1). Courts Must Respect Personal Liberty: Supreme Court Strikes Down HC Bail Cancellation 

Case Background: 

In this case, the appellant was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to murder someone. The trial was ongoing, and out of 43 witnesses, 17 had already testified. After spending two years in jail, the appellant applied for bail, which was granted. However, the High Court later canceled the bail. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issue of the Case: 

The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in canceling the bail of the appellant after it had been granted, considering that there was no evidence of misconduct or any improper behavior by the appellant after receiving bail.

Court Observations:

• Bench Comprising: Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan.
• The Supreme Court observed that liberty is a fundamental right under the Constitution and courts must be very careful before interfering with it.
• The Court found no evidence that the appellant's behavior after being granted bail had been improper. There were no allegations of witness tampering, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial. The appellant had not used his liberty in any harmful way.
• The High Court's decision to cancel the bail was based on a detailed examination of the case facts, which the Supreme Court felt was unnecessary at this stage. The High Court seemed to have conducted a "mini-trial" and focused on facts like the appellant’s presence at the scene and the injury caused, which were already accepted by both parties.
• The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr. to clarify the factors that should be considered when canceling bail. These factors include misuse of liberty, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, delaying the trial, or if the bail order was illegal or unjust. The High Court did not consider these factors properly.

Court Ruling or Decision:

• The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court made a mistake in canceling the bail. It restored the original bail order granted to the appellant.
• The Court also made it clear that it was not making any judgment on the merits of the case (i.e., whether the appellant is guilty or not).
• The appellant was directed to appear before the Trial Court on the scheduled dates. If he fails to appear, his bail will be canceled.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 307 of IPC: Attempt to murder. (Section 109 of BNS)
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Right to personal liberty.

Significance of the Judgment:

• The decision reaffirms the importance of personal liberty under the Constitution and establishes that courts should be cautious before canceling bail.
• The case emphasizes that bail should not be canceled unless there are specific and valid reasons, such as misuse of liberty, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial.
• This judgment helps clarify the standard for canceling bail and ensures that the right to liberty is protected unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing after the bail is granted.

The Supreme Court restored the appellant's bail, highlighting the need for caution before depriving an individual of their liberty. It stressed that bail should not be canceled without solid evidence of misconduct and that the High Court had acted unjustifiably in this case. The Court also warned the appellant to comply with future trial dates, or the bail would be cancelled.

Case Name: KAILASH KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.

2). Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Child Witness Testimony: Child Can Be a Competent Witness

Case Background:

In this case, the respondent (accused) was charged with murdering his wife and then secretly cremating her body. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 (murder), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitted the accused. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the acquittal, particularly concerning the credibility of the 7-year-old daughter (Rani), who was a key witness in the case.

Issue of the Case:

The main issue was whether the testimony of the 7-year-old daughter of the accused and the deceased was reliable and credible, or if it had been influenced or tutored by someone.

Court Observations:

• Bench Comprising: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, a child can be a competent witness if they are able to understand the questions and provide rational answers. The Court also highlighted that the testimony of a child witness cannot be dismissed solely due to minor contradictions or a delay in recording their statement.
• The Court noted that the child witness had provided a consistent and detailed account of the events leading to the death of her mother, describing how the accused assaulted the mother and later cremated her body.
• The Court further observed that the High Court had dismissed the child's testimony due to an 18-day delay in recording her statement, which raised concerns about possible tutoring. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the child had been tutored, and the delay did not undermine the reliability of her testimony.
• The Supreme Court explained that a child witness is not required to have their testimony corroborated if it is found to be credible, consistent, and reliable. The child’s testimony was supported by circumstantial evidence and other witnesses.
• The Court also laid down the principles regarding the admissibility of child witness testimony, as outlined below:
  1. Competency of a Child Witness: There is no minimum age for a witness under the Evidence Act. A child witness is competent as long as they can understand the questions and provide coherent answers.
  2. Preliminary Examination: Before recording the testimony, the Trial Court must ensure that the child understands the importance of speaking the truth and the questions asked.
  3. Demeanor and Voluntary Testimony: The Court must record the child’s demeanor during testimony to ensure it is voluntary and not influenced by anyone.
  4. No Requirement for Corroboration: If the child’s testimony is consistent and inspires confidence, it can be relied upon without needing corroboration. However, courts may require corroboration if there are serious contradictions or doubts about the child’s credibility.
  5. Scrutiny of Tutoring: Courts must be cautious of the possibility of tutoring or external influence on a child witness. If any signs of tutoring are found, the testimony must be scrutinized and may be discarded.
  6. Minor Discrepancies: Minor contradictions or discrepancies in the child’s testimony should not be enough to discard it if the overall testimony is credible.

Court Ruling or Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State and set aside the acquittal by the High Court. It reaffirmed that the testimony of the 7-year-old daughter was credible and consistent. The Court concluded that the accused’s failure to explain the circumstances of his wife’s death was a relevant factor under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The child’s testimony, supported by circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to convict the accused. The Court also stressed that the High Court's decision to acquit the accused based on the child's testimony being tutored was incorrect, as there was no proof of tutoring.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of IPC: Punishment for murder. (Section 103(1) of BNS)
• Section 201 of IPC: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence. (Section 298 of BNS)
• Section 34 of IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. (Section 3(5) of BNS)
• Section 106 of the Evidence Act: Burden of proof on the accused to explain facts within their knowledge. (Section 109 of BSA)
• Section 118 of the Evidence Act: Competency of witnesses, including children. (Section 124 of BSA)

Significance of the Judgment:

• This case highlights the importance of child witness testimony in criminal trials. 
• It establishes that a child witness can be reliable if their testimony is coherent, consistent, and free from undue influence. 
• The judgment clarifies that while child testimony should be carefully scrutinized for signs of tutoring, minor contradictions or delays in recording the testimony are not enough to dismiss it outright. 
• The decision also reinforces the principle that the accused has the burden to explain the facts surrounding a crime, especially when the death occurred in a private setting.

The Supreme Court ruled that the acquittal of the accused was incorrect and restored the conviction based on the child’s credible testimony. It emphasized that child witnesses are competent and their testimony should not be disregarded without good reason. The case reaffirmed that the accused’s failure to explain the circumstances of the crime, especially when only the child witness was present, is a key factor in the conviction.

Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS BALVEER SINGH

3). Patna High Court: Juvenile Institutionalization Should Be a Last Resort, Family Best for Rehabilitation

Case Background:

The Patna High Court was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the decision of the Special Children Court that upheld the Juvenile Justice Board's refusal to grant bail to a juvenile accused in a murder case. The juvenile was accused of being involved in the murder of Rahul Kumar, who was shot and later died from his injuries. The informant alleged that the juvenile, along with others, conspired to kill her son.

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the rejection of bail for the juvenile, who was accused of a serious crime, was justified under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, or whether the juvenile’s right to bail should be upheld as per the provisions of the Act.

Court Observations:

• Bench Comprising: Justice Jitendra Kumar.
• The Court emphasized that the juvenile justice system is focused on reform and rehabilitation, not punishment. The Court highlighted that institutionalization should be a last resort, and the family is considered the best institution for a child’s rehabilitation.
• Justice Kumar explained that the primary responsibility for a child’s care and protection lies with the biological family, adoptive parents, or foster parents. The Court also referred to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides that the objective of the system is to reform and reintegrate children into society.
• The Court pointed out that Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 makes bail a rule for juveniles, and the denial of bail is an exception, applicable only under specific conditions:
  1. If the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals.
  2. If the release could expose the juvenile to moral, physical, or psychological danger.
  3. If the release would defeat the ends of justice.
• The Court examined the facts and found that none of these conditions for denying bail were met in this case. The juvenile had no prior criminal record, and there was no evidence to suggest that releasing him on bail would put him in contact with criminals or expose him to danger.
• The Court criticized the Special Children Court’s reasoning that bail would not be in the juvenile's best interest, stating that the family is the best institution for a child's development and rehabilitation. The Court emphasized that the parents, rather than an institution, are best suited to ensure the welfare of the child.
• The Court also found that the Social Investigation Report by the Probation Officer did not indicate any criminal background within the juvenile's family, further strengthening the argument for bail.

Court Ruling or Decision:

The Patna High Court set aside the order of the Special Children Court and granted bail to the juvenile. The Court ruled that there were no grounds to deny bail as per Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The juvenile was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000. Additionally, the juvenile’s father was required to submit an affidavit ensuring that the juvenile stays away from criminal influences, continues his education, and appears before the Juvenile Justice Board as required.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section outlines the provisions for granting bail to juveniles, stating that bail should be granted as a rule, and can be denied only in specific circumstances.
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: The Act focuses on the care, protection, and rehabilitation of children in conflict with the law. It emphasizes that the family is the primary institution for a child’s rehabilitation, and institutionalization should be a last resort.

Significance of the Judgment:

• This case highlights the principles of the juvenile justice system, which focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. 
• The ruling reinforces the idea that the family is the primary institution for the care and protection of a child in conflict with the law.
• It also emphasizes that institutionalization should be used only as a last resort. 
• Furthermore, the case underscores the importance of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which establishes bail as the rule for juveniles and specifies the limited conditions under which bail can be denied.

The Patna High Court's decision to grant bail to the juvenile reflects the reformatory nature of the juvenile justice system. By setting aside the Special Children Court's decision, the Court reaffirmed that the juvenile’s family should be entrusted with the responsibility of his rehabilitation, as they are in the best position to ensure his reform and reintegration into society. The ruling also clarified the application of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, ensuring that juveniles are not deprived of their right to bail without valid and material reasons.

Case Title: Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar vs The State of Bihar

4). Supreme Court Rules Preliminary Inquiry Not Required Before FIR Against Public Servant Under Prevention of Corruption Act

Case Background:

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against the decision of the High Court of Karnataka, which had quashed an FIR registered against a public servant in a case involving disproportionate assets. The FIR was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically under Sections 13(1)(b) and 12 read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The State challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that a preliminary inquiry was not necessary before registering an FIR in this case.

Issue of the Case:

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether a preliminary inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or if the source information report can serve as a substitute for the preliminary inquiry in cases of corruption.

Court Observations:

• Bench Comprising: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta.
• The Court observed that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory for registering an FIR against a public servant accused of corruption. While it is desirable in some cases, it is not a vested right of the accused or a requirement before registering a criminal case.
• The Court referred to the law laid down in the Lalita Kumari v. State of UP case, which allows the investigating agency to decide whether a preliminary inquiry is needed based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
• The Court explained that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the truth of the information but to determine whether it reveals the commission of a cognizable offence. The scope of this inquiry is narrow, meant to avoid unnecessary harassment while ensuring that genuine cases are not dismissed.
• It was further stated that the necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and in corruption cases, the inquiry "may be made" rather than being mandatory.

Court Ruling or Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and restored the FIR that had been quashed by the High Court. The Court ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory if the source of information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The source information report in this case was detailed enough to substitute for a preliminary inquiry, as it included information about the respondent's assets and income discrepancies.

The Court also clarified that Lalita Kumari's case did not mandate a preliminary inquiry for corruption cases but left it to the discretion of the investigating agency, based on the facts of the case.

Legal Provisions:

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 13(1)(b), 12, and 13(2)): These sections deal with the offences of a public servant acquiring disproportionate assets and other corruption-related crimes.
• Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Deals with the registration of FIRs in cases of cognizable offences. (Section 173 of BNSS)
• Lalita Kumari v. State of UP: This judgment clarified that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory for every cognizable offences but may be conducted at the discretion of the investigating agency in some cases.

