Criminal Procedure (B.N.S.S.): 30 Important Supreme Court Case Laws

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00)

Issue

Can a police officer refuse to record a serious complaint simply because the officer doubts the story? More broadly, can the police delay or refuse registration of an FIR?

Bench and date

• Constitution Bench of five judges.
• Decided unanimously on 12 November 2013.

Facts

• A writ petition was filed on behalf of Lalita Kumari, a minor girl, through her father. She had been kidnapped.
• Her father gave a written report to the police, but the officer in charge took no action.
• Only when the Superintendent of Police was approached was an FIR registered, and even then no steps were taken to arrest the accused or to trace the girl.
• The case raised the larger question of whether the police can delay or refuse registration, and it was referred to a Constitution Bench.

Judgment (held)

Interpreting the section of the old Code that is now Section 173 of B.N.S.S., the Constitution Bench held:

1. Registration is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. No preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The word used in the section is "shall", and it leaves no discretion.
2. If the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the need for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted, but only to find out whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
3. If the inquiry discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. If the inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the closure entry with brief reasons must be given to the informant without delay, and not later than one week.
4. The scope of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify whether the information is true or credible. That is the job of investigation. The inquiry is only to see whether the information reveals a cognizable offence.
5. The Court gave examples of cases in which a preliminary inquiry may be made, depending on the facts:
   • matrimonial or family disputes;
   • commercial offences;
   • medical negligence cases;
   • corruption cases;
   • cases with abnormal delay in reporting, for example a delay of more than three months without satisfactory explanation.
   These examples are illustrations, not a closed list.
6. The preliminary inquiry must be time bound. The Court first said it should not exceed seven days. In March 2014, the Court modified this to fifteen days generally, and six weeks in exceptional cases, with reasons.
7. All information relating to cognizable offences, whether it results in an FIR or in a preliminary inquiry, must be entered in the General Diary of the police station.
8. Action must be taken against officers who fail to register an FIR when the information discloses a cognizable offence.

Information received	What the police must do
Discloses a cognizable offence	Register the FIR; no preliminary inquiry
Does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates need for inquiry	Time-bound preliminary inquiry, only to see whether a cognizable offence is disclosed
Inquiry discloses a cognizable offence	Register the FIR
Inquiry ends in closure	Give the informant a copy of the closure entry with brief reasons, not later than one week

Principle: recording information is not proving guilt

The important distinction is between recording information and proving guilt. Registration does not mean that the named person committed the crime. It means that the reported facts, if accepted at that stage, disclose the kind of offence that calls for a police investigation.

Present position under B.N.S.S.

• Section 173(3) of B.N.S.S. permits a fourteen-day preliminary enquiry in a defined category, with prior senior-officer permission.
• In September 2025, the Supreme Court confirmed that if this enquiry finds a prima facie case, the police must register an FIR.

Significance

A victim should not lose access to the law at the police station door.

Exam points

• Constitution Bench of five judges, unanimous, 12 November 2013.
• "Shall" in the FIR provision leaves no discretion.
• Preliminary inquiry: only to see whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, never to test truth; seven days originally, modified in March 2014 to fifteen days (six weeks in exceptional cases, with reasons).
• Closure entry to informant within one week; all information entered in the General Diary.
• Now: Section 173 of B.N.S.S.; Section 173(3) adds a fourteen-day preliminary enquiry in a defined category.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (3:57)

Issue

What can a citizen do when the police refuse to register a case, or register it but fail to investigate properly?

The statutory ladder of remedies under B.N.S.S.

1. Police station: the information is first given at the police station.
2. Superintendent of Police, Section 173(4): the aggrieved person may send the substance of the information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned. If the Superintendent is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence, he must either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation by a subordinate officer. If this also fails, the aggrieved person may apply to the Magistrate.
3. Magistrate, Section 175(3): a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance may order an investigation. B.N.S.S. now lays down conditions:
   • the Magistrate shall consider the application supported by an affidavit, made after approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4);
   • he may make such inquiry as he thinks necessary;
   • he must consider the submission made by the police officer.

So the person must first go to the police station, then to the Superintendent of Police, and only then to the Magistrate, with a sworn affidavit.

Date

Decided by the Supreme Court in December 2007.

Facts

• The petitioner's son, a Major in the Indian Army, was found dead at Mathura railway station.
• The railway police reported that it was an accident or suicide, and two army inquiries also concluded that it was suicide.
• The father believed his son had been murdered because he had come to know of corruption in his unit.
• He asked the High Court to order an investigation by the CBI, and the High Court refused.

Judgment (held)

1. Ordinarily, a complainant cannot demand investigation by one particular agency as a matter of right. The law protects the right to a proper investigation.
2. If the police do not register an FIR or do not investigate properly, the remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police and other senior officers, and then the Magistrate under the provision for Magistrate-ordered investigation. A private complaint before the Magistrate is a further remedy.
3. The Magistrate's power to order investigation is wide. It includes the power to direct registration of an FIR and a proper investigation, and to monitor the investigation to ensure it is done properly, although the Magistrate cannot investigate himself.
4. High Courts should discourage people from rushing to them with writ petitions or inherent power petitions about registration or investigation when these alternative remedies are available. The High Court is not meant to be the first door.

The same ladder now stands in Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S.

Significance

The lasting lesson is a practical ladder of legal remedies, rather than an immediate jump to a higher court.

Exam points

• Ladder: police station, then Superintendent of Police (Section 173(4)), then Magistrate (Section 175(3)) with an affidavit.
• No right to choose the investigating agency; right to a proper investigation.
• Magistrate may direct registration, order proper investigation and monitor it, but cannot investigate himself.
• High Courts should discourage writ or inherent power petitions where these remedies exist.

Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (7:49)

Issue

Can a property dispute be turned into a criminal case merely to put pressure on the other side?

Background: why the affidavit requirement

After using the police remedies, a complainant may approach a Magistrate under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. (the affidavit, prior approach to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), inquiry and police submission conditions set out above).

The law added the requirement of an affidavit because the power to approach a Magistrate for an investigation order was being misused:

• people filed applications against their opponents in purely civil disputes, hoping that the police would harass them;
• Magistrates sometimes passed orders mechanically, without applying their mind.

The Supreme Court responded in a series of decisions. One of them is Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, decided in February 2022.

Facts

• A family said they had entered into agreements to buy certain properties from a seller in Bengaluru, and filed civil suits for specific performance.
• In his written statements in those suits, the seller denied the agreements and said that certain signed blank papers and cheques had been given only as security for loans.
• About a year and a half later, the seller went to the police and then to the Magistrate, alleging forgery and cheating by the buyers.
• The Magistrate, in a brief order, simply sent the complaint to the police for investigation, saying that the allegations were serious.
• FIRs were registered, and the High Court refused to quash them.

Judgment (held)

The Supreme Court quashed the FIRs on two independent grounds:

1. Ulterior motive: the criminal complaint was filed with an ulterior motive of harassment, long after the civil suits on the same transactions.
2. Procedural safeguards: an application asking the Magistrate to order investigation must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The applicant must also first approach the police and the Superintendent of Police. The Magistrate must apply his mind and cannot pass such an order mechanically. Since the application was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate should not have entertained it.

Present position under B.N.S.S.

B.N.S.S. has now written these safeguards into Section 175(3).

• The affidavit requirement makes the applicant responsible for what he alleges, because a false affidavit has consequences.
• The requirement that the Magistrate consider the police officer's submission ensures that the police get a chance to explain why they did not register the case.

Significance

Courts must protect real complainants while preventing misuse of the criminal process.

Exam points

• Decided February 2022; FIRs quashed on two independent grounds.
• Application for Magistrate-ordered investigation: sworn affidavit, prior approach to police and Superintendent of Police, application of mind by the Magistrate.
• These safeguards are now in Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S., which also requires the Magistrate to consider the police officer's submission.
• A civil dispute does not automatically rule out a criminal offence.

Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (11:43)

Issue

How can a person defend against an accusation if the police will not let the person see the FIR?

