LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 OR CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

POWER OF COURTS
CASE NAME	HELD
1. Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 18 SCC 718	The Supreme Court held that default sentences for non-payment of fines must be in addition to, not concurrent with, the substantive sentence or other default sentences.
2. Premnath v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1599	The Supreme Court held that a Civil Judge cannot exercise the powers of an Additional Sessions Judge unless they are formally appointed to that post under Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ARREST
3. State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222	The Court defined the basic difference between arrest and custody. In every arrest there is custody but not vice-versa. Custody may amount to arrest in certain cases but not in all cases. A person is in custody when under the control of the court or police, but an arrest is a specific act of being taken into custody.
4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP., (1994) 4 SCC 260	This is a landmark judgment that laid down guidelines for Arrest. The registration of FIR and arrest of accused persons are two different things. The mere registration of a First Information Report (FIR) does not automatically warrant an arrest.
5. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96	The Supreme Court directed that a Magistrate must inform an arrested person about their right to medical examination, as provided under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This direction aims to protect prisoners from torture and ill-treatment by police in custody.
6. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273	The Supreme Court directed police officers to not automatically arrest individuals in cases under Section 498A IPC or other offenses punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment, emphasizing they must satisfy themselves of the arrest's necessity by following the parameters laid out in Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.
7. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 6 SC 642	The Supreme Court issued some mandatory guidelines to be followed by police during arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence and torture.
8. Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406	The Supreme Court issued guidelines for arresting judicial officers, requiring prior intimation to the District Judge or High Court, limiting immediate arrests to a formal nature, mandating prompt reporting of the arrest, prohibiting taking the officer to a police station without the District and Sessions Judge's (DSJ) order, ensuring immediate communication facilities, and stipulating that statements, punchnamas, and medical tests must occur in the presence of a legal advisor.

MAINTENANCE
9. Nanak Chandra v. Chandra Kishore, (1969) 3 SCC 802	The Supreme Court of India held that the maintenance provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Sections 125–128, are secular in nature and apply to all people regardless of their religion.
10. Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644	The Supreme Court of India held that the term 'wife' in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) refers only to a legally wedded wife. The court therefore ruled that a second wife whose marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cannot claim maintenance under this provision.
11. Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Anr, 2019	The Supreme Court held that a wife divorced on the grounds of her desertion is still entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as the prohibition under Section 125(4) CrPC only applies during the subsistence of the marriage.
12. D. Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469	The supreme Court laid down key criteria to determine if a live-in relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
13. Vijay Manoharv. Kashi Rao Raja Ram, AIR 1987 SC 1100	The Supreme Court ruled that a daughter, whether married or not, is legally obligated to pay maintenance to her parents if they are unable to maintain themselves and she has sufficient financial means.
14. Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945	The Supreme Court ruled that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if they cannot support themselves, even beyond the iddat period, as the CrPC is a secular law and takes precedence over personal laws.
15. Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC172	The Supreme Court held that a court does not become functus officio (its duty ends) after passing an order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. because Section 125 itself, and related provisions like Section 127, allow for the cancellation or alteration of maintenance orders when circumstances change, effectively creating an exception to the general rule in Section 362 Cr.P.C. that bars courts from altering final orders.

PREVENTIVE ACTION
16. Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525	The Supreme Court examined the limitations and conditions for the state's use of force to disperse an unlawful assembly. The court emphasized that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right, and police force is only warranted when an assembly turns violent.
17. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637	Orders passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. have direct consequences upon fundamental rights. Magistrate is duty bound to balance the rights and restrictions based on principles of proportionality and thereafter apply less intrusive measures.

INVESTIGATION
18. State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, (1996) 6 SCC 435	The Supreme Court of India held that when investigating a cognizable offence, police are not barred from also investigating any non-cognizable offence that arises from the same set of facts. This ruling is based on a specific legal fiction created by Section 155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
19. Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of UP., (2018) 13 SCC 612	The Supreme Court held that criminal investigations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the police, and no external agency can dictate their course. While superior courts can monitor an investigation in exceptional circumstances, this power does not extend to supervising the process. The ruling reinforces the autonomy of law enforcement and safeguards against external influence.
20. Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1	The Supreme Court emphasized that criminal investigation and inquiry must be guided by the "hovering omnipresence of Article 21" of the Constitution. This means all procedures must be interpreted to uphold the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, ensuring a fair and just process for both the accused and the victim.
21. Mukesh Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2023	The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to attend a Test Identification Parade (TIP) does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India because it does not involve a "positive volitional evidentiary act" by the accused.

