Rajasthan High Court rules that anticipatory bail in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act requires prima facie evidence of dishonest intent at issuance, not just subsequent dishonour.
Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies transfer jurisdiction under Section 447 BNSS, balancing judicial convenience with fair trial rights in domestic violence cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that recalling prosecutrix under Section 348 BNSS is permissible when defence evidence needs confrontation, even post-cross-examination.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that summoning an additional accused under Section 358 BNSS demands evidence stronger than prima facie, but short of conviction-grade proof.
Bombay High Court holds that discharge under Section 227 CrPC is valid if prosecution evidence is insufficient, even if accused's documents were considered. Key precedent on burden at discharge stage.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that denying an accused the right to examine themselves as a defence witness under BNSS Section 353 violates fair trial rights under Article 21.
Karnataka High Court holds that Public Prosecutor's certificate under Section 308 CrPC does not automatically revoke pardon; court must assess prima facie violation after hearing approver.
Bombay High Court holds that restricting international travel under bail requires proportionality and cannot be absolute; deposit of security and affidavit compliance are valid conditions.
Rajasthan High Court directs complainant to submit representation during investigation under BNSS, ensuring fair consideration of facts before probe completion.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that Section 91 CrPC applications for document production can only be invoked at the defence stage, not during prosecution evidence.
Madras High Court rules that denial of opportunity to recall witnesses for cross-examination violates fair trial rights, even if costs remain unpaid. Key implications for criminal defense practice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes FIR against accused implicated solely on custodial statements of co-accused, reinforcing inadmissibility under Evidence Act and CrPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that Section 319 CrPC requires strong, cogent evidence beyond prima facie to add an accused not named in FIR or charge sheet.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that courts cannot direct police to arrest or investigate in specific ways under Section 482 CrPC; discretion lies solely with investigating agencies.
Kerala High Court quashes preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. for failing to state substance of information, reinforcing procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention.