CASE FACTS RATIO

1. Best Bakery Case Police duty to collect evidence and Sessions Court can summon specific witness and
(2004) record statement of eyewitnesses but cross-examine him or cross-examine the accused under §311
can tamper with witnesses. court can direct the police to file chargesheet under §319 and
Courts cannot be powerless as ours include the name of the newly accused and file it as a new
§311 – power to summon is an inquisitorial and adversarial case.
material witness and mix. Even if the accused is from the ruling party and the
examine them // judge can investigation is faulty, that does not mean that the court is
exercise power when powerless.
police don’t act at all.

§319 – power to proceed

against other person’s
appearing guilty of
offence

2. Joginder Kumar v. Lawyer called to police station and Arrest mainly in heinous offences, justify the arrest along with
State of UP (SC kept in custody – not produced power to arrest – must be reasonable satisfied of grounds for
Judgement) before magistrate & taken to need to arrest. Arrest can be avoided by calling person to SH
undisclosed location. and not leave till permitted.
§41, §41A - arrest
Rights of arrested person:
Article 32 - Habeas
Corpus – person detained ● Tell friend/relative of his choice of his arrest and place of
in police custody without detention – must be informed of this right by police
reason. officer when brought into police station.
● Enter in diary about this friend/relative. The protections
from power must be held to flow from Article 21 and
22(1) strictly.
● Enter genuine and bona-fide reasons for arrest in case
diary.
● Magistrate must be satisfied that all these have been
complied with.

11 guidelines were framed:

3. DK Basu v State of Letter about custodial deaths treated 1. Clear identification of police personnel during arrest.
WB as writ petition. 2. Memo of arrest with witness and details.
Several states submitted affidavits w 3. Right to inform a friend or relative.
elaborative guidelines suggestions. 4. Notification of arrest details to next of kin.
which police have to 5. Arrestee's right to be informed.
6. Diary entry with custody details.
follow.
7. Examination and record of injuries.
8. Regular medical examination by approved doctors.
9. Sending copies of documents to the magistrate.
10. Permission for lawyer interaction during interrogation.
11. Establishment of a police control room for
communication.
4. Mohd. Hussian HC confirmed death sentence appeal Trial should be time bound but without violating basic
@Julfikar Ali v The of Pakistani terrorist who bombed a right. – accused’s right to fair trial but also speedy trial.
State (NCT of Delhi) bus. He appealed to SC – judges SC sent the matter back for fresh trial within the specific time.
divided over his proper legal Accused must have access to a lawyer – fundamental right
assistance due to prejudice against A.22(1) + §304 otherwise trial is unjust.
Article 22 of Constitution, him.
§§303 and 304 of Crpc, One judge felt that sending back International Covenants' and Human Rights Declarations also
A.39A (free legal aid) Set matter would delay death sentence – mandate this.
aside the conviction since violate basic human right while
no fair trial was there. other wanted fresh trial.
Matter sent to larger bench.
5. Md.Ajmal Md.Amir 26/11 Terrorist pleaded lack of Magistrate must inform accused of his right to a lawyer and in
Kasab @Abu ... vs representation even though he had case he cannot afford one, state shall appoint.
State Of refused representation from Indian Unless accused clearly says that he will represent himself and
Maharashtra advocates as he did not trust them does not want a lawyer, court is obligated to provide him one
and wanted a Pakistani advocate. – failure would void any trial, conviction and sentence.
SC held that it is wrong to say that It would not vitiate the trial unless it is shown that failure to
§303- right to be defended he did not get any representation provide legal assistance at the pre-trial stage had resulted in
§304 – free legal aid even if it was not given during the some material prejudice to the accused in the course of the
trial. trial.

6. Universal Declaration Articles 1-30 Article 5: Evidence Act borrows from this section of UDHR
of Human Rights IMP ARTICLES AS PER SIR: and says that no one can be subject to torture, cruelty, etc in
5,9,11, 11(2) prison and statements to police are inadmissible in court.
Article 9: No arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Police may
have power to arrest but must give reasons and justification
for exercise of such power. In CrPc, arrest without
Magistrate’s permission is allowed as long as reasons are
listed in case diary.

