Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

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 set aside an order summoning Neelam Yadav under Section 319 CrPC to face a murder trial in Lalitpur, and the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of her revision, because both courts overlooked what the informant (PW-1) said in cross-examination. Once a witness has been cross-examined, the trial court cannot shut its eye to the entire statement. The trial court may consider the request to arraign her afresh in accordance with law (paras 9-12).

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's grant of anticipatory and regular bail to three men accused of a murder during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as the High Court ignored police video footage placing them at the scene and the statements of witnesses who identified them from it. Merely recording submissions without independent reasons is not a proper approach to bail; the pleas go back, with interim bail continuing (paras 7-11).

The Supreme Court held that a private person may file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging that a candidate gave false information in a nomination affidavit, an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, because Section 195 CrPC does not cover that offence. It corrected the Karnataka High Court's contrary view but left the quashing of the complaint against a Bidar MLA undisturbed, as a conviction was remote (paras 5, 11, 13-14).

The Supreme Court granted bail to Sanjay Sureka, accused in the Enforcement Directorate's money-laundering case arising from the Concast Steel and Power insolvency. It rejected his plea that a five-day delay in forwarding the arrest order and material to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 19(2) of the PMLA vitiated the arrest, but held that 20 months' custody, completed investigation against him and a trial unlikely to end soon outweighed the Section 45 twin conditions (paras 10-13).

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the convictions of three appellants, sentenced to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act and the IPC (paras 1, 53). Giving the benefit of the ossification test's margin of error to the accused, it held that the victim was not proved to be a minor; it found the forensic samples unreliable owing to unexplained delays, and her testimony not of sterling quality (paras 42, 44, 47, 52).

The Supreme Court acquitted a Chhattisgarh man whose murder conviction rested wholly on circumstantial evidence. A WhatsApp message describing a fight, disowned by both its supposed sender and its recipient, created only suspicion; the blood-stained recoveries were never linked to the deceased by DNA, a seizure witness contradicted the recovery, and death in a motorcycle fall remained probable (paras 10.3-10.8, 12).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR for forgery and cheating against a Sarpanch, registered on the complainant's second complaint after his first complaint on the same allegations had been dismissed under Section 203 CrPC (paras 6-7, 9-10). Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions on second FIRs, it held that registration of a second FIR by the same complainant on the same facts is not permissible (paras 8-9).

On a father's appeal, the Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court order that had quashed cognizance of murder (Sections 302 and 201 IPC) over his son's drowning. A post-mortem showing drowning does not rule out foul play; the boy was last seen with the accused, who was seen fleeing; and a Magistrate may take cognizance despite a police closure report, examining Section 161 statements at that stage (paras 8-12).

The Supreme Court set aside a POCSO conviction for the sexual assault of a minor girl with an intellectual disability, holding that the offender's identity was not proved: neither the child nor her cousin could identify the appellant in court, both said the mother had supplied his name, the FIR came ten days late and omitted key facts, and the teacher to whom the child first disclosed was never examined (paras 46-62).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man serving life for a 1998 murder in Rohtak, holding that the sole eyewitness, who admitted the door was closed, could not be trusted, and that the forensic report never matched the blood on his clothes or the gandasa with the victim's. With nothing linking him to the death, and his wife already acquitted, he got the benefit of doubt (paras 14-22).

The Supreme Court quashed a departmental inquiry the Rajasthan High Court began against a Dholpur POCSO Special Judge who granted bail after the High Court had refused it, holding that counselling or an ACR entry would have sufficed. It let the High Court's adverse remarks stand, but ordered the retired officer's revised pay, pension and arrears released within three months (paras 10-14).