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
22. Nand Lal And Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)	The Supreme Court held that an immediate First Information Report (FIR) is crucial, especially in cases involving fights between two groups or parties at loggerheads, as it removes suspicions of over-implication and adds credibility to the prosecution's account of events.
23. State of UP. v. Raghuvir, (2018) 13 SCC 732 -	The Supreme Court held that an unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report (FIR) is viewed with suspicion because it increases the possibility of concoction or embellishment of the case. This means courts are obligated to closely scrutinize the evidence presented, examining any reasons given for the delay before accepting the prosecution's case.
24. Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 61	The Supreme Court stated that a First Information Report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia and does not require every single detail of the occurrence to be included, emphasizing that its purpose is to set the criminal machinery in motion for investigation.
25. Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 429	The Supreme Court held that the omission of the names of assailants or witnesses in a First Information Report (FIR) is not automatically fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when the FIR is lodged without delay. This principle is based on the understanding that an FIR is not an exhaustive document and should not be treated as a complete encyclopedia of the prosecution's case.
26. Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (1973) 3 SCC 114	The Supreme Court of India held that a telephonic message can constitute a First Information Report (FIR), provided it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
27. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335	The word ‘information’ in Section 154 is not qualified by the term ‘reasonable’. By omitting the word ‘reasonable’ and ‘credible’ the intent of legislature is clear that no discretion is given to the police to lodge the FIR.
28. Lalita Kumari v. Govt, of Uttar Pradesh, 2013(13) SCALE 559	A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India clarified that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory if the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases, no preliminary inquiry is permissible.
29. Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673	The prompt filing of a First Information Report (FIR) is crucial to preserving evidence and ensuring a fair trial. The object of insisting upon prompt registration of FIR is to obtain early information not only regarding the accused but also about the part played by the accused, nature of incident and name of witnesses.

STATEMENTS MADE TO POLICE
30. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424	The Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination, and Section 161(2) of the CrPC, which provides a similar right to silence to individuals questioned by police, cover substantially the same area and are not in contradiction.
31. Raghunandan v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 186	The Supreme Court reconciled the seemingly contradictory provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). The court held that while the restrictions of Section 162 apply to the parties in a case, they do not limit a judge's overriding power under Section 165 to question witnesses and discover the truth.
32. Harbir Singh v. Sheeshpal, (2016) 16 SCC418	The Supreme Court held that a delay in recording witness statements does not automatically discredit their testimony; such testimony can be relied upon if it is cogent, credible, and the delay is satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
33. Virender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2017) 11 SCC 126	The Supreme Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC do not constitute substantive evidence and cannot be the sole basis for an accused's conviction; they are primarily used for the purpose of contradiction, not corroboration.
34. Tehsildar Singh v. State of UP., AIR 1959 SC 1012	The Supreme Court clarified that while significant omissions from a statement made to the police can amount to a contradiction, the omission must be "deemed to be part of the statement" through necessary implication or by representing the negative of a positive fact stated.

STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 164
35. Manoharan v. State, (2020) 5 SCC 782	The Supreme Court stated that Section 164 of Cr.P.C. doesn't mandate the presence of a lawyer for every confession or statement, except when such a statement is recorded through audio-video electronic means. The crucial requirement is that the Magistrate must be satisfied that the statement is voluntary and that all statutory safeguards under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been meticulously followed.
36. Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722	The Supreme Court held that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a substantive piece of evidence. A conviction cannot be based solely on such a statement unless it is corroborated by other, independent substantive evidence presented in court.

REMAND AND DEFAULT BAIL
37. Hussainara Khatoon (5) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 108	The Supreme Court declared that it is the mandatory duty of a magistrate to inform an accused person of their right to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court affirmed that this "default bail" right is an indefeasible part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
38. Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 4 SCC 410	Bail granted under the proviso to Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) remains valid until it is cancelled, and the mere filing of a charge-sheet in court does not automatically invalidate it. This means the accused is entitled to remain on bail unless there's a specific order to cancel it, which must be based on valid grounds.
39. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67	Where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no police report is filed on 60th or 90th day then the accused gets indefensible right to default bail. The accused must apply for default bail and he should be prepared to furnish bail.