Article 11: Presumption of innocence – borrowed from

common law and is followed through several landmark
judgements. However, it is not a Fundamental Right so it can
be curbed by state through legislation.
Cases where innocence is not presumed:
Dowry Death – onus on husband and family to give evidence
(113B Evidence Act)
POCSO Cases – sufficient to show only presumption of guilt
rather than definite proof in other Indian laws.
Abetment to suicide (306 IPC) – discretion to presume or not
presume innocence (113A Evidence Act).
In special statutes, such right cannot be curbed by ordinary
legislation as testimonial compulsion is restrictively used
under A.20(3) of Constitution.

Article 11(2): No retrospective effect of penal laws, only

prospective as ensured by A.20(1) of Constitution + no
heavier penalty can be imposed.
Police / Superintendent did not Registration of FIR is mandatory under S.154. If it
7. Lalita Kumari v register FIR about kidnapping of a discloses a cognizable offence, then no preliminary inquiry
Government of U.P. minor. must be conducted. If the offence’s nature is such that a
preliminary inquiry needs to be conducted then the
May a police officer Can’t make excuses about inquiry must only be to ascertain whether a cognizable
conduct a ‘preliminary registering FIR – compulsory offence has been committed or not. The veracity of the
enquiry’ before registering registration – only condition: should claim is not tested.
an FIR under Section 154? disclose cognisable offence.
The FIR must be separately recorded in the FIR register, and
§41-Arrest ; §154 - FIR the General Diary (GD) entry number can be mentioned.

8. Arnesh Kumar v. Departmental enquiry against police If sentence is max. 7 years – satisfy tenets of §41 before
State of Bihar officers not following guidelines arresting.
when arresting without warrant.
All police officers must be provided with a check list
containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii).
Discretion of arrest. The magistrate may authorize detention only after perusing
Petitioner arrested under the record submitted by the police officer and after recording
Section 498A of the Penal his own satisfaction.
Code (cruelty).
 §41 – arrest The decision not to arrest an accused must be given to
§41A – notice of Magistrate within 2 weeks with reasons in writing (cc
appearance before Superintendent).
police officer
Notice of appearance must be given within 2 weeks with
reasons in writing (cc superintendent).
9. State of Bombay v whether compelling an accused to Immunity from self-incrimination - include merely the
Kathi Kallu Oghad provide their fingerprints, or a mechanical process of producing documents in court which
(1961) handwriting sample, was equivalent may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but
to compelling them to be a “witness” which do not contain any statement of the accused based on
against themselves – against his personal knowledge.
§53 – examination by A.20(3)?? Being a witness / giving oral or written statement is not
medical officer against A.20(3).
§53A – examination of Diff explained between physical and testimonial evidence.
rape accused by medical Testimonial is a person giving a statement, physical can be
practitioner documentary or biological. Testimonial is protected under
20(3), not physical, as the latter can be altered by extraneous
circumstances, but physical evidence can’t be.
Physical has intrinsic value even if destroyed, it cannot lose
its characteristic-eg., fingerprints.S. 53 empowers the police
to collect the physical evidence.
10. Selvi v. State of Three Tests to Detect if the person Blood Pressure Increases:
Karnataka (2010) is lying, which are testimonial in Not always as BP will not increase for habitual liars;
nature and their critiques: misleading.
Narco Analysis Test (worst of three): Sodium
Penthadal drug is infused. If accidentally induced in high
2nd issue – is whether §53 is quantity, person could slip into coma, worse than physical
applicable or not torture.
Brain Mapping:
The court said nothing about Person put through an MRI /electric wire in brain to stimulate
whether §53 is applicable or not. SC instances of crime which he may have witnessed / a video of it
just focused on the constitutional which has a deep impact on him.
validity of the case. All these tests are violative of A.20(3) but exception –
accused gives consent to these tests.
The statement after this test cannot be used as evidence, only
as discovery.

11. Ritesh Sinha v. State It is physical evidence, not The court emphasized that the void in the law, specifically
of U.P. (2013) testimonial regarding the power to order voice samples under §482,
Judges agreed that the police can should be addressed urgently. While applying the 'ejusdem
compel the accused to give a voice generis' principle, the court highlighted the imminent
Issue: whether the police sample with an order of the necessity for legislative action.
can take voice samples of magistrate but it noted that there was
the accused in absence of no provision under Crpc which Until explicit provisions are added to the CrPC by the
any enabling provision empowers police to take a voice Parliament, the court ruled that Judicial Magistrates cannot
under CrPC? sample. order individuals to provide voice samples for criminal
investigations. Prior to a 2019 decision, police could use §482
A.20(3) A.142 – plenary powers – used to to obtain voice samples with magistrate permission, but the
§53 fill legislative gap court stressed the need for legislative amendments to
empower the police in this regard.
Unless specific power is given under Crpc police cannot
exercise such a step. - SIR said in class}
12. Aarushi Talwar Also known as ‘Double Murder Sessions court found Talwars to be guilty of murder +
Murder Case: Case’. tampering of evidence.
FACTS- 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar High court found them to be innocent on ground of
Inaction on the part was brutally murdered and Hemraj insufficient evidence.
of the police. Banjade, a domestic help, was Since all CBI findings were only theories and no factual
murdered in the same manner. evidence was provided, the court ordered to free the Talwars
immediately. So, they were acquitted of all charges in 2014.
Poor investigation and poor functioning of the law
enforcing agencies, which were one of the main highlights of
this case.
13. Satender Kumar Investigating agencies must follow Notice of dereliction (negligence) should be brought to higher
Antil v. CBI S.41,41A and Arnesh Kumar authority. Non-compliance would get accused bail. Bail
guidelines. applications should be disposed of within two weeks.
§41, §41A Anticipatory within six weeks.

14. Md. Asfak Alam v App was distressed over being When contemplating whether to grant bail or anticipatory bail,
the State of denied anticipatory bail and instead the court takes into account several pivotal factors. These
Jharkhand directed to surrender. factors encompass:
- the nature and severity of the offense
- the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence or
Offences having significant interfere with the trial process by influencing witnesses,
penalties (§437) – major - the likelihood of the accused attempting to evade justice by
consideration given by absconding.
court before granting bail. These aspects serve as guiding markers for the court’s
§438 – anticipatory bail decision-making process.
15. Kailash Vijayvargiya Rape FIR not lodged. After The High Court held that the CJM should only consider
v Rajlakshmi considering everything, the CJM whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offense, based
Chaudhuri dismissed her application on the on the Lalita Kumari case.
ground that there was a delay of two
§156(3) – magistrate years in lodging the complaint, Power under §156(3) is to be exercised, on receiving a
directs filing of FIR which aspect can be considered only complaint or a Police report or information from any person
at the time of trial. HC quashed and other than the Police officer or upon his own knowledge,
set aside the order passed by CJM before he takes cognizance under §190.
§202
and remanded the matter back to
CJM to reconsider the application. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance, the Magistrate has
discretion to take recourse to his powers under §202, which
provides for postponement of the issue of process and inquire
into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a
Police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the
purpose of deciding whether or not there are sufficient
grounds for proceedings.
The Court also highlighted that to check malevolence and
false assertions, every application under §156(3) should be
supported by an affidavit.
16. Gokaraju Rangaraju The orders made by the sessions De Facto Provisions doctrine.
v State of Andhra court judge who was later declared If the appointment of a judge is invalid, doesn’t mean his
Pradesh invalid by the apex court, are now judgments will be invalid. They will be valid judgments
under appeal due to questions about unless set aside by a higher court by appeal.
their validity. During their time, Can’t appeal judgements simply on basis of invalidity of his
Doctrine of De facto judges made several judgments. appointment.
provision in constitution - What would be the consequence of
article 233A was their invalid appointment on the
incorporated based on orders passed?
this doctrine.
17. Kehar Singh and Ors Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may,
v State (Delhi whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any
Administration) confession or statement made to him in the course of an
investigation before the commencement of the inquiry or trial.
Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police
§164 – statement before officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been
magistrate conferred under any law for the time being in force.