Background

• An FIR affects both the informant and the person accused. An FIR may name him, but he may not know what it says.
• Under the old practice, the accused often received a copy only after the police report was filed and the case reached court, sometimes months later.
• Meanwhile, he could not effectively seek anticipatory bail or approach the High Court for quashing.

Date

Decided in September 2016; the Supreme Court addressed the problem through a series of directions.

Judgment (directions)

• An accused is entitled to a copy of the FIR at an early stage.
• A person who suspects that he has been named in an FIR may apply to the police officer or the Superintendent of Police for a certified copy, on payment of the prescribed fee. The copy should be given within twenty-four hours.
• Once the FIR reaches the Magistrate, a certified copy can be obtained from the court on application within two working days.
• Most importantly, copies of FIRs should be uploaded on the website of the police or the State Government within twenty-four hours of registration. In areas with connectivity or geographical difficulties, this can be extended to forty-eight hours, and at most seventy-two hours.
• Exception for sensitive cases, such as sexual offences, offences involving insurgency or terrorism, and offences under the law protecting children from sexual offences.
• The decision not to upload cannot be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and it must be communicated to the Magistrate.
• A person aggrieved by the refusal can approach the Superintendent of Police, who must have the matter decided by a committee of three officers within three days.
• The mere fact that an FIR has not been uploaded does not by itself entitle the accused to anticipatory bail.

Mode of access	Time limit
Certified copy from police officer or Superintendent of Police (on payment of fee)	Within 24 hours
Certified copy from the court, once the FIR reaches the Magistrate	Within 2 working days of application
Upload on police or State Government website	Within 24 hours of registration; extendable to 48 hours, at most 72 hours, in areas with connectivity or geographical difficulties
Complaint against refusal to upload	Committee of three officers to decide within 3 days

Principle / ratio

The directions link to Article 21, which protects personal liberty. A fair procedure requires that a person accused of a crime should know the accusation against him as early as possible, so that he can take legal steps to protect his liberty.

Present position under B.N.S.S.

• The website directions are not written into B.N.S.S.
• Section 173(2) gives a free copy of the FIR only to the informant or victim.
• The accused receives a copy of the police report and required case papers under Section 230.
• Separate court directions secure earlier access to an FIR. So the judicial directions remain the source of early access for a person named as an accused.

Significance

The judgment protects the right to know the accusation while respecting the safety of vulnerable people.

Exam points

• September 2016; linked to Article 21.
• Time limits: 24 hours (police copy), 2 working days (court copy), 24/48/72 hours (website upload), 3 days (committee of three officers).
• Non-upload decision: not below Deputy Superintendent of Police; communicated to the Magistrate.
• Non-upload does not by itself entitle the accused to anticipatory bail.
• Website directions are not in B.N.S.S.

Satvinder Kaur v. State, Government of NCT of Delhi

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (15:19)

Issue

Must a victim travel back to the city where the offence happened before any police station will record the complaint?

The rule: Zero FIR

The answer has long been no, and B.N.S.S. now makes it explicit. Section 173(1) says that information relating to a cognizable offence may be given to an officer in charge of a police station irrespective of the area where the offence is committed. This is popularly called a Zero FIR.

• The police station that receives the information must record it, even if the offence was committed elsewhere.
• In practice, the case is then transferred to the police station having jurisdiction over the place of the offence, where it is given a regular number and investigated.

Why it matters: the first hours after a crime are precious. Evidence disappears, witnesses scatter and victims may be in danger. A victim should not be sent from one police station to another while the trail goes cold. The rule also protects travellers, for example in a theft on a long-distance train or a robbery on a highway at night, where the victim may not even know the exact area in which the offence occurred.

Date

The leading Supreme Court decision on this principle, decided in October 1999.

Facts

• The appellant was married in Delhi, and her matrimonial home was in Patiala.
• She alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home with a child only four weeks old.
• Later, she lodged an FIR at a police station in Delhi for criminal breach of trust over her dowry articles and for cruelty.
• The husband was arrested and later released on bail.
• The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the Delhi Police had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate.

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order.
• The officer in charge of a police station has statutory authority to investigate any cognizable case on the basis of an FIR.
• The law expressly says that no proceeding of a police officer shall be called in question on the ground that he was not empowered to investigate the case.
• So at the stage of investigation, an FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the police station lacks territorial jurisdiction.
• If, after investigation, the officer concludes that the offence was not committed within his jurisdiction, he can forward the case to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, or transfer it to the proper police station.
• But he cannot refuse to record the FIR or refuse to investigate on that ground.

Present position under B.N.S.S.

• Section 173(1) expressly allows information about a cognizable offence to be given without regard to the area of its commission.
• Section 175(2) carries the same protection: no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that he was not empowered to investigate it.

Significance

Urgent police action should not depend on a victim knowing district boundaries.

Exam points

• Zero FIR: Section 173(1) of B.N.S.S., "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed".
• Protection of investigation against territorial objection: Section 175(2) of B.N.S.S.
• October 1999; Delhi High Court's quashing set aside.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (19:02)

Issue

If a police officer asks a question that may expose a person to prosecution, must that person answer? Does the protection against self-incrimination apply only in court, or also in the police station?

Background

• The police can question the accused: the words "any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts" include the accused.
• But Article 20(3) of the Constitution says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Bench and date

• Decided by the Supreme Court in April 1978.
• Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, writing for a bench of three judges.

Facts

• Nandini Satpathy was a former Chief Minister of Odisha.
• A case of disproportionate assets was registered against her and others by the vigilance police, and she was called to the police station for examination.
• She was given a long list of written questions.
• She refused to answer, relying on Article 20(3) and on her statutory right to remain silent on incriminating questions.
• The police then prosecuted her for the offence of refusing to answer questions put by a public servant.

Judgment (held)

1. The protection of Article 20(3) is not confined to the courtroom. It extends to the stage of police interrogation.
2. A person need not be formally named in an FIR to claim it. A suspect against whom an accusation is likely to be made is also protected.
3. The protection covers not only answers that would directly prove guilt, but also answers that may expose the person to a criminal charge in the case under investigation or in another pending or imminent case.
4. Compulsion is not limited to physical force. It includes psychological pressure, threats, tiring and prolonged interrogation, and an overbearing atmosphere.
5. The accused may refuse to answer incriminating questions, but cannot refuse to answer questions that are harmless.
6. When the accused asks for it, he should be allowed the presence of a lawyer during interrogation, although the police are not bound to provide one.

The Court quashed the prosecution against her in the interests of justice.

Present position under B.N.S.S.

• The statutory right to refuse incriminating answers now sits in Section 180(2) of B.N.S.S.: a person being examined by police need not answer questions that could expose that person to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture.
• The lawyer idea has entered the statute. Section 38 of B.N.S.S. carries forward a rule that Parliament had already added to the old Code: when a person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
• So the lawyer is a safeguard against abuse, not a partner who sits through every question.

Significance

The right to silence on incriminating matters begins before the trial.

Exam points

• April 1978; three-judge bench; Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.
• Article 20(3) applies at the police interrogation stage and to suspects not yet named in an FIR.
• Covers answers exposing the person to a charge in the present or another pending or imminent case.
• Compulsion includes psychological pressure, threats, prolonged interrogation and an overbearing atmosphere.
• Now: Section 180(2) (right to refuse incriminating answers) and Section 38 (advocate during, but not throughout, interrogation) of B.N.S.S.

Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (22:44)

Issue

Does permission to arrest someone mean that the police should always arrest that person?

Background: arrest under B.N.S.S.

• An arrest may be made under a warrant issued by a court, or without a warrant.
• The power to arrest without warrant is the more dangerous one, because it depends on the judgment of the police officer. Section 35 lists the situations.
• For non-cognizable offences, Section 35(2) says that no person shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a Magistrate. There is one narrow exception in Section 39, for a person who refuses to give his name and residence.

The principle of necessity was developed by the Supreme Court long before it entered the statute.

Date

Decided in April 1994.

Facts

• A twenty-eight-year-old advocate was called by a senior police officer in Ghaziabad for questioning in some case.
• He went, and according to his family, he was then kept in police custody for days without being produced before a Magistrate, while they did not know where he was.
• His brother feared that he might be killed in a fake encounter. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court.
• The police denied that he had been detained, and the Court ordered an inquiry by the District Judge.