POLICE REPORT AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION
40. Saurav Das vs Union of India (2023)	The Supreme Court held that charge sheets and supporting documents are not public documents and should not be put on government websites, as this would violate the rights of the accused, victim, and investigating agencies, and is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code.
41. Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 413	The Supreme Court held that an investigation is considered ongoing until a police report is filed under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and even after this report, further investigations can be conducted under Section 173(8) without invalidating the initial report or precluding subsequent actions.
42. Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) 1 SCC 561	A Magistrate is not bound to accept a final report submitted by the police and must apply their independent judicial mind to the investigation. A final report (or "closure report") is filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) when the police find insufficient evidence to prosecute the accused.
43. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537	The Supreme Court held that a magistrate must provide the first informant with an opportunity to be heard before deciding to close a case based on a police report. This landmark judgment established a crucial safeguard to ensure procedural fairness and accountability in the criminal justice system.
44. Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 4136	The Supreme Court mandated that FIRs must be uploaded to police websites within 24 hours for transparency, but with an exception for sensitive cases like sexual offenses or terrorism. The Court also held that an accused is entitled to receive a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than prescribed under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.).
45. Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72	Inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its purpose is limited to ascertain nature of injuries and cause of death. Its object is to ascertain whether death is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery eta It states the manner in which or by what weapon or instruments injuries appears to have been inflicted.
46. Ramswaroop Soni v. State of M.P., AIR 2019 SC 3801	The Supreme Court clarified the powers of a magistrate upon receiving a closure report from the police. The Supreme Court reiterated that a magistrate, upon receipt of a closure/refer report, cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable.
47. Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 16 SCC 777	In appropriate cases even if the charge-sheet is filed it is open for the Supreme Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to the CBI or to any other independent agency in order to do complete justice.

GENERAL DIARY AND CASE DIARY
48. State v. H. Srinivas, (2018) 7 SCC 572	The Supreme Court held that while maintaining a General Diary is a police officer's obligation, its non-maintenance does not automatically invalidate a criminal trial unless the accused can prove severe prejudice directly affecting the case's core.

JURISDICTION
49. Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384	The Supreme Court held that courts at the place where a wife takes shelter after leaving the matrimonial home due to cruelty by her husband or his relatives also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, even if the initial act of cruelty occurred elsewhere.

COGNIZANCE
50. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry vs State of Kerala 2023	The court stated that "taking cognizance" is not defined in the Cr.PC but is understood to mean "become aware of" or "to take notice of judicially". This implies a magistrate or court acknowledging the commission of an offense to initiate legal proceedings.
51. M.L. Sethi v. R.L. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528	The Supreme Court held that "taking cognizance" refers to the moment when a Magistrate actively considers and acknowledges an alleged offence with the intention of initiating criminal proceedings against the accused, essentially marking the court's initial judicial notice of the crime based on a complaint or police report.
52. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, AIR 2012 SC 1185	The Supreme Court clarified that taking cognizance of an offence is the act of a competent court taking judicial notice of a matter presented before it to determine if there's a valid basis for initiating proceedings.
53. Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai, (2012) 10 SCC 527	The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a Magistrate taking "cognizance" of an offence and the "issuance of process". The ruling affirms that these are two separate judicial steps in a criminal proceeding, and an accused person's right to be heard is affected differently at each stage.
54. K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P., (2018) 6 SCC 676	The Supreme Court held that to seek a remedy under Sections 199(2) and 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defamatory statement must not only be defamatory but also have a clear connection to the official's discharge of public duties.
55. P.C. Joshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 387	The rationale in this case is that defamation against high-level state functionaries in the discharge of their public duties is an offence against the state itself, not just the individual. This principle underlies the special procedure provided under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
56. Minu Kumari v. State, AIR 2006 SC 1937	The Supreme Court held that when a Magistrate decides to drop proceedings after considering a police report, the informant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.
57. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2019) 3 SCC 318	The Supreme Court of India held that for offences affecting the administration of justice under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a private complaint is not permissible. The prosecution can only be initiated by a written complaint from the specific court in which the offence was allegedly committed.