18. Sindhu Janak The brother of the appellant was Writ petition dismissed by Bombay HC - appeal
Nagargoje v the State severely beaten and brutally Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 if the info
of Maharashtra & assaulted by the accused and he discloses the commission of a cognizable offence (Lalita
Ors succumbed to injuries. Kumari v State of UP lays down guidelines for the same)
The appellant tried to get the crime In casu, the complaint discloses the commission of a
Upheld Lalita Kumari registered at the police station but it cognizable offence. Appeal allowed
was not registered. Complaints
submitted but no action taken.
19. Bhagwan Singh Vs The SC devolved the practice of Opportunity to file protest petition-
Commissioner of protest petition by the informant in a case where the magistrate to whom a report is forwarded
Police – 1985 against report. under sub-section §173(2)(i)(a) decides not to take
cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes
 Classnotes- Sc for the first time the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
Protest petition, this is said informant has a right to file a against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the
pre cognisance protest petition. By way of SC magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide
judgment by interpreting this him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of
173(2), informant got such a right the report.
after the chargesheet.
20. Rakesh Kumar Paul Where the maximum punishment is Accused filed for regular bail, but argued by petitioner, that
v State of Assam 2017 more than 10 years Up to life or we should get statutory bail, SC said he has to make an
death, it falls under the meaning of application separately.
90 days. Where maximum period is
Default bail granted 10 years then 60 days. So, it depends Less than 10 years – 60d
on maximum sentence. More than 10 years – 90d (word ‘less than’ interpreted here)
Statutory bail – right of
accused. §167 For context, Default bail is filed If the charge sheet isn't filed, and the right to 'default bail'
Default bail – depends on when the period of detention of 60 has become indefeasible, the prosecution cannot obstruct
the days (60/90/15) – bail days expires and within this time, it for any reason. The accused can secure their freedom by
must be given on expiry the prosecution fails to file a asserting that the statutory period for filing the charge sheet
of period. charge sheet. Here, on completion has lapsed, and the indefeasible right is now in effect. In cases
of 60 days, the accused filed for involving personal liberty and penal statutes, the court must
Normal bail – regular bail, but later argued by inform the accused of their entitlement to free legal assistance
discretionary power. petitioner, that we should get as an inherent right.
statutory bail, SC said he has to
make an application separately.
Statutory bail can be given only by
magistrate.

concerned with the interpretation of

the words “imprisonment for a term
not less than ten years” appearing in
clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section
167(2).

21. Hitendra Bishnu the Supreme Court set aside the Secondly, expressly stated that the Court cannot release the
Thakur v state of order of the Designated Court accused on its own motion if the accused does not file any
Maharashtra refusing to release the accused on such application. The court must grant statutory bail to the
default bail. accused if the chargesheet filing period has passed, with
notice to the public prosecutor. Unless an extension is
§167(2) with TADA ACT approved based on the prosecutor's report, the TADA Court
cannot deny the accused's indefeasible right to default bail if
Statutory bail in case of a ACCUSED MUST FILEE FOR requested. In such cases, the court must also reject any request
delay in filing chargesheet BAIL – WILL NOT for additional remand.
AUTOMATICALLY BE
Case was misunderstood RELEASED
that accused need not Held that when a report is submitted by the Public Prosecutor
apply for bail, bail to the Designated Court for grant of extension, its notice
automatically has to be should be issued to the accused before granting such an
given. Even if not extension so that the accused may have an opportunity to
applied, duty of court to oppose the extension.
release if charge sheet not
submitted, on time. A21
indivisible right. Clarified
in multiple cases post.
22. Sanjay Dutt v State - It allowed the public prosecutor to object to the
Through CBI In the 1993 Mumbai bomb blast trial accused's default bail application.
Bombay involving 189 accused, Sanjay Dutt - notice about the custody extension request to accused is
filed an appeal against a 1995 mandatory.
Designated Court order denying his
Apart from clarifying the bail request under the TADA Act. It held that the accused's indefeasible bail right is only
nature of the notice valid before the challan is filed and cannot be enforced
required to be given to A five-judge Constitution bench of afterward. Once the challan is submitted, the right is
the accused and further the Supreme Court clarified the extinguished as §167 CrPC ceases to apply.
clarifying that an decision rendered in Hitendra
indefeasible right to be Thakur.
released on bail does not
survive once a challan
had been filed, the
decision in the case of
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Firstly, accused has to apply. §167
(supra) remained explanation 1, for avoidance doubt,
overruled to an extent it is declared that the accused shall
and continues to be be detained as long as he does not
binding law furnish his bail. So, bail is not
automatically granted, he has to file
an application
Lastly, magistrate has to inform
the accused that he is eligible to
apply. It’s his duty. It reduced the
scope of the notice that the court is
supposed to give to the accused.
23. Hussainara Khatoon Accused here had been kept in Magistrate has a duty to inform the accused person of your
vs State of Bihar custody for an indefinite amount right to bail. Right to free trial, and to be represented by a
since they were not furnishing legal practitioner of his choice upheld here.
amount, they didn’t have the
amount.
24. Udoy Mohanlal The appellant faced charges of The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High
Acharya v State of cheating and CBT - claimed an Court’s order, holding that the appellant had an indefeasible
Maharashtra indefeasible right to bail under the right to be released on bail under the proviso to §167(2), and
proviso to §167(2) since the that he had availed of his right by filing the application and
Subsequent filing of charge-sheet was not filed within 90 offering to furnish bail, and that the filing of the charge-sheet
chargesheet will days of his arrest. after the expiry of 90 days could not extinguish his right.
negate bail even if 90
Despite filing his bail application The Supreme Court also laid down the following guidelines
days period has
before the High Court, it was for the enforcement of the right to be released on bail under
lapsed? rejected on the grounds that the the proviso to §167(2):
charge-sheet had been filed before - The right to be released on bail can be denied only
§167: Judicial review the application was considered. when the accused does not furnish bail or fails to
over police comply with the terms and conditions of bail.
investigation, Statutory The appellant argued in the Supreme - The right to be released on bail accrues to the accused
bail Court that his right to bail had only when he files an application for bail and offers to
already accrued after 90 days, and
abide by the terms and conditions of bail.
the subsequent filing of the
- The right to be released on statutory bail cannot be
charge-sheet should not negate this
right. enforced after the charge-sheet is filed, as it is
extinguished by the filing of the charge-sheet.
- The application for bail must be disposed of forthwith
by the court, on being satisfied that the accused has
been in custody for the specified period (90 or 60
days)and no charge-sheet has been filed by the
investigating agency.