Significance of the Judgment:

• It clarifies that preliminary inquiries are not mandatory before registering an FIR.
• It reinforces the view that the investigating agency has the discretion to decide whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary based on the facts of the case. 
• The judgment also highlights the role of source information reports in providing sufficient grounds for the registration of an FIR, especially in corruption matters.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case clarifies the law regarding the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in corruption cases. The Court affirmed that the source information report could serve as a substitute for a preliminary inquiry when it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. This ruling strengthens the efficiency of investigations in corruption cases by allowing FIRs to be registered without unnecessary delays caused by mandatory preliminary inquiries.

Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY

5). Man Accused of Deceiving Minor and Causing Miscarriage in 1991 Released by Orissa HC Under Probation of Offenders Act

Case Background:

In this case, a complaint was filed by the father of a minor girl, who alleged that the appellant (the accused) deceitfully induced the victim to believe that he was her lawful husband. He then started living with her, and as a result, the victim became pregnant. When the appellant learned of her pregnancy, he gave her pills, telling her they were vitamin tablets. These pills, however, caused her to miscarry.

The accused was charged with two offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 493: Deceitfully inducing a woman to believe she is lawfully married to him and cohabiting with her. (Section 84 of BNS)
• Section 313: Causing miscarriage without the woman's consent. (Section 89 of BNS)

The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant appealed the conviction in the Orissa High Court.

Issue of the Case:

The main issue was whether the appellant was rightly convicted for the crimes under Sections 493 and 313 IPC. The appeal also raised the issue of whether the appellant should be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, considering the offense took place in 1991, and the appellant was now 63 years old.

Court Observations:

• Bench Comprising: Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy.
• The Court referred to earlier judgments to explain the legal elements of Section 493 IPC. It was clarified that:
  1. A deceptive belief of a lawful marriage is required.
  2. Cohabitation or sexual intercourse with the woman based on that belief establishes the offense.
• The Court noted that in the Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand (2012) case, it was ruled that it is not necessary to prove an actual marriage, but only that the man deceived the woman into believing she was lawfully married and then cohabited with her.
• The Court also referred to Arun Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), emphasizing that the essence of Section 493 is the man's deception in making the woman believe she is married to him, which leads to her being coerced into a sexual relationship.
• In this case, the victim testified that the appellant had garlanded her in a temple, which made her believe he was her lawful husband. Based on this belief, they cohabited, and she eventually became pregnant.
• The victim also testified that the appellant administered pills to her, claiming they were vitamin tablets, but they caused her miscarriage. Medical evidence supported her testimony, confirming that the victim was pregnant and that the pills could cause abortion.

Based on this evidence, the Court agreed with the trial court’s conviction and held that the appellant was rightly convicted under Sections 493 and 313 IPC.

Court Ruling/Decision:

While upholding the conviction, the Court decided to release the appellant under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court took into consideration the following factors:

• The offense occurred in 1991, over 33 years ago.
• The appellant was 63 years old.
• The purpose of probation is to reform offenders rather than punish them, especially when the offense is old and the offender is elderly.

The Court ordered the appellant to appear before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandpur, to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act within one month of receiving the order.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 493 IPC: Criminalizes cohabitation with a woman by deceitfully inducing her to believe she is lawfully married to him.
• Section 313 IPC: Criminalizes causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent.
• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Allows the court to release certain offenders on probation, especially when the offense is minor, or the offender is old, young, or of good character.

Significance of the Judgment:

This judgment emphasizes two important aspects:

1. Conviction under IPC: It highlights the legal standards required to prove offenses under Sections 493 and 313 IPC—the deception to induce a false belief of marriage and the subsequent cohabitation.
2. Probation for Elderly Offenders: The Court’s decision to release the appellant under probation shows a compassionate approach towards elderly offenders, especially when the offense is old and the person has already served a significant portion of their sentence.

The Orissa High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction for deceitfully inducing the victim into a false belief of marriage and causing her miscarriage. However, due to the significant time lapse (33 years) and the appellant's advanced age (63 years), the Court decided to release him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This decision strikes a balance between legal accountability and rehabilitation, showing the Court's flexibility in dealing with older offenders.