Judgment (held)

• No arrest can be made merely because it is lawful for the police officer to do so.
• The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, and the justification for exercising it is quite another. The officer must be able to justify the arrest, apart from his power to make it.
• A person should not be arrested in a routine manner on a mere allegation. The officer should be reasonably satisfied, after some investigation, about:
  • the genuineness of the complaint;
  • the person's involvement;
  • the need to arrest.
• Except in heinous offences, an arrest should be avoided if a notice to attend the police station would serve the purpose.
• An arrested person has the right to have a friend, relative or other person informed of his arrest and of the place of detention. He must be told of this right, and an entry must be made in the diary about who was informed.
• The Magistrate must check that these requirements were followed.

Several of these safeguards now appear in B.N.S.S.

Present position under B.N.S.S.: notice of appearance

• Under Section 35(3), in all cases where arrest is not required under subsection (1), the police officer shall issue a notice directing the person to appear before him or at a specified place.
• The person must comply. As long as he complies, he shall not be arrested for that offence, unless the officer, for reasons recorded, thinks that he ought to be arrested.
• If he fails to comply, or refuses to identify himself, the officer may arrest him, subject to any orders of a competent court.

Significance

The case changed the question from whether arrest is possible to whether it is necessary.

Exam points

• April 1994; power to arrest versus justification for arrest.
• Non-cognizable offences: no arrest without warrant or Magistrate's order (Section 35(2)), except Section 39 (refusal to give name and residence).
• Notice of appearance: Section 35(3).
• Right to have a friend or relative informed; diary entry; Magistrate to check compliance.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (26:26)

Issue

Is automatic arrest a proper response to every allegation punishable with a few years in prison?

Date

Decided in July 2014; it carried the Joginder Kumar idea further.

Facts

• A husband feared arrest in a case of cruelty to his wife and dowry demands.
• These offences were punishable with imprisonment of three years and two years respectively.
• His anticipatory bail had been refused by the lower courts.

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court observed that arrests in such cases were being made routinely, often of entire families, without any real need.
• For offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the police cannot arrest merely because they are satisfied that the person committed the offence. They must also be satisfied that the arrest is necessary for one of the purposes in the law, and they must record their reasons.
• The officer must ask himself: why arrest, is it really required, what purpose will it serve?

Directions

1. Police officers must be given a checklist of the conditions for arrest and must fill it in while forwarding an arrested person to the Magistrate.
2. The Magistrate, before authorising detention, must read the police report and record his own satisfaction that the arrest was legal and necessary.
3. A decision not to arrest must be sent to the Magistrate within two weeks.
4. The notice of appearance must be served on the accused within two weeks of the institution of the case, which the Superintendent of Police can extend for recorded reasons.
5. Police officers who fail to follow these directions face departmental action and contempt of court.
6. A Magistrate who authorises detention without recording reasons faces departmental action.

Police officer	Magistrate
Must be satisfied that arrest is necessary, not merely that the offence was committed	Must read the police report before authorising detention
Must record reasons and fill in the checklist	Must record own satisfaction that the arrest was legal and necessary
Must send a decision not to arrest to the Magistrate within two weeks; serve notice of appearance within two weeks of the institution of the case (extendable by the Superintendent of Police for recorded reasons)	A mechanical remand order is not enough
Failure: departmental action and contempt of court	Authorising detention without reasons: departmental action

Present position under B.N.S.S.

• The necessity test and the notice now stand in Section 35 of B.N.S.S.
• For non-cognizable offences, Section 35(2) bars arrest except under a warrant or Magistrate's order, subject to the Section 39 exception.
• The notice of appearance under Section 35(3) applies where arrest is not required (see Joginder Kumar above).

Significance

The judgment makes liberty a real safeguard at the police station and before the Magistrate.

Exam points

• July 2014; offences punishable up to seven years.
• Satisfaction of commission of offence is not enough; necessity plus recorded reasons.
• Checklist; Magistrate's recorded satisfaction; decision not to arrest and notice of appearance within two weeks.
• Consequences: departmental action and contempt for police; departmental action for Magistrates.
• Now: Section 35 of B.N.S.S.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (30:10)

Issue

What prevents an arrested person from simply disappearing into police custody without a record?

Date

Decided by the Supreme Court in December 1996.

Facts

• In 1986, D.K. Basu, the Executive Chairman of a legal aid organisation in West Bengal, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing attention to newspaper reports of deaths in police lock-ups.
• He asked the Court to develop custody jurisprudence and to provide compensation to victims.
• The letter was treated as a writ petition, and another letter about a death in police custody in Aligarh was taken up along with it.

Judgment (held)

The Supreme Court described custodial violence, including torture and death in custody, as a calculated assault on human dignity and a violation of Article 21. It laid down eleven requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention until legal provisions were made:

1. The police making the arrest and handling interrogation should wear accurate, visible name tags, and the names of interrogating officers should be recorded.
2. A memo of arrest should be prepared, attested by a family member or respectable local person, countersigned by the arrested person, and showing the time and date of arrest.
3. The arrested person should have a friend or relative informed of the arrest as soon as practicable.
4. Where that relative lives outside the district, the information should be sent within eight to twelve hours.
5. The arrested person must be told of this right.
6. An entry in the diary should be made about who was informed and which officers have custody of him.
7. On request, he should be examined for injuries at the time of arrest, and an inspection memo should be prepared.
8. He should be medically examined by a trained doctor every forty-eight hours during detention.
9. Copies of all these documents should be sent to the Magistrate.
10. He may meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout.
11. A police control room should be set up at district and State headquarters, where information about arrests should be displayed.

Present position under B.N.S.S.

D.K. Basu requirement	B.N.S.S. provision
Name tag	Section 36
Memo of arrest	Section 36
Informing a relative and telling the arrested person of this right	Sections 36 and 48
Record of who was informed	Section 48
Medical examination	Section 53
Lawyer during interrogation	Section 38
Control room and display of names	Section 37

D.K. Basu is a classic example of judicial law-making that was later absorbed into the statute. Modern B.N.S.S. arrest provisions reflect several safeguards, but the constitutional directions in this judgment remain important beyond any single form or register.

Significance

This decision is a foundation of accountability whenever the State takes someone into custody.

Exam points

• Letter of 1986 treated as a writ petition; decided December 1996.
• Eleven requirements; relative outside the district informed within eight to twelve hours; medical examination every forty-eight hours.
• B.N.S.S. mapping: Sections 36, 37, 38, 48 and 53.

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (33:45)

Question raised: who can check what happened inside a police station when a person alleges unlawful violence? The Supreme Court answered by using technology to prevent custodial abuse.

Judgment (held)

On 2 December 2020, the Supreme Court directed that CCTV cameras be installed in every police station in the country.

Areas the cameras must cover

• All entry and exit points
• The main gate
• Lock-ups
• Corridors
• The reception area
• The rooms of inspectors and sub-inspectors
• The areas outside lock-ups and outside washrooms
• Other important places, including any place where someone may be kept or questioned

Coverage must go beyond the doorway of the police station. Proper coverage makes it harder for abuse to be hidden in a place that the camera never records.

Technical requirements

• The cameras must have night vision.
• They must record audio as well as video.
• Footage should be stored for 18 months; if the equipment cannot store that long, for the maximum possible period, which should not be less than one year.

Supervision, repair and complaints

• Oversight committees at the State and district levels are to supervise compliance with the system.
• The officer in charge must report when equipment fails and take steps to have it repaired.
• Police stations must display notices that the premises are under CCTV surveillance and that a person has the right to complain about violations.
• A person who complains of rights violations must have a practical way to approach the proper authority.

Central agencies

The Court directed the Union Government to install CCTV cameras in the offices of central agencies that interrogate and arrest people, such as the CBI, the NIA, the Enforcement Directorate and the Narcotics Control Bureau. The directions thus extend to specified central investigation and enforcement agencies that question people and have powers of arrest.