25. AR Antulay v RS
Nayak 1992- A.21 – includes right to speedy trial The Court formulated certain guidelines:
Constitution bench – quashing of trial if not followed.
(i) fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in
SC gave emphasis on Urged for a time limit to be fixed for Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in
speedy trial. concluding all criminal proceedings. the accused to be tried speedily;
(ii) right to speedy trial following from Article 21
said it is very difficult encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of
to give a timeframe to investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and
finish a trial. re-trial; nature of the offence, number of accused
and witnesses, the work-load of the court
2 maxims concerned, prevailing local conditions and so
1. Justice hurried on-what is called the systemic delays must be
justice buried kept in view
2. Delay in justice is (iii) each and every delay does not necessarily
justice denied. prejudice the accused as some delays indeed
Speedy trial is basic work to his advantage.
fundamental right
under A21.
 (iv) Also, It is neither advisable nor practicable to
fix any time-limit for trial of offences.

26. P Ramachandra Rao Both common cause and Raj Deva AR Antulay case dictum upheld, reaffirmed. It includes
Sharma where SC gave time limit guidelines which uphold the propositions emerging from
§309(1) – record reasons were overruled Article 21 and expound the right to speedy trial. Not
for delay in proceedings time limit for conclusion of all advisable, feasible, permissible to set a time limit on
criminal proceedings? proceedings, not a part of the judiciary’s functions.
27. Dinesh Dalmia vs Accused filed for statutory bail Court said that he can’t avail statutory bail because
CBI when police filed supplementary chargesheet has been filed and this is only supplementary
chargesheet for further investigation. chargesheet for further investigation.
He felt that investigation had not
been completed despite 60 days
expiring.

28. MSP vs State of Accused did rape + criminal The Sessions Judge's decision to discharge the accused due to
Uttarakhand intimidation of victim after 3m. lack of territorial jurisdiction was upheld. The appeal was
dismissed, as the alleged offenses were not considered part of
The court highlighted the the same transaction for a joint trial.
geographical and temporal
disparities, concluding that the acts
lacked continuity and were not part
of the same transaction.
29. Shiv Kumar v The appellant engaged a private §225 -PP in Sessions Court.
Hukum Chand and counsel to represent him in a case in §302 – Appointed counsel limited role, under directions of PP.
Anr a sessions trial but private counsel can submit written arguments after evidence closes if court
cannot conduct prosecution in a permits him.
§225 - PP sessions trial. HC did not allow the Fair trial – if accused is entitled to legitimate benefit, PP must
counsel to conduct prosecution. not conceal it.
Role of PP under §225 is not just supervisory.
30. National Human - ensuring a safe passage for witnesses to and from court
Rights Commission v Guidelines for protection of - security to witnesses in their place of residence
State of Gujarat and witnesses, victims, etc for trials - relocation of witnesses to another state if necessary
Ors. associated with riots

