#Criminal Law

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act is a statutory floor that appellate courts cannot reduce, holding that a Sessions Judge's reduction to 10% and subsequent bail cancellation for non-compliance with the unlawful condition was impermissible. This safeguards appellants from arbitrary deposit reductions and ensures bail conditions adhere strictly to the statutory mandate.

The J&K High Court held that a date discrepancy between a Section 19 PCA sanction order and the sanctioning authority's signature is a clerical error that does not invalidate prosecution at the pre-charge stage. Such irregularities must be examined at trial with reference to official records, preserving the sanction's validity absent substantive prejudice.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal of a husband and in-laws under Section 306 IPC, ruling that persistent harassment over childlessness, without proof of active instigation coupled with mens rea, does not constitute abetment of suicide. The decision raises the evidentiary bar for prosecutions linking domestic cruelty to suicide.

Gujarat HC allows release of seized Eicher truck on interim custody pending trial, holding Section 98(2) Gujarat Prohibition Act not absolute embargo.

The Supreme Court upheld a husband's murder conviction in a dowry death case, ruling that his fabricated defence of epileptic seizure - contradicted by post-mortem evidence of throttling - completed the circumstantial chain under Section 106 Evidence Act and triggered the Section 113-B presumption. The decision reinforces that a false plea on facts within the accused's exclusive knowledge can supply the missing link in dowry death prosecutions.

The High Court upheld the Section 6 POCSO conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor but held the 30-year simple imprisonment sentence statutorily impermissible and disproportionate. It reduced the sentence to 15 years rigorous imprisonment, factoring in the appellant's youth at the time of offence, clean record, and over 11 years already incarcerated.

The Delhi High Court held that an unverified internal police database report, marked for investigative reference only, cannot prove criminal involvement. It directed the DCP to verify and correct the erroneous entry linking the petitioner to an FIR where he was unnamed within four weeks, and barred reliance on the report in court.

The J&K High Court held that a single composite demand notice covering multiple dishonoured cheques satisfies Section 138 NI Act requirements, and that taking cognizance after the 15-day statutory payment window expires cures any premature filing defect. The ruling clarifies procedural compliance for cheque bounce complainants and limits technical grounds for quashing proceedings.

The court held that generic accusations of 'inciting the husband' without particulars of cruelty or harassment fail to make out a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC against in-laws. The ruling reinforces that matrimonial disputes cannot be weaponised to rope in relatives through boilerplate FIRs, protecting elderly parents and distant relatives from vexatious prosecution.

The Delhi High Court reduced a murder conviction to grievous hurt, holding that common intention to murder under Section 34 IPC requires proof of a prior meeting of minds and cannot be inferred from mere presence or flight where the fatal blow was inflicted by an armed co-accused and no overt act was attributed to the appellant.

The Supreme Court cancelled bail for an espionage accused, holding substantial compliance with Article 22(1) and BNSS Section 47 suffices absent demonstrable prejudice, and hyper-technical objections to arrest-ground communication cannot override core bail jurisprudence.

The Bombay High Court ruled that an arrest under PMLA Section 19 is impermissible when Section 50 proceedings have already been initiated on the same material, quashing three remand orders and directing the petitioner's immediate release. The decision reinforces procedural safeguards against parallel coercive actions by the Enforcement Directorate.

The court held that dock identification of a stranger witness without a test identification parade carries no evidentiary value, and co-accused disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act are inadmissible unless they lead to discovery of facts. The prosecution also failed to prove conspiracy and harbouring beyond reasonable doubt, securing acquittal in a 2004 robbery case.

The Supreme Court set aside consecutive life sentences for murder and rape imposed in a single trial, holding they must run concurrently under the Muthuramalingam Constitution Bench ruling. The court clarified that Section 31 CrPC does not permit consecutive life terms for offences arising from the same incident, and granted the appellant set-off from his 2010 arrest.

The court quashed a 2014 proclaimed offender declaration after the CBI failed to serve summons at the accused's known Australian address. Section 82 CrPC demands proof of deliberate evasion, not mere non-service; the invalid proclamation does not affect arrest warrants, the INTERPOL Red Notice, or extradition.