Principle / ratio

• The Court required effective camera coverage, oversight and preservation of recordings in police stations and specified investigation offices.
• These are court directions connected to Article 21, not a finding that video alone proves every event.
• The purpose is not simply to buy cameras. The purpose is to create evidence that can be examined when a complaint is made.
• Effective recording needs both working cameras and a real system for reviewing complaints.
• Courts may still have to examine documents, testimony and other evidence. A video is one useful source of truth, not a substitute for a fair legal process. A recorded picture must still be examined fairly and in its proper context.

Position under B.N.S.S.

B.N.S.S. does not itself require CCTV in police stations, so these directions remain in force as directions under Article 21. B.N.S.S. does, however, encourage audio-video records in investigation.

Significance

The case makes transparency part of protecting both citizens and honest investigators.

Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (37:22)

Question raised: should a poor person remain in prison only because the court demanded an unaffordable surety?

Background: the problem with the old Code

For a long time, the old Code did not define the word "bail". Courts sometimes assumed that bail always meant release on furnishing sureties, that is, other people who promise to pay money if the accused does not appear. For a poor person with no property and no well-off friends, a bail order on paper therefore did not lead to freedom in practice.

Facts

• The case was decided by the Supreme Court in August 1978.
• The petitioner, described by the Court as a poor mason, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court itself while his criminal appeal was pending.
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate demanded a surety of Rs. 10,000, which he could not afford.
• When the petitioner's brother offered himself as a surety, the Magistrate refused because the brother and his property were in another district.
• So the mason remained in prison despite a bail order.

Judgment (held)

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, writing for the Court, held:

1. The word "bail" is wide enough to include release on a person's own bond, with or without sureties.
2. The amount of the bond must be fixed with regard to the means of the accused, and not only by looking at the seriousness of the offence. An amount so high that the accused cannot arrange it can make bail meaningless.
3. A surety cannot be rejected merely because he or his property is in another district or State. India is one country, and refusing a surety from a different district would be a denial of equal treatment.

The Court ordered the Magistrate to release the mason on his own bond.

Position under B.N.S.S.

B.N.S.S. has written this understanding into the statute.

Definitions in Section 2(1)

Clause	Term	Meaning
Section 2(1)(b)	Bail	Release of a person accused or suspected of an offence from the custody of law, on conditions imposed by an officer or court, on his executing a bond or a bail bond
Section 2(1)(d)	Bail bond	An undertaking for release with surety
Section 2(1)(e)	Bond	A personal bond, or an undertaking for release without surety

Section 484: amount of bond

Section 484, which continues a rule of the old Code, says that the amount of every bond must be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and must not be excessive. The High Court or Court of Session may direct that it be reduced.

Section 478: protection for indigent persons in bailable cases

• The officer or court may, and shall if the person is indigent and unable to furnish surety, release him on his own bond instead of a bail bond.
• If a person cannot furnish a bail bond within a week of his arrest, that is a sufficient ground to presume that he is indigent.
• The right to bail in a bailable offence can, however, be refused on a later occasion in the same case if the person has earlier failed to appear as required by his bond.

Significance

The case reminds courts that liberty must not be reserved only for people with money.

Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1977)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (41:06)

Question raised: what should a judge consider before granting bail in a serious criminal case?

Statutory background: Section 483 B.N.S.S.

The High Court and the Court of Session stand on a different footing from a Magistrate, because their powers are wider. Under Section 483 they may:

• release any accused person in custody on bail;
• impose conditions;
• set aside or modify conditions imposed by a Magistrate.

The restrictions of Section 480 do not apply to them in terms. However:

• Before granting bail to a person accused of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, or punishable with life imprisonment, they must give notice to the Public Prosecutor, unless that is not practicable.
• B.N.S.S. keeps the special provisions for bail in cases of rape and gang rape of girls below the specified ages, which the old Code added in 2018. Notice of the bail application must be given to the Public Prosecutor within 15 days, and the presence of the informant or a person authorised by him is obligatory at the hearing.

Issue

Are the High Court and the Sessions Court completely free from the considerations that bind a Magistrate?

Facts

• Decided by the Supreme Court in December 1977.
• The case arose in Delhi. Several police officers, ranging from a senior officer down to constables, were accused of conspiring to kill a notorious dacoit named Sundar while he was in police custody, by drowning him in the Yamuna.
• The Sessions Judge granted bail to some of the accused.
• The State applied to the High Court, which cancelled the bail.
• The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Judgment (held)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and laid down important principles.

1. Although the High Court and the Court of Session are not expressly bound by the restriction about offences punishable with death and life imprisonment, they cannot ignore the gravity of the accusation and the likelihood of guilt.
2. Where a Sessions Judge has granted bail and no new circumstances have arisen, the State may approach the High Court directly to cancel it, because the Sessions Court is subordinate to the High Court.

Overriding considerations in granting bail

• The nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed.
• The position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses.
• The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.
• The likelihood of the accused repeating the offence.
• The likelihood of the accused jeopardising his own life by facing a grim prospect of conviction.
• The likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses.
• The history of the case and the progress of the investigation.

These considerations still guide Sections 480 and 483 of B.N.S.S.

Significance

The judgment shows that a bail decision must balance personal freedom with the fairness of a future trial.

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (44:45)

Question raised: does a very large financial accusation automatically mean that every accused person must stay in jail until trial?

Background: the purpose of bail

• The basic purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the investigation and trial, while allowing him to remain free in the meantime.
• Bail is not a reward for an innocent person, and refusal of bail is not meant to be a punishment for a guilty one.
• Hence the principle often repeated by courts: bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
• Pre-trial detention has heavy human costs, from lost jobs and suffering families to a weaker defence.
• A large proportion of the people in Indian prisons are undertrials, many of them poor people who simply cannot arrange bail.
• The law of bail is therefore closely linked with Article 21 and with equality before the law.

Factors courts consider in granting bail

Drawing on these and later cases, the factors are:

1. The nature and seriousness of the accusation.
2. The nature of the evidence in support of it.
3. The severity of the punishment if convicted.
4. The character, antecedents and circumstances of the accused.
5. The reasonable apprehension that he may flee.
6. The reasonable apprehension that he may tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.
7. The possibility of repeating the offence.
8. Whether he has cooperated with the investigation.
9. The length of time already spent in custody, and how long the trial is likely to take.
10. The larger interest of the public or the State.

Facts

• Decided in November 2011.
• The appellants were senior corporate executives accused in what is popularly called the 2G spectrum case, a very large alleged fraud in the allotment of telecom licences, causing huge loss to the public exchequer.
• The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.
• The trial court and the High Court refused bail, citing among other grounds the seriousness of the allegations.

Judgment (held)

The Supreme Court granted bail and observed:

• The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at the trial. It is neither punitive nor preventive.
• Detention before trial cannot be used to give an accused a taste of imprisonment as a lesson, or as a mark of disapproval of his conduct.
• The seriousness of the charge is certainly relevant, but it is not the only test.
• The court must also consider the likely punishment, and the fact that the investigation is complete, so that custody is no longer needed for it.
• The trial would take very long, with many witnesses and documents, so keeping the accused in jail until then would be unfair.
• There was no material to show that they would tamper with evidence or flee.
• The Court imposed conditions to secure their presence.

B.N.S.S. leaves this general discretion unchanged.

Principle / ratio

• The purpose of pre-trial custody is not to give the punishment before guilt is proved.
• Conditions may be used to reduce risks, such as a person escaping or influencing witnesses.
• An allegation is not a conviction.
• The seriousness of an economic offence matters, yet it must be weighed with the facts of the particular case and statutory limits on bail.

Significance

The case explains the danger of keeping a person in custody for a long time without a final finding of guilt, and why punishment and custody before trial are not the same thing.

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (48:35)

Question raised: can someone seek protection from arrest before the police actually take that person into custody?

Statutory background: Section 482 B.N.S.S. (anticipatory bail)

• It covers a person who has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.
• He may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
• The court may include conditions, such as that the person shall:
  • make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
  • not threaten or induce any witness;
  • not leave India without the court's permission.
• If such a person is thereafter arrested without warrant, he shall be released on bail.
• If a Magistrate decides that a warrant should be issued against him, it shall be a bailable warrant in line with the court's direction.
• Section 482(4) excludes accusations under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of B.N.S. These provisions concern rape of girls below the ages specified in those sections. The exclusion reflects limits placed in the law; courts must apply the precise statutory words.

