assurance from his country's Embassy or High Commission. Bail conditions cannot be fanciful or so onerous as to defeat bail, and a condition letting the police constantly watch an accused's movements violates the right to privacy under Article 21 (paras 7, 10, 12, 15).

The Rajasthan High Court held that a Lok Adalat has no power to dismiss a case referred to it for default of appearance (para 7). Under Section 20(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, when no compromise or settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat must return the record to the court that made the reference, for disposal in accordance with law (paras 3-5). The Court set aside a Lok Adalat order of 19.04.2022 and restored the petitioner's criminal revision petition (paras 7-8).

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a second bail application in an NCB case in which the prosecution said 215.100 kg of poppy straw and 28.920 kg of opium, a commercial quantity, were recovered (paras 4, 15). The seizure officer had not had the Section 52A proceedings conducted before a Magistrate (para 6), the seizure was prima facie done at a police station (para 12), and the accused had spent almost five years in custody (para 8). The Court held the rigour of Section 37 satisfied (para 14).

The Supreme Court held that a person arrested under the UAPA, or for any other offence, has a fundamental and statutory right to receive the grounds of arrest in writing, applying Pankaj Bansal to Section 43B(1) of the UAPA. As Prabir Purkayastha was remanded at 6:00 a.m. before written grounds reached him or his lawyer, his arrest and remand were declared invalid and he was ordered released on bail bonds (paras 20, 50-53).

The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail of a murder accused who had obtained it without placing the Section 164 CrPC statements of two last-seen witnesses before the Court, and rejected the bail pleas of two co-accused who relied only on parity with her (paras 22, 30). Parity rests on positive equality, and it cannot be applied as a straitjacket formula where the co-accused got bail without the correct facts and evidence before the Court (paras 25, 29).

The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash cheque-dishonour complaints against four former faculty members of a Kota coaching institute who had given undated cheques as security under their employment contracts. Although no debt existed when the cheques were handed over, the relevant date for a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the NI Act is the date of presentation or maturity (paras 13, 20). Whether the contracts were valid and created liability is a question for trial (para 12).

The Supreme Court held that a chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC is complete only when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognisance and for the trial and states each accused's role separately. A chargesheet that merely reproduces the complaint does not qualify. Applying this, the Court quashed one chargesheet in a property-sale dispute, protected the appellants in a second case and set aside non-bailable warrants in a third (paras 13, 31, 49).

The Delhi High Court granted bail to an applicant accused under Section 18 of the NDPS Act of carrying 2.330 kg of opium, refusing prima facie to add a co-accused's 3.086 kg (paras 1-4, 20). No Section 29 conspiracy was alleged (para 19). The intermediate quantity kept Section 37 out, but bail still turned on the ordinary parameters: a pending FSL report, no charges framed and custody since 26.12.2022 (paras 21-25).

The Rajasthan High Court acquitted a man jailed for life for his brother’s murder, holding that the circumstantial evidence failed the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda tests (paras 117, 120). Being seen strolling outside the deceased’s house the night before is not ‘last seen’ evidence (paras 75, 84), an admission made in police custody is not an extra-judicial confession (para 90), and strained relations raise suspicion, not proof of motive (para 95).

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a man's conviction for the rape and murder of a child under the POCSO Act and Section 302 IPC, holding that the last-seen evidence, the recovery of her clothes at his instance and a DNA report formed a complete chain (paras 28-30). It declined to confirm his death sentence: aged 24, poor and without criminal antecedents, he was not a rarest-of-rare case, so the sentence was commuted to 30 years' imprisonment without parole or premature release (paras 34-36).

The Rajasthan High Court allowed two NDPS accused to have the call data records and tower locations of the police officers named in the seizure memo summoned and preserved before the defence stage. Saving such data from deletion is not taking defence evidence prematurely, it held. The trial court must have the records procured and kept on file with a Section 65-B certificate, and the accused may confront the officers with them (paras 12-13, 15, 21-22).