Topic
Punjab & Haryana HC ruled that parity with co-accused justifies regular bail under BNSS 483 even for grave offences under BNS and Arms Act, setting a precedent for consistent bail jurisprudence.
Kerala High Court denies pre-arrest bail in a ₹3.55 lakh cheating case, holding that the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation are decisive factors under BNSS Section 482. The ruling reinforces that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course, particularly when the investigation is ongoing and the offence involves significant fraud.
Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds the Lalita Kumari principle under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permitting police to conduct a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration where no cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed. The ruling clarifies the scope of judicial review over police compliance reports in criminal investigations.
Kerala High Court invokes inherent powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings where parties amicably settled disputes under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The ruling reinforces the court's discretion to prevent abuse of process in compoundable offences.
Kerala High Court rejects pre-arrest bail under BNSS Section 482, emphasizing that premeditated financial fraud involving ₹65 lakhs and collusive property transfers outweighs bail considerations. The ruling underscores that gravity of offence and prima facie evidence of deceitful intent trump discretionary bail relief.
Bombay High Court ruled that security proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) can only be initiated against habitual offenders or those posing a community hazard, not for isolated incidents. The court quashed show-cause notices issued without establishing such grounds, reinforcing that procedural safeguards must align with legislative intent to prevent misuse.
Allahabad High Court rules that recalling witnesses under Section 311 CrPC after charge framing is impermissible unless their evidence is indispensable to justice. The judgment underscores the binding nature of procedural waivers and the statutory structure of criminal trials, impacting complainants seeking late witness examinations.
Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that directors cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely by virtue of their position. Liability attaches only if they were actively involved in the company's affairs or the cheque's issuance, and resignation before the cheque date absolves them entirely. This clarifies the scope of vicarious liability for directors in cheque bounce cases.