Regular bail and anticipatory bail distinguished

Regular bail	Anticipatory bail
Granted to a person who is already in custody	A direction given before arrest, which takes effect at the moment of arrest, so that the person is released immediately

Only the High Court and the Court of Session can grant anticipatory bail.

Facts

• Decided by a Constitution Bench of five judges in April 1980.
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia was a minister in the Punjab government. Serious allegations of political corruption were made against him and others.
• They applied for anticipatory bail.
• A Full Bench of the High Court rejected the applications and laid down several restrictive rules:
  • the power was extraordinary and should be used sparingly;
  • it could not be used in serious economic offences involving the powerful;
  • it should be refused if police custody or recovery of evidence might be needed.

Judgment (held)

The Supreme Court largely set aside that approach and held:

1. Courts should not read into the section limitations that the legislature had not placed there.
2. The section is cast in wide terms, and the discretion is given to senior courts which can be trusted to use it wisely.
3. The applicant must show that he has reason to believe that he may be arrested. This means a belief founded on reasonable grounds, not a vague fear.
4. The filing of an FIR is not a condition precedent, but the applicant must be specific about the accusation.
5. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted after arrest.
6. A blanket order, protecting a person against arrest for any offence whatever, should not be passed.
7. The court may impose conditions.
8. Normally, the order should not be limited in time.

Significance

The judgment protects liberty while allowing the court to impose proper safeguards for investigation.

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (52:22)

Question raised: must anticipatory bail always end after a few days, or when a court frames a charge?

Statutory background

The governing provision is Section 482 of B.N.S.S. (described under the previous case). The exclusion in Section 482(4) covers specific sexual offences involving girls below the ages fixed by law (Section 65 and Section 70(2) of B.N.S.). The court must check the actual section and the statutory exclusion instead of treating anticipatory bail as available for every offence.

Issue: the conflict after Sibbia

Despite the Sibbia ruling, smaller benches in later years took differing views:

• some held that anticipatory bail should be granted only for a limited period, after which the accused must surrender and apply for regular bail;
• others held that it should end when the accused was summoned by the court.

This conflict was resolved by another Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal, decided in January 2020.

Judgment (held)

1. Protection granted under anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be limited to a fixed period.
2. It can continue without restriction of time. Its life does not end merely because the accused is summoned or the charge is framed. It can last till the end of the trial.
3. The court may, in appropriate cases, if there are special features, limit the duration or impose conditions.
4. The applicant should place concrete facts before the court, which should consider the nature and gravity of the offence and the role of the accused.
5. The police can apply for cancellation if the accused misuses his liberty.

Section 482 repeats the old anticipatory bail provision almost word for word in its first three subsections, so both Sibbia and Sushila Aggarwal apply to it.

Significance

The decision settles an important practical doubt about the length of pre-arrest bail protection.

M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2020)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (56:08)

Question raised: what happens when the investigation time limit expires but the police have not filed the required report?

Statutory background: Section 187(3) B.N.S.S. (default bail)

No Magistrate can authorise detention during investigation beyond the following limits:

Category of offence	Maximum detention during investigation
Punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more	90 days
Any other offence	60 days

• On the expiry of this period, if the investigation is not complete, the accused shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.
• This is the default of the investigating agency. The law tells the police to complete the investigation and file the report within the time limit, or else release the accused.
• The right exists because the law does not want an accused to remain in custody indefinitely while the police take their time.
• Courts have described it as an indefeasible right, linked with Article 21.

Issues

• When exactly does the right become enforceable?
• Can the police defeat it by filing a charge-sheet after the time is over?

Facts

• Decided by a bench of three judges in October 2020.
• The appellant was arrested in a case under the NDPS Act, where the special law allowed 180 days for investigation.
• When the 180 days expired, he filed an application for default bail at about 10:30 in the morning on the next day.
• Later the same afternoon, after his application had been argued, the investigating agency filed an additional complaint against him.
• The High Court held that since the complaint had been filed before his application was decided, he had lost his right.

Judgment (held)

The Supreme Court disagreed and laid down clear rules:

1. Once the accused files an application for default bail after the time limit expires, and he is prepared to furnish bail, he is deemed to have availed of his right.
2. The court must then release him without unnecessary delay, after getting information from the Public Prosecutor.
3. The right cannot be defeated by the prosecution filing a charge-sheet or complaint after the application is made, or by the court keeping the application pending.
4. But if the accused does not apply for default bail when the right accrues, and the charge-sheet is filed before he applies, the right is lost, and he can then seek bail only on merits.

Section 187(3) keeps this rule, so the reasoning remains the guide.

Default bail and bail on merits distinguished

Default bail	Bail on merits
A statutory right arising from failure to complete the investigation within the applicable time	Bail granted after looking at the strength of the prosecution case
Available if the accused applies after expiry of the period and is ready to comply with bail terms	The only route left once the charge-sheet is filed before the accused applies for default bail

Significance

The State cannot defeat an exercised default-bail right by rushing to file a late report.

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (59:52)

Question raised: can strict bail restrictions justify keeping a person in prison for years when the trial cannot finish soon?

Background: stricter bail under special laws

Ordinary bail rules appear in B.N.S.S. Some special laws, such as the UAPA and the NDPS Act, place stricter conditions on bail. For example, under the UAPA the court looks at the case diary or police report; if it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true, it cannot release an accused of certain offences on bail.

Issue

What happens when an accused under such a law remains in prison for years without trial?

Facts

• Decided by a bench of three judges in February 2021.
• Najeeb was accused of being one of the main conspirators in a gruesome attack in Kerala in 2010, in which a college professor's palm was chopped off over a question paper that some people found objectionable.
• He absconded and was arrested years later.
• Many co-accused had already been tried and convicted, and given sentences of up to eight years.
• Najeeb had spent more than five years in custody; his trial had not even begun, with a very large number of witnesses still to be examined.
• The High Court granted him bail. The Union, through the NIA, appealed.

Judgment (held)

1. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
2. Statutory restrictions like those in the UAPA do not by themselves take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail.
3. That power can be used where the accused's fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, including the right to a speedy trial, are being violated.
4. At the beginning of the case, courts must respect the legislative policy of strict bail.
5. But the rigour of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.
6. The Court imposed strict conditions on Najeeb, such as regular reporting to the police.

Later development

In May 2026, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that this three-judge ruling binds smaller benches. The later judgment explained that a long time in custody does not automatically give bail; courts must assess the delay, the law and the facts. Article 21 remains important even under strict special laws.

Significance

The case matters because even stringent criminal laws operate under the Constitution.

Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:03:16)

Question raised: why should a person who cooperated with the investigation be arrested merely because the police filed the charge-sheet?

Background

Large numbers of people remain in prison before their trials end. The Supreme Court therefore took up the matter systematically in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, decided in July 2022, building on its earlier orders in the same case.

Categories of offences for bail

The Court had already divided offences into the following categories in its earlier orders in the same case:

Category	Offences covered
Category A	Offences punishable with 7 years or less, not falling in other categories
Category B	Offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or more than 7 years
Category C	Offences under special laws with strict bail provisions, such as the NDPS Act and the UAPA
Category D	Economic offences not covered by special laws

Graded approach for an accused not arrested during investigation

For an accused who was not arrested during investigation and who cooperated with it, in Category A cases the court should:

1. first issue an ordinary summons;
2. then a bailable warrant if the accused does not appear;
3. a non-bailable warrant only if he still does not appear.

When he appears, his bail application may be decided without taking him into physical custody.

Directions in the 2022 judgment

• The Government of India should consider a separate law on bail, a Bail Act, to streamline the grant of bail.
• Investigating agencies must comply with the provisions on arrest and notice of appearance, now found in Section 35 of B.N.S.S., and with the principles of Arnesh Kumar; courts must satisfy themselves about such compliance. Unlawful arrest or a failure to follow these duties can strongly support a claim for bail.
• An accused who was not arrested during investigation may appear in court on summons, or be produced at the stage of the charge-sheet or committal. There is then no need to insist on a bail application, and the court may simply take a bond for his appearance.
• The High Courts must identify undertrials who could not meet their bail conditions and take action to release them.
• Bail applications should be disposed of within two weeks, and anticipatory bail applications within six weeks, except where a law provides otherwise.