31. Sidhartha Vashisth Jessica Lal murder case. He had Prosecution established case against accused beyond doubt –
(alias Manu Sharma) killed the female bartender on trial court acquittal held improper.
v State (NCT of refusal to serve him alcohol. He was Avoid media trial to prevent invasion of constitutional rights
Delhi) acquitted by the trial court, but the of accused.
High Court overturned the acquittal
and convicted him.
§379: Appeal against
conviction by HC
32. Harendra Rai v State Politician had a lot of power - FIR is admissible since it is a public document.
of Bihar tampered with witnesses Appellate Courts can exercise all powers vested in the Trial
Court in an attempt to arrive at a just and fair decision.
Trial Court as well as the High Court Violated §311 – summon witnesses.
§311 – power to summon failed to exercise their powers.
witnesses

33. State of Haryana v 7 GUIDELINES BY SC FOR (1) Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint,
Bhajan Lal and Ors QUASHING PENDING do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS §482 against the accused.
CrPC: (2) no justification for investigation by police officers
when can HC intervene in §156(1) (except under an order of a Magistrate within the
the criminal proceedings purview of §155(2) for non-cognizable).
by exercising its power (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
under 482 complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
 without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
§155(2).
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused due to private and personal grudge.
34. Md. Asfak Alam v Applicant was distressed over being When contemplating whether to grant bail or anticipatory bail,
The State of denied anticipatory bail and instead the court takes into account several pivotal factors like the
Jharkhand & Anr directed to surrender. nature and severity of the offense, the potential for the
accused to tamper with evidence or interfere with the trial
process by influencing witnesses, and the likelihood of the
§438 accused attempting to evade justice by absconding. These
aspects serve as guiding markers for the court’s
decision-making process.
35. Gurubaksh Singh Should anticipatory bail be based on SC held no time restriction to be granted for AB; linked 438
Sibba v State of case-specific considerations rather with Art. 21. To be decided on a case-to-case basis. Court to
Punjab than a universal code for balance the right to liberty of the accused & the fair
anticipatory bail? investigation by the police.
Anticipatory bail once granted will continue till the end of the
§438 – Anticipatory bail trial.

36. Sushila Aggarwal In Sushila Aggarwal. Reaffirmed the 1. Anticipatory bail is not limited to a fixed period and should
and Ors. v State Guruvaksh Singh, said it will continue until the end of the trial, with specific conditions if
(NCT of Delhi) continue but depends on discretion necessary.
of the judge whether limited or till 2. Should be based on concrete facts related to a specific
the end. offense and can be filed even before an FIR is registered.
No limit to be imposed on protection 3. Depending on the seriousness of the threat of arrest, the
to be granted u/s 438. Court given court may issue notice to the PP when granting interim
the discretion to impose restrictions anticipatory bail.
in case of peculiar circumstances. 4. Courts have discretion in imposing conditions on
Duration of AB does not end when anticipatory bail based on various factors.
accused is summoned, can continue 5. Anticipatory bail can continue after the charge-sheet is filed
till the end of trial. Imposing until the end of the trial.
restrictive conditions would have to 6. Anticipatory bail should be specific to the offense in
be judged on a case to case basis, question and cannot protect against future offenses.
depending upon the materials 7. An order of anticipatory bail does not restrict the rights or
produced by the state or the duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate the
charges against the person granted pre-arrest bail.
investigating agency
8. The police or investigating agency can approach the court
that granted anticipatory bail to seek the arrest of the accused
in case of any violation of bail terms or interfering with the
investigation.
9. The court that initially granted anticipatory bail has the
authority to address such violations.
10. Appellate or superior courts can review the correctness of
an order granting bail if material facts or crucial
circumstances were not considered, but this is not considered
"cancellation" under §439(2)
11. The earlier observations that no restrictive conditions
could be imposed when granting anticipatory bail have been
overruled, and the decisions in various cases suggesting such
restrictions or time limits on anticipatory bail have also been
overruled.
37. Kehar Singh v State Indira Gandhi was assassinated by §194: HC can allot cases to a particular judge.
(Indira Gandhi her 4 bodyguards. All accused of §9(6): HC can direct trial and specify place.
Assassination case) criminal conspiracy
38. Dasrath Rupsingh 8 SLPs filed for dishonour of §177: that all offences are local, the place where the dishonour
Rathod v State of cheques in various local courts occurs is the place for commission of the offence vesting the
Maharashtra & Anr having jurisdiction. Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the area with the
power to try the offences.
§138: several offences committed in a single transaction
§177 – vests court in place within the meaning of Section 220(1) of the Code then the
where dishonour occurs offender may be charged with and tried at one trial for
jurisdiction. every such offence and any such inquiry or trial may be
conducted by any Court competent to enquire into or try
any of the offences as provided by §184.
39. Sidhu Janak Upheld Lalita Kumari v State of UP.
Nagargoje vs The
State of Maharashtra
and Ors.

