BNS / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The Supreme Court allowed Rajasthan's appeal and cancelled the regular bail the High Court had granted to Jhabra Ram, an Official Secrets Act accused, solely because written grounds of arrest were not furnished. With the grounds conveyed at arrest, a signed Arrest Memo setting out the material, and no objection raised at remand, there was substantial and effective compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS, and no demonstrable prejudice (paras 16, 18, 21-23, 25-26).

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).

The Supreme Court set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a rape and SC/ST Act case on a compromise, reiterating that a heinous, non-compoundable offence cannot be quashed solely on a settlement. Speaking to the survivor by video, the Bench found its apprehension justified: she said she had been coerced into the settlement. The trial will proceed, but the accused, Gopal Lodhi, was granted anticipatory bail on the Trial Court's conditions (opening paragraph, para 2).

The Supreme Court granted bail to J. Ramalaxmi, an accused in a CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Raipur case under Section 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. She had been in custody for more than five months, the charge-sheet had been filed and charges were yet to be framed. Noting that she is a woman entitled to the benefit of Section 480 of the BNSS, the Court set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal of bail (paras 2-7).

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 found that a man accused of a Rs.43 crore fake-invoice GST fraud abused the process by seeking bail in the Sessions Court and release in a writ petition while his High Court bail plea was pending, and by getting it listed in the vacation without disclosing the writ court's refusal. He stays on interim bail, but the plea goes back to the High Court; "two weeks hence" should ordinarily exclude a vacation (paras 25-27, 29-30, 34).