The Court has continued to monitor compliance through later orders after its main judgment.

Principle / ratio

• The case organised bail practice into categories and stressed that arrest should be necessary, not automatic.
• Police and Magistrates must follow statutory safeguards.
• B.N.S.S. contains arrest rules in Section 35 and bail provisions in later chapters.
• A charge-sheet is an accusation supported by investigation, not proof of guilt.
• An accused who appears before the court in answer to a summons is not automatically a person who must be physically detained. Courts should use lawful, proportionate steps rather than needless custody.

Significance

The judgment is important for reducing unnecessary detention of people who are still awaiting trial.

Willie Slaney v State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:06:48)

The question

If a criminal charge contains a mistake, omits some particular, or if no charge was framed at all for the offence of which the accused is finally convicted, must the whole trial be set aside? The law takes a practical view, focused on substance rather than form.

Statutory framework

• Section 238 B.N.S.S.: no error in stating the offence or the particulars, and no omission to state them, shall be regarded as material at any stage. Exception: the error or omission matters only if the accused was in fact misled by it and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
• Section 510 B.N.S.S.: no finding, sentence or order of a competent court shall be deemed invalid merely because:
  • no charge was framed; or
  • there was any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, including misjoinder of charges.
• Exception under Section 510: where the appellate or revisional court finds that a failure of justice has in fact been caused:
  • if no charge was framed, it may order that a charge be framed and the trial recommenced from that point;
  • if the charge was defective, it may order a new trial on a properly framed charge.

Bench and date

Decided by a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court in October 1955. It is the classic case on this principle.

Facts

• In 1953, in Jabalpur, Willie Slaney and his brother went to a house where a quarrel broke out with a man. Willie struck him with a hockey stick. The man died some days later.
• Both brothers were charged with murder read with the provision on common intention (which applies when several persons act together).
• At the trial the brother was acquitted. Willie was convicted of murder on the basis that he himself had struck the blow, although no separate charge of murder simpliciter had been framed against him.
• He argued that his conviction for an offence with which he was not charged was illegal.

Issue

Does conviction for an offence on which no separate charge was framed make the trial illegal?

Judgment (held)

• The defect was at most a curable irregularity, not an illegality that destroys the trial.
• The law on charges must be applied with common sense, looking at substance and not technicality.
• The real question is whether the accused was prejudiced. The court asks:
  1. Did he know what he was being tried for?
  2. Were the main facts sought to be established against him explained to him fairly and clearly?
  3. Did he get a full and fair chance to defend himself?
  If yes, a defect in the form of the charge does not vitiate the trial.
• Willie knew exactly that he was accused of striking the fatal blow and had defended himself on that basis, so he was not prejudiced.
• On the merits: the killing happened in a sudden quarrel and amounted only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court altered the conviction to that lesser offence and reduced the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

Principle and present law

The prejudice test, applied under the old Code of 1898, now sits in Sections 238 and 510 B.N.S.S.

Significance

The judgment teaches courts to correct real injustice without treating every harmless defect as fatal.

Santa Singh v State of Punjab (1976)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:10:46)

The question

After finding an accused guilty, can the judge immediately decide the punishment without hearing the accused on sentence?

Statutory framework: the separate hearing on sentence

• Section 258(2) B.N.S.S.: when the accused is convicted in a Sessions trial, the judge shall hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass sentence according to law. Only exception: where the judge releases him on probation.
• Section 271(2) B.N.S.S. applies the same rule to warrant cases before Magistrates.

Why a separate hearing?

Deciding guilt and deciding punishment are two different exercises.

Guilt stage	Sentencing stage
The court looks at the offence.	The court must also look at the offender.
The trial focuses only on whether he committed the offence.	Facts that may never have come up at trial become relevant: age, whether it is a first offence, family situation, provocation, likelihood of reform, dependants.

The hearing on sentence gives the convict and his lawyer a chance to place these facts before the court. This is called the individualisation of punishment: the punishment should suit not only the crime but also the person.

Facts

• Decided by the Supreme Court in August 1976.
• Santa Singh was tried by the Sessions Judge at Ludhiana for a double murder.
• On the day of judgment his lawyer was not present. In one single judgment the Sessions Judge convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death, without hearing him on sentence.
• The provision requiring such a hearing was then quite new in the old Code. The High Court confirmed the sentence, and nobody raised the point there.

Judgment (held)

• The requirement of a hearing on sentence is mandatory, not a mere formality.
• It is not just a chance to make a short oral plea. The convict and the prosecution may place facts and material before the court, and where the facts are disputed, evidence may be led.
• Skipping this stage is not a curable irregularity: it bypasses an important stage of the trial and goes to the root of the matter.
• The right is not lost merely because the accused or his lawyer kept silent about it.
• Result: the conviction for murder was left untouched, but the death sentence was set aside and the case was sent back to the Sessions Court to pass an appropriate sentence after hearing the accused.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati on sentencing factors

Sentencing is a delicate task requiring the court to consider many factors:

• the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed;
• the prior record of the offender;
• his age, education, home life and social adjustment;
• his emotional and mental condition;
• his prospects of rehabilitation.

Present law

The old Code section the Court applied now appears, in almost the same words, as Section 258(2) B.N.S.S.

Significance

The case made the right to be heard on punishment a serious part of a fair criminal trial.

Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh v State of Gujarat (2004)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:14:43)

The question

Can a trial be called fair when key witnesses are frightened into changing their evidence? A common mistake is to think that fair trial is only about protecting the accused. A fair trial must be fair to the accused, the victim and society.

Facts

• Decided by the Supreme Court in April 2004; often called the Best Bakery case.
• During the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002, a mob attacked and set fire to the Best Bakery in Vadodara, starting on the night of 1 March and going on into the next morning. Fourteen people died.
• Zahira, a young woman whose family members were among those killed, was the main eyewitness.
• At the trial most eyewitnesses, including Zahira, turned hostile and did not support their earlier statements to the police. The trial court acquitted all the accused.
• Soon after, Zahira stated before the National Human Rights Commission that she had been threatened by powerful people and forced to give false evidence.
• The State's appeal in the High Court was weak, and the High Court refused to allow additional evidence or order a retrial.

Judgment (held)

• The acquittal was set aside and a retrial ordered outside Gujarat, before a court under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
• The State was directed to appoint a new Public Prosecutor and to ensure protection for the witnesses.

Principles laid down

• A fair trial means a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm.
• It is a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses or the cause being tried is eliminated.
• If witnesses are threatened or forced to give false evidence, the trial is not fair.
• The Public Prosecutor represents the community, not the police and not the accused; in that case he had failed in his duty.
• The court is not a mere tape recorder of evidence. It must actively use its powers to summon witnesses and put questions to discover the truth. These powers now stand in Section 348 B.N.S.S. and Section 168 B.S.A.
• There is an urgent need for proper measures to protect witnesses.

Postscript

Zahira later changed her stand again and disowned her statements before the Commission. The Supreme Court held an inquiry, found her guilty of contempt of court for giving contradictory statements, and in 2006 sentenced her to one year of simple imprisonment and ordered her to pay costs. Threats to witnesses are a continuing danger; protection remains essential because fear can prevent the court from hearing truthful evidence.

Significance

Truth cannot be tested fairly in a courtroom ruled by fear.

Mohd. Hussain v State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2012)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:18:19)

The question

What happens to a criminal trial when the accused faces serious charges without any real lawyer to defend him?

The right to counsel and legal aid

• Article 22(1): no arrested person shall be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
• Section 340 B.N.S.S.: any person accused of an offence before a criminal court, or against whom proceedings are instituted, may of right be defended by an advocate of his choice.
• Article 39A: the State must provide free legal aid so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gives effect to this.
• Section 341 B.N.S.S.: where an accused is not represented by an advocate in a trial or appeal and does not have sufficient means to engage one, the court shall assign an advocate for his defence at the expense of the State.