Case Title: Dolagobinda Jena v. State of Orissa 

Case No: CRA No. 55 of 1993

6). Patna High Court Rules Magistrate Must Be Satisfied on Public Peace Threat Before Initiating Section 145 CrPC Action

Case Background:

This case arose from a dispute over land possession between two parties. The initial proceedings were conducted under Section 144 CrPC due to a police report indicating tension between the parties. Later, these proceedings were converted into Section 145 CrPC proceedings by the Executive Magistrate in Maharajganj.

The Executive Magistrate had initially passed an order in favor of the petitioners, restraining the opposite party from interfering with the land. However, this decision was overturned by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Siwanin a Criminal Revision petition. The Sessions Judge ruled that the opposite parties were in possession of the disputed land.

The petitioners argued that the dispute was a civil matter about the title and possession of the land, and should be handled by a civil court, not under the criminal procedure.

Issue of the Case:

The main issue was whether the Executive Magistrate had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 CrPC without a real apprehension of public peace being disturbed. The petitioners argued that the matter was purely civil in nature and should not have been addressed under the criminal procedure code.

Court Observations:

• Bench Comprising: Justice Jitendra Kumar presided over the case.
• Section 145 CrPC deals with disputes concerning land or water that may lead to a breach of public peace. The Executive Magistrate can initiate proceedings if he is satisfied that the dispute may cause public disorder.
• The Court observed that an Executive Magistrate should only invoke Section 145 CrPC if there is an apprehension of a breach of public peace, not for private disputes that don’t affect the public.
• Public peace and tranquility are larger concepts that affect society at large, not just the individuals involved in a dispute. The Court emphasized that if the effect of a dispute is limited to a few individuals and doesn’t pose a threat to public peace, then such disputes should be dealt with in civil court.
• The Executive Magistrate must be satisfied that the dispute over possession of land can lead to a breach of peace and must clearly state this in the preliminary order. If there is no such apprehension, the Magistrate should not proceed with Section 145 CrPC.
• The Court made it clear that disputes regarding title and possession of land are civil matters and should be resolved in civil courts, and not under criminal proceedings.

Court Ruling/Decision:

The Patna High Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, stating that the Executive Magistrate had overstepped his jurisdiction. The Court ruled that there was no indication in the preliminary order that the Executive Magistrate was satisfied that the dispute would lead to a breach of public peace or tranquility.

The Court directed that the parties could approach the civil court to resolve the land dispute, where they could also seek interim orders like injunctions if necessary.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 145 CrPC: Deals with disputes about land or water that could cause a breach of peace. It allows an Executive Magistrate to intervene if there is an apprehension of such a breach. (Section 164 of BNSS)
• Section 144 CrPC: Allows temporary orders in situations where there is an immediate threat to public peace but doesn’t involve the possession of land. (Section 163 of BNSS)
• Civil Law: Disputes regarding title and possession of property should be handled by civil courts.

Significance of the Judgment:

• This ruling underscores the distinction between criminal jurisdiction and civil jurisdiction. 
• It emphasizes that Executive Magistrates should only intervene under Section 145 CrPC if there is a genuine apprehension of a breach of public peace, not in cases of private civil disputes.
• It also reinforces the principle that disputes regarding property ownership and possession, which are primarily civil matters, should be adjudicated by civil courts, not through the criminal justice system. 
• This ensures that Executive Magistrates do not overstep their powers and encroach upon the jurisdiction of civil courts.

The Patna High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, ruling that the Executive Magistrate had acted beyond his jurisdiction. The Court clarified that such disputes, being civil in nature, should be resolved by the civil courts, and directed the parties to seek appropriate remedies in that forum. This case highlights the importance of respecting the boundaries of criminal and civil jurisdiction.

Case Title: Nand Jee Singh and ors vs The State of Bihar and ors