COMPLAINTS TO MAGISTRATE
58. Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai, (2012) 10 SCC 517	The Supreme Court held that the two objects of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are to enable the Magistrate to scrutinize the complaint allegations to prevent harassment of the accused and to ascertain if there is sufficient material to support the complaint's claims.
59. Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 631	The Supreme Court ruled that a second complaint on the same facts can only be filed in "exceptional circumstances," which include situations where the first dismissal was based on an incomplete record, a misunderstanding of the complaint's nature, a manifestly absurd or unjust order, or the discovery of new facts with reasonable diligence. The Court clarified that dismissal of a complaint is neither an acquittal nor a discharge, so Section 300 CrPC does not apply.
60. Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani, (2018)1 SCC 71	The Supreme Court held that legal heirs of a deceased complainant have the right to continue criminal proceedings, affirming that such cases do not automatically abate on the complainant's death.
61. Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177	The Supreme Court clarified that a Magistrate's direction for an investigation under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is essentially an inquiry to determine if proceedings should continue, not a "further investigation" as described in Section 173(8).

ISSUE OF PROCESS
62. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 623	The court stated that the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) mandates providing the accused with copies of statements and documents to inform them of the charges and evidence they must face, thereby enabling them to prepare a proper defense and ensuring a fair inquiry or trial.
63. Prabhu Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 609	At the stage of summoning accused on the basis of a private complaint, all that is required is satisfaction by Magistrate, that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made and the evidence adduced by the accused.

CHARGE
64. State v. Anup Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560	The Supreme Court clarified that framing a charge is the initial major step in a criminal trial where the court considers whether there are grounds to presume the accused committed an offense, rather than a detailed assessment of evidence.
65. V. C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962	The Supreme Court held that the purpose of framing a charge is to give the accused clear and unambiguous notice of the accusation. This step is critical to a fair criminal trial, and it marks the formal transition from the investigation stage to the trial.
66. Jaswinder Saini v. State (Govt, of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256	The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) grants courts ample power to alter or add to a charge at any time before judgment, but this power should not be exercised mechanically; the court must consider the evidence to ensure the addition or alteration is justified and to prevent prejudice to the accused.
67. State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 1	The Supreme Court of India held that separate trial for distinct offence is the rule, and a joint trial is the exception. The court ruled that it is improper to hold a single joint trial for a vast number of offenses committed over a long period by a large number of people under the umbrella of a sweeping conspiracy.
68. Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020)2 SCC217	The Supreme Court held that at the time of framing charges, the court only needs to find a prima facie case, meaning sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, and does not need to assess if the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

TRIAL
69. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, 1979 CrLJ 154 (SC)	The Supreme Court affirmed that a judge, when considering framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, possesses the power to sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists against the accused. If the materials placed before the court reveal a grave suspicion but not necessarily a definitive case, the court can still frame charges.
70. Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 15 SCC 470	Fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged under Article 20 and 21. The role of police is to be one for protectors of life, liberty and property. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and to bring the offender to book.
71. Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1	The Supreme Court of India held that the trial in a criminal case commences when charges are framed and not when a magistrate takes cognizance of an offence. This ruling clarifies the stage up to which a magistrate can order "further investigation," ensuring a fair and just process under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