Old Code	B.N.S.S. Section 341
Mandatory rule applied mainly to trials before the Court of Session, with power for the State to extend it to other courts.	Covers trials and appeals generally.

Facts

• In December 1997 a bomb exploded in a public bus in Delhi, killing four people and injuring many others.
• The appellant, a foreign national, was tried for murder and other offences and sentenced to death.
• During the Sessions trial he did not get the help of a lawyer in any real sense. Many prosecution witnesses were examined without any real cross-examination on his behalf.
• The High Court confirmed the death sentence.

Judgment (held)

• January 2012, two judges: both agreed the trial was unfair and violated his right to legal aid, but disagreed on the remedy. One would have ordered a fresh trial; the other would have simply set aside the conviction, given the long delay.
• The question of remedy was referred to a bench of three judges, which decided it in August 2012.
• The larger bench proceeded on the view, already accepted by both judges, that a trial without the assistance of a lawyer is not a fair trial, and the conviction and sentence cannot stand.
• On remedy, considering the gravity of the offence, it ordered a fresh trial from the stage of prosecution evidence, with a lawyer for the accused, to be completed within three months.

Significance

Justice must include an effective defence, whatever the accusation.

Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab (2014)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:22:03)

The question

What if a witness identifies another possible offender during the trial, but the police never named that person as an accused?

Statutory framework

Section 358 B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 319 of the old Code) gives the court power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence:

• In the course of an inquiry or trial, it appears from the evidence that a person who is not an accused has committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused.
• The court may proceed against him; he may be arrested or summoned.
• The proceedings against him must start afresh, with the witnesses being heard again.

Bench and date

Constitution Bench of five judges, January 2014. The Court answered several questions that had divided lower courts.

Issues and holdings

Question	Answer
At what stage can the power be used?	At the stage of inquiry or trial. The trial begins after the framing of charge.
What does "evidence" mean?	It is understood broadly and is not limited to evidence tested by cross-examination. The court can act on the examination-in-chief of a witness without waiting for cross-examination.
What degree of satisfaction is needed?	It is an extraordinary power, to be used sparingly. The evidence must show more than a mere prima facie case (as required at framing of charge), but need not be enough to show that, if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction.
Can a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted, or a discharged person, be summoned?	Yes, if the evidence shows their involvement. For a person who was discharged, the procedure for reopening his discharge must first be followed.

Why this power is part of fair trial

• Fairness is not one-sided. The victim and society have a right to see that the real culprits are brought to justice. If the police, for whatever reason, leave out a guilty person, the court should not be helpless.
• Summoning a new accused is a serious step, so the court must be cautious and satisfied by strong evidence.
• The Supreme Court has since clarified that the power must be exercised before the sentence is pronounced in a case of conviction, or before acquittal, since after that the court has finished its work in the case.
• These rulings continue to govern Section 358, which repeats the old section.

Significance

The court can reach all persons indicated by strong evidence without using suspicion as proof.

Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka (2018)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:25:37)

The question

When the trial court acquits an accused, does the victim have an independent right to challenge that decision?

Victim protection at earlier stages under B.N.S.S.

• FIR (Section 173):
  • the victim is entitled to a free copy of the information recorded;
  • women victims of sexual offences have the right to have their information recorded by a woman officer;
  • victims with disabilities, in these offences, have the right to have it recorded at their home or a place of their choice, with an interpreter or special educator.
• Investigation (Section 193): the police must inform the informant or the victim about the progress of the investigation within 90 days.
• Rape cases (Section 176): the victim's statement must be recorded at her residence or a place of her choice, as far as practicable by a woman police officer.
• Statement before a Magistrate (Section 183): should be recorded by a woman Magistrate, as far as practicable.

The right of appeal deserves closer attention because the Supreme Court has interpreted it generously.

Bench and date

Bench of three judges, October 2018.

Facts

• Mallikarjun Kodagali had been attacked in 2009. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused.
• He filed an appeal in the High Court as a victim under the proviso introduced in 2009. The High Court dismissed it, saying the offence took place before the date on which the proviso came into force.
• He also tried to appeal under the provision allowing a complainant to seek special leave, but that was dismissed because his case was not a complaint case.
• He died during the proceedings, and his legal representatives continued the case.

Issues

1. Does the victim's right of appeal depend on the date of the offence or the date of the acquittal?
2. Must the victim first obtain leave of the High Court, as the State must when it appeals against an acquittal?

Judgment (held)

• Unanimously: what matters is the date of the trial court's judgment of acquittal, not the date of the offence. Since the acquittal came after the proviso took effect, the victim could appeal.
• On leave, the Court was divided:
  • Majority: the victim does not need to seek leave. The proviso gives the victim an independent and substantive right of appeal, and the appeal lies to the court to which an appeal against conviction would ordinarily lie. The majority also drew support from the United Nations Declaration on victims.
  • Minority: the victim should be required to obtain leave, like the State.
• The majority view is the law. A later Supreme Court decision in April 2025 again supported the independent victim-appeal route without a general leave requirement.

Appeal against acquittal by	Leave needed?
The State	Yes, leave of the High Court
The victim (under the proviso)	No (majority view); appeal lies where an appeal against conviction would ordinarily lie

Present law

Section 413 B.N.S.S. retains the victim's right of appeal, subject to the grounds allowed by law.

Significance

The case recognises the victim as an active participant in the justice system, not only a witness.

Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra alias Monu (2022)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:29:21)

The question

Should a victim be left outside the courtroom when a judge decides whether the accused should get bail?

Definition of victim: Section 2(1)(y) B.N.S.S.

A victim is a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person, and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim.

Old definition	B.N.S.S. Section 2(1)(y)
Loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged.	The words "for which the accused has been charged" are dropped: a person can be recognised as a victim even before a charge is framed.

• The inclusion of the guardian or legal heir matters where the victim is a child, or has died (as in a murder case).

Bench and date

B.N.S.S. does not say in general terms that the victim must be heard on bail, but the Supreme Court has recognised such a right. Leading decision by a bench of three judges, April 2022.

Facts

• The case arose from an incident in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, in October 2021. Farmers returning from a protest were allegedly run over by vehicles, and several people died.
• The son of a Union Minister was among the accused. The High Court granted him bail.
• The victims' families appealed, complaining that they had not been given an effective hearing.

Judgment (held)

• A victim has a legally vested right to be heard at every stage of the criminal proceedings, from investigation to the end of any appeal or revision.
• The right flows from the recognition of victims as real stakeholders in the criminal process.
• The victim and the informant or complainant are different concepts; a victim need not be the complainant to claim this right.
• Since the victims had been denied a fair and effective hearing, the Court set aside the High Court's bail order and sent the matter back for a fresh decision after hearing them, without expressing any view on the merits of the bail application.
• The ruling still guides courts under B.N.S.S.

Exam points

• The right of participation is separate from the question whether the accused deserves bail.
• Hearing a victim does not remove the presumption of innocence. The judge must consider both sides and record reasons based on law.
• The Court did not finally decide the bail merits; it ordered fresh consideration with an effective hearing.
• The complaint before the Supreme Court was not simply that the accused had been given bail, but that the families of the dead had no adequate chance to present their objections. A proper hearing lets the court consider those objections, but does not decide the answer automatically.

Significance

The victim becomes a person whose voice must be genuinely considered in the criminal process.

Mahender Chawla v Union of India (2018)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:32:52)

The question

How can a court rely on a witness who fears being attacked for telling the truth? For years, threatened witnesses lacked a uniform nationwide protection law.

Facts

• Decided in December 2018.
• The petitioners were witnesses and family members of witnesses in the prosecutions of a self-styled spiritual leader and his son for rape.
• Several witnesses in those cases had been attacked and some killed. One petitioner had himself survived an attempt on his life; another was the father of a witness who had been murdered.
• During the hearing, the Union Government, with the help of the Attorney General and inputs from the States, prepared a draft Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court approved the Scheme and directed the Union, the States and the Union Territories to enforce it in letter and spirit.
• Most importantly, the Scheme would be law under Articles 141 and 142, binding on all, until suitable legislation was made.
• Vulnerable witness deposition complexes were to be set up in all district courts, so that vulnerable witnesses could give evidence in a safe and friendly environment.