40. Tweet screenshot - It would be necessary that a copy of written grounds of arrest
quote from Pankaj is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and
Bansal v UOI without exception.
IO merely reading or letting the accused read it will not
suffice.
41. Rupali Devi v State of Petitioner alleged cruelty at The object of cruelty laws should not be overlooked and thus
UP & ors matrimonial home – went to parental interpreted law in this way – court at parental home has
home and filed FIR. Does court at jurisdiction.
§179 – exception to parental home have
normal rule of
jurisdiction
42. Satvinder Kaur v. Satvinder Kaur, the appellant, FIR can be lodged in any jurisdiction, no jurisdictional
Delhi (1999) married Rajinder Singh – Alleged barrier- CH. XIII is not applicable on investigation.
cruelty and expulsion from her
matrimonial home - she filed a
FIR can be lodged in any complaint and later an FIR under
jurisdiction Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC.
RS sought to quash the FIR in the
§177 Delhi High Court, arguing lack of
jurisdiction. HC accepted, leading to
the appellant's challenge in the
Supreme Court.
43. Y. Abraham Ajith Made a distinction between cause of The complainant herself left the house of the husband on
and Ors. Vs. action in civil case and177 in Crpc. account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his
Inspector of Police, Fundamental distinction between relations. Thereafter no allegations about any demand of
Chennai and Anr this has been stated. dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much
less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of §178 (c) relating
According to appellants, no part of to continuance of the offences cannot be applied. The
§178C - continuing offence the cause of action arose within the proceedings are therefore quashed and if the complainant
jurisdiction of the concerned Court. wants, they may return to the respondent or choose to file in
But the Resp. said that some of the the appropriate court and that appeal is accordingly applied.
offences were continuing offences
and therefore the Court had CoA exists in civil case to decide jurisdiction, but in criminal
jurisdiction. cases the place where the offence has been committed matters.
S.177 CrPC.
44. 2005 State of Orissa Respondent faced accusations of SC held that the trial court can only consider the material
v. Devrandranath cheating, forgery, and criminal placed before it by the prosecution and not by the accused at
Padhi conspiracy in connection to a land the stage of framing of charge. The court observed that the
deal with the Orissa State Housing scope of inquiry under §227 is limited to the examination of
Board. the records and documents submitted by the prosecution and
Seeking discharge under §227 CrPc, the submissions of the accused. The court further observed
Same case- another scope he argued the absence of prima facie that there is no provision in the CrPC that grants the accused
in favour of Accused, if evidence and presented additional any right to file any material or document at the stage of
there’s a document, but documents allegedly overlooked by framing of charge, and that right is granted only at the stage of
not with accused and with the investigating agency. Despite his the trial. The court also noted that the accused can seek
third party, the police has efforts, the trial court dismissed his recourse to other remedies available under the law, such as
not taken any initiate to application and proceeded to frame invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under §482 or
seize such a document. charges. Subsequently, he appealed the constitutional powers of the High Court under A.226 of
to the HC, which granted his petition the Constitution, to prevent the abuse of process of law or to
and annulled the charges. secure the ends of justice.
Then the accrued can file
an application under §91, Holding: The Supreme Court reversed the order of the High
where court can direct §91 does not pertain to the initial Court and restored the order of the trial court framing charges
that persons to produce stage of framing a charge, as the against the respondent.
the document to court for relevance of any document for the
ends of justice. defence of the accused is not Disposition: The appeal filed by the State of Orissa was
considered at that point. The allowed and the petition filed by the respondent was
court can take judicial section allows the court or a police dismissed.
notice officer, through a written order, to
summon the production of
documents when they are not
voluntarily provided. It does not
grant the accused the right to
submit documents in their
possession to establish their
defense; rather, it assumes that if a
document is not produced,
measures may be taken to compel
its production.

