Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that interim orders of stay granted by High Courts cannot lapse automatically on the expiry of six months, and declined to concur with the contrary directions issued in Asian Resurfacing (Oka J., para 36). Blanket directions of that kind, and directions to decide every stayed case day-to-day within a fixed time, cannot be issued under Article 142 (Oka J., para 36). Both referred questions were answered in the negative (Oka J., para 36).

The Delhi High Court granted bail to two men from whom 12 kg of ganja each was allegedly recovered (paras 13, 28, 52). Applying Awadhesh Yadav, it held that invoking Section 29 on call-record material could not be faulted at the bail stage (paras 31-32). But unexplained Section 52A sampling gaps cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, and custody since 03.12.2020 with the trial at a nascent stage meant the Section 37 embargo did not bar bail (paras 38-42, 49-50).

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail under Section 439 CrPC to a petitioner accused of supplying opium in an NCB case in which 33 kg was recovered (paras 8, 12-13). It found him involved in at least three more narcotics cases, held that he had grossly misused the liberty of earlier bail, and noted that he did not surrender on time after his bail was cancelled (paras 8, 10). A person repeatedly involved in drug trafficking can be called a habitual offender (para 11).

The Supreme Court set aside the result of the 30 January 2024 Chandigarh mayoral election after finding that the Presiding Officer had put his own ink marks on eight ballots cast for the appellant and then treated them as invalid (paras 27, 33). Invoking Article 142 to do complete justice, it counted those eight votes, declared Kuldeep Kumar elected with twenty votes against sixteen, and ordered a show-cause notice to the Presiding Officer under Section 340 CrPC (paras 37-41).

The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that had reversed an acquittal and convicted the appellants of a 1997 murder, and restored the Trial Court's acquittal (paras 1, 39). It held that "A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity" (para 25), and summarised six principles for appeals against acquittal (para 36).

The Supreme Court quashed the State of Gujarat's orders of 10 August 2022 remitting the life sentences of eleven men convicted of gang rape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots. As the trial was held in Mumbai, only Maharashtra was the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC. The Court also held its own order of 13 May 2022 a nullity obtained by suppressing facts, and sent the convicts back to jail (paras 33, 41, 56, 70).

The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 357A CrPC and the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 apply to crimes committed before they came into force. Following the Kerala, Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts, it directed payment of Rs 3,00,000 to a minor rape victim, after adjusting the amount she had already received, within three months (paras 19, 21, 23-24). It also issued a general mandamus for minor rape victims of incidents before 2009 who had applied before the amendment (para 25).

The Supreme Court dismissed, with costs of Rs. 1 lakh, a former Deputy Secretary's appeal against refusal of bail in a money-laundering case (paras 2, 30). The first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, which allows bail to a woman, is discretionary and "could not be construed as a mandatory or obligatory on the part of the Court to release them" (para 24). The Court also strongly deprecated misstatements made in the special leave petition (paras 12, 15).

The Supreme Court refused bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the CBI and ED cases over the 2021-22 excise policy, finding the allegation that wholesale margins were raised to generate kickbacks tentatively supported. It held, however, that the right to bail on delay and long custody must be read into Section 439 CrPC and Section 45 PMLA, and let him apply afresh if the trial dragged on (paras 21, 25, 28-29).

The Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Directorate must, from now on, give every person arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA a written copy of the grounds of arrest, as a matter of course and without exception. Reading the grounds aloud is not enough under Article 22(1). Finding the arrests of a father and son made in haste and without bona fides, it set aside the arrests, the remand orders and the High Court's orders (paras 22, 35-36).

Applying Tofan Singh, the Supreme Court acquitted Balwinder Singh, whose conviction for possessing about 4 kg of heroin rested only on his own and a co-accused's Section 67 statements to NCB officers; without them, the link to the offence snapped (paras 11-13). But it upheld the conviction of the driver, Satnam Singh, because the recovery from the car he owned and drove was proved by an independent witness, NCB officers and the chemical report (paras 14, 17-19, 27).

In three connected appeals from a 1997 police-station bribery trap, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted an ASI, upheld a constable's conviction and dismissed the State's appeal against another constable's acquittal. The Section 20 presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act arises only once the prosecution proves the foundational facts; against the ASI the demand was never verified and nothing linked him to the payment (paras 34, 36-37).