Main features of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018

Coverage: witnesses in cases involving offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of seven years and above, and certain offences against women.

Categories of witnesses by threat:

Category	Nature of threat
First	Threat extends to the life of the witness or his family during investigation, trial or even afterwards.
Second	Threat extends to the safety, reputation or property of the witness or his family.
Third	Moderate threat, in the form of harassment or intimidation.

Competent Authority: a standing committee in each district.

• Headed by the District and Sessions Judge;
• the head of the district police as a member;
• the head of the prosecution as member secretary.

Procedure: the witness applies to the Competent Authority, which calls for a threat analysis report from the police (to be submitted quickly) and then decides on protection measures. Hearings are held in camera and the matter is kept confidential.

Protection measures may include:

• ensuring that the witness and the accused do not come face to face during investigation or trial;
• monitoring of the witness's mail and telephone calls;
• security devices at the witness's home; change of telephone number;
• close protection and regular patrolling;
• temporary change of residence;
• escort to and from the court;
• in camera trials;
• special deposition rooms with one-way mirrors and audio-video arrangements;
• protection of the witness's identity, or even a new identity or relocation in some cases.

Funding: a State Witness Protection Fund meets the costs.

Significance

A free witness is essential to a fair hearing.

Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:36:49)

The question

Can a High Court end a criminal case after the parties settle, even when the offence cannot formally be compounded?

Statutory framework

• Section 359(9) B.N.S.S.: a trial court cannot allow compounding outside the law's listed offences.
• Section 528 B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 482 of the old Code): the High Court has inherent power to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Background and bench

Decided by a bench of three judges in 2012. A smaller bench had doubted earlier decisions in which the Court had quashed non-compoundable cases after settlement, and referred the matter to a larger bench. The larger bench upheld those earlier decisions and laid down a clear framework.

Judgment (held)

1. Quashing is different from compounding

Compounding is a statutory power limited to listed offences. Quashing on the basis of settlement is an inherent power guided by the ends of justice and the need to prevent abuse of process. The two are distinct in nature and in scope.

2. How the inherent power must be used

• It has no rigid limits but must be exercised with great care.
• The High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the crime.
• Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity, such as murder, rape and dacoity, should not be quashed even if the victim or the victim's family has settled with the offender, because they have a serious impact on society.
• Offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement.

3. Where quashing may be appropriate

• Criminal cases with an overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour, such as offences arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions;
• offences arising out of matrimonial or family disputes, where the wrong is basically private and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

In such cases the High Court may quash if it finds that:

• the chance of conviction is remote and bleak; and
• continuing the case would cause great oppression and extreme injustice to the accused.

Compounding	Quashing
Done by the parties under the statute (Section 359 B.N.S.S.)	Done by the High Court under its inherent power (Section 528 B.N.S.S.)
Only listed offences	Can extend to non-compoundable offences
Results in acquittal	Depends on the court's judgment of what justice requires

Later courts have also examined how this power applies to serious offences, including attempt to murder.

Significance

The judgment protects the distinction between a private dispute and a serious wrong against society.

State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal (1990)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:40:46)

The question

When is it fair for the High Court to stop a criminal case before the trial has even started?

Date

Decided by the Supreme Court in November 1990 and reported in 1992. It is the classic guidance on quashing.

Facts

• A complaint alleged that Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, a former Chief Minister of Haryana who was then a Union Minister, had acquired assets far beyond his known means by misusing his office.
• An FIR was registered for corruption offences.
• The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that it disclosed no cognizable offence.

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court disagreed on that point and set aside the High Court's order: the allegations did disclose a cognizable offence.
• It found a separate legal defect: the officer who began the investigation was not authorised to investigate such offences under the anti-corruption law of that time, so the investigation done so far could not stand.

The seven illustrative categories for quashing

The case is famous because the Court surveyed earlier decisions and set out categories in which the High Court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice:

1. The allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted entirely, do not make out any offence against the accused.
2. The allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence, so police investigation without a Magistrate's order is not justified.
3. The undisputed allegations and the evidence collected do not disclose any offence or make out a case against the accused.
4. The allegations disclose only a non-cognizable offence and the police are investigating without a Magistrate's order.
5. The allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there is sufficient ground to proceed.
6. There is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings (for example, absence of a required sanction), or the law provides a specific and effective remedy for the grievance.
7. The proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides, or has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused out of private or personal grudge.

Caution added by the Court

• These categories are illustrations, not a rigid list.
• The power should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases.
• At the quashing stage the court should not inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. It only asks whether the allegations, as they stand, make out a case.
• These categories still guide the High Court, because Section 528 B.N.S.S. repeats the old section.

Significance

The case explains when criminal proceedings may be stopped without turning the High Court into a trial court.

Rajnesh v Neha (2020)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:44:34)

The question

How can a court decide fair maintenance if one party hides income and two courts make separate orders about the same family?

Why maintenance is in a criminal procedure law

• The aim is not to punish anyone but to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy against vagrancy and destitution.
• When a man with sufficient means abandons his wife, children or aged parents and leaves them without support, they cannot wait years for a civil suit. The criminal court, through a summary procedure, can quickly order a monthly allowance.
• It is a measure of social justice and it is secular: it applies to persons of every religion, regardless of personal law.

Background

Maintenance cases suffered from long delays, because husbands concealed income and assets, and from confusion where wives filed claims under several laws. The Supreme Court addressed these problems in November 2020 and issued guidelines for all maintenance proceedings in the country.

Guidelines (held)

1. Overlapping claims: claims often arise under the Code, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the Hindu Marriage Act. The applicant must disclose earlier proceedings and orders. A court deciding a later claim must take into account and adjust maintenance already awarded in an earlier proceeding.
2. Affidavit of disclosure: both parties must file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in a prescribed format, so the court has reliable information about income and expenses.
3. Criteria for the amount: status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and children; income and property of both sides; financial obligations of the husband.
4. Date of award: maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application in all cases, because delays in deciding the case should not punish the wife.
5. Enforcement: maintenance orders can be enforced like money decrees, apart from the remedies of the Code.

Present law

Section 144 B.N.S.S. re-enacts the old maintenance section, so the guidelines remain relevant.

Exam points

• Both sides must make an honest disclosure of income, property, loans, ordinary living costs and family responsibilities.
• If a person already pays maintenance under another order, the later court should take that into account; otherwise there may be confusion and unfair double payment for the same period.
• The date of the application matters: the person seeking support should not lose several months of money simply because the court takes a long time to decide. Each order must still follow the evidence and the correct law.

Significance

The judgment makes maintenance decisions more transparent and helps prevent delay from defeating support.

Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:48:15)

The question

May the government stop internet services or restrict public gatherings for an unlimited time without giving reasons?

Facts

• Decided in January 2020.
• After the constitutional changes concerning Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, the authorities suspended mobile phone and internet services in the region and imposed restrictions on movement and assembly through prohibitory orders. These orders were not made public.
• Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of a newspaper, and others challenged the measures, arguing that journalists could not work and that the right to free speech had been crushed.

Judgment (held): internet

• Freedom of speech and expression, and freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business, through the medium of the internet, enjoy constitutional protection under Article 19.
• Any restriction must satisfy the test of reasonableness and proportionality.
• Indefinite suspension of the internet is not permissible; every suspension order must be reviewed periodically by a review committee.
• The Court did not declare that access to the internet is itself a fundamental right. It held that speech and trade through the internet are protected.

Judgment (held): prohibitory orders (now Section 163 B.N.S.S.)

• The power can be used not only where there is a present danger but also where there is an apprehension of danger, but the danger must be in the nature of an emergency.
• It cannot be used to suppress the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance, or the exercise of any democratic right.
• The Magistrate must state the material facts, so that the order can be judicially reviewed.
• The Magistrate must balance rights and restrictions on the principle of proportionality and choose the least intrusive measure.
• Repeated orders that have the effect of a continuing restriction are an abuse of power.
• All such orders must be published, so that people affected can challenge them.

Significance

Public safety powers must remain open to legal checks and cannot become a way to silence lawful speech.