45. Sakiri Vasu v State of An army officer’s dead body was Inherent vs implied power
UP found on the railway tracks. If a person is in the grievance that the police are not
According to the GRP report, the registering his FIR under §154 then he or she could approach
death of the army personnel was the Superintendent of Police under §154(3) with a written
Implied power of trial either due to accident or suicide. But application. And still, if the SP also fails to register the FIR or
court, when statute the appellant i.e., the father of the in spite of registering the FIR no suitable action has been
conferred discretion deceased was of the opinion that his taken then the aggrieved person could approach the
156(3), magistrate may son has been murdered and so he concerned Magistrate under Sec.156(3).
direct - discretion. Then filed a writ petition under A.226 of
that means it can take all Allahabad HC praying that this issue
steps to do everything to should be investigated by a special
affect the judgement. investigating agency. However, the
HC rejected his plea and declined
his prayer. Therefore, the appellant
filed another writ petition
under A.136 in SC.
46. Main Pal v State of Man trespassed a house. Came back Entitled to know with certainty what he is charged with - must
Haryana an hour later, went and held the get a full and fair chance to defend himself against the
victim's hand while she was asleep. accurate charge
Charge: he outraged Prakashi Devi’s If at this juncture the accused was convicted, it would be a
Charge - accused modesty miscarriage of justice – witnesses and all were Y’s not X’s.
assaulted X and outraged How can that be possible?
her modesty. But evidence In the course of the trial, evidence Must be given a fair chance to defend himself against the
- he assaulted Y to showed he outraged her correct charge
outrage her modesty daughter-in-law Sheela Devi’s Had the facts been different - like if there was only one
Can you still punish him modesty woman in the house and her name was written incorrectly in
for a different charge? the charge - then it wouldn't be an issue since it would be
Charge - accused assaulted X and understood who was being referred to. Here, there are two
no - must be given a fair outraged her modesty. But evidence women in the house - need to be specific
chance to defend with the - he assaulted Y to outrage her Charge set aside; matter remitted to trial court direction for a
correct charges in mind modesty new trial with correct charges being framed
Can the accused be punished for
outraging Y’s modesty even though
the charges framed do not reflect the
same?
47. Mohan Baitha and The complainant alleged cruelty The Supreme Court, citing §220 of the CrPC, ruled that
Ors v State of Bihar leading to his daughter's death. The multiple offenses by the same person can be tried together.
and Anr accused, in SC said that the Patna Since CBT occurred in Patna, it could be tried along with
HC lacked jurisdiction, as the Section 304B at the Patna High Court. As a result, the appeal
offense occurred in Uttar Pradesh. was dismissed.
48. Shamnsaheb M Charged with 302, but according to §221- primary condition - the court should have felt doubt at
Multtani v State of facts 304-B was proven the time of framing the charge as to which of the several acts
Karnataka (which may be proved) will constitute the offence on account
 of the nature of the acts or series of acts alleged against the
Can an accused charged with 302 accused.
IPC be convicted under 304-B even
though it isn’t a part of the charges §304B puts a statutory compulsion on the court to presume
framed? the commission of the offence by the husband unless it is
disproved. In a §302 offence (which was what the charges
– no – included), no such burden exists.

Miscarriage of justice since he does not get the opportunity to

defend himself
Start case afresh - set aside conviction - remand to trial court
49. K Prema S Rao & Deceased killed herself due to S.215 (effect of error), 218 (Separate charges for distinct
Anr v Yadla repeated pressure for dowry. The offences) & 221 (Where it is doubtful what offence has
Srinivasa Rao & Ors court was confused, charged the been committed)
with State of AP v accused first with S.304B & S.498A Omission or defect in framing of charge.
Yadla Ranga Rao & IPC, but later on based on the Held: Accused may still be convicted for offence actually
Anr evidence, under S.113 of the committed and proved on basis of evidence on record, so as
evidence act and S.306IPC, it was long as accused has not been misled by any error omission in
more appropriate. framing the charge and no failure of justice has been
occasioned.
50. Balbir v State of Deceased shot at a bus stand. Police Test to determine the offences committed ‘in the course of the
Haryana and Anr. reg FIR. App was not found to be same transaction’. There must be commonality of purpose or
the culprit & someone else was. design and continuity of action.
However, a complaint was still filed
against the App.
S.223(a) & (d) Here, there were two cases being
fought; one was police investigation
& other a private complaint, thus not
related to the same ‘offence in
transaction’ and the judgements of
the cases were asked to be
pronounced separately.
51. Sanjay Gandhi vs The power to take back in custody an accused who has been
UOI released on bail has to be exercised with care and
circumspection - only when it is clear that the accused is
interfering with the course of justice by tampering with
witnesses.