Article 21

The Supreme Court held that the bail bar in Section 43D(7) of the UAP Act applies only when the prosecution prima facie shows that the accused is not an Indian citizen and entered India unauthorisedly or illegally. A visa overstay after a lawful entry does not qualify. Dismissing the Union's appeal, it upheld the Madras High Court's order restoring an alleged Sri Lankan national's default bail (paras 30-31, 47, 50).

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the conviction of four men sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape under the IPC and the POCSO Act, and acquitted them (paras 1, 57). It held the FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC because the complainant's first report at a police chowki was never produced, found her minority unproved, and rejected the DNA report because the chain of custody of the samples was not established (paras 19-20, 29, 44).

A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court answered a reference on whether prisoners convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act can be shifted to an Open Air Camp (para 1). Reading ‘ordinarily’ in Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, it held that they are not totally ineligible but have no automatic right; the Advisory Committee must assess each case with reasons (paras 14-15). Three Division Bench rulings were overruled (para 16).

The Supreme Court held that, until the Supply Code prescribes its own procedure, the assessed amount a consumer accused of electricity theft must deposit to have supply restored under the third proviso to Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is fixed by the Section 126 procedure, with objection, hearing and an appeal under Section 127. That figure is final only for restoration and does not bind the Special Court that determines civil liability under Section 154(5) (paras 31, 36-37).

The Supreme Court ended a borrower's challenge to SBI's NPA classification and the assignment of its loan to an asset reconstruction company by fixing a further Rs.125 crore, over the Rs.250 crore already paid, as full and final settlement payable within 12 weeks. Acting in equity, it kept open whether the classification, the assignment and the transfer under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act were valid (paras 40, 42-44).

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the legal representatives of Balakrishna, whose application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC resisting the execution of a 1999 title decree over a Bangalore site was rejected by the Executing Court and the Karnataka High Court. As he produced the original 1972 Hakkupatra while the decree holder had only a photocopy, the Court declared his heirs owners and possessors of the site and set aside the decree (paras 13, 16, 18).