INQUIRIES & TRIAL
72. Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627	The Supreme Court held that the state's constitutional obligation to provide free legal aid arises not just at the trial stage but also from the moment an accused is produced before a Magistrate and during subsequent remands, emphasizing that this right is crucial for ensuring a fair trial for indigent individuals.
73. Suk Das v. Union Territory of ArunachaL Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 911	The Supreme Court of India held that a trial is vitiated and any conviction must be set aside if the accused was not provided free legal aid, in violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
74. Mohd. Azmai Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC1	The Supreme Court of India held that it is a constitutional obligation for magistrates and courts to inform indigent accused persons of their right to receive free legal aid.
75. Pritam Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415	The provisions of Section 300 are also based on the principle of res-judicata, or issue estoppel. It means the verdict of acquittal given by a competent court, will be binding on the parties to the adjudication in all subsequent proceedings.
76. State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 1	The Supreme Court held that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) did not prevent the multiple trials of Lalu Prasad Yadav in different fodder scam cases. The court reasoned that although there was a larger conspiracy, the withdrawals from each treasury constituted a separate offense, allowing for distinct trials.
77. INDRAKUNWAR V. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, 2023	The Supreme Court emphasized that the examination of an accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a mere formality. Instead, it is a process rooted in the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, which means "hear the other side".
78. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023	The Supreme Court summarized ten established principles of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.), emphasizing that it provides a valuable opportunity for an accused to explain circumstances against them in a trial. Key principles include the court's mandatory duty to question the accused, the accused's right to respond without cross-examination, and the inadmissibility of conviction solely on the Section 313 statement, which must be considered alongside the entire evidence.
79. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92	The Supreme Court established several key guidelines regarding the application of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows a court to summon additional accused persons during a trial if evidence emerges suggesting their involvement in the crime.
80. Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368	The Supreme Court affirmed that a trial court's power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused is not lost even if the period for filing a protest petition has passed, provided that evidence from witnesses in the ongoing trial indicates a person not already on the charge-sheet is also guilty.
81. Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710	The Supreme Court held that withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be permitted if it is not made in good faith, is against the public interest, or if it would stifle or thwart the process of law or cause manifest injustice.
82. Bhagwan Das v. State uttarakhand, (2019) 4 SCC 354	The Supreme Court observed that a court has discretion to reject a plea to compound an offence having social impact, even if the offence is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

BAIL
83. Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179	The Supreme Court established that when considering bail, particularly for non-bailable offences, courts must give proper weight to paramount factors such as the likelihood of the accused absconding from justice and the possibility of tampering with evidence, in addition to other relevant factors like the nature of the offense and the character of the evidence.
84. Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129	The Supreme Court outlined key considerations for granting bail, which include a prima facie belief in the accused's guilt, the gravity of the offence, the potential for the accused to abscond, the accused's background and character, the likelihood of repeat offenses or witness tampering, and the overall danger of justice being thwarted.
85. Mauji Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 17	The Supreme Court of India emphasized the requirement for judicial courts to provide reasoned orders when granting bail. The court set aside the High Court's decision to grant bail, as the bail orders were unreasoned and did not reflect a proper application of judicial mind to the facts of the case.
86. Union of India v. Padam Narain, (2008) 13 SCC 305	The term ‘anticipatory bail’ has not been defined in the Code. The bail is granted in anticipation of arrest. When anticipatory bail is granted then in the event of arrest the person arrested is released on bail. Only after arrest the order granting anticipatory bail becomes operative.
87. Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565	The Supreme Court established that an FIR isn't a prerequisite for anticipatory bail, an interim order can be passed without a public prosecutor's notice, the order doesn't halt police investigation, and a blanket order of anticipatory bail should be avoided. The Court also clarified that anticipatory bail is not to be denied where there's a strong need for remand under Section 167(2) or to secure evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but rather that the power under Section 438 should be exercised judiciously to safeguard personal liberty.
88. Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 5 SCC 421	Section 438 CrPC cannot be considered to be an integral part of Article 21. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It cannot be considered to be an essential ingredient of Article 21 and its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.
89. Raghubir v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481	Supreme Court laid down the following circumstances where the bail can be cancelled: - Hampers investigation; Tampers with evidence; Commits same or similar offence; Absconds or goes beyond the control of sureties; Misuses liberty granted to him.
90. State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411	The Supreme Court held that cancelling bail, unlike rejecting it, requires compelling supervening circumstances that make continued liberty incompatible with a fair trial. The prosecution must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the accused has tampered with or attempted to tamper with witnesses, rather than the rigorous standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" needed for a criminal conviction.
91. X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511	The Supreme Court held that the grounds for rejecting bail at the initial stage of a non-bailable case differ from those for cancelling bail that has already been granted. Bail cancellation requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as the accused interfering with justice, attempting to evade it, or abusing the concessions granted.

INHERENT POWERS
92. Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023	The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) should be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Court emphasized that this power should only be invoked to prevent an abuse of the court's process and to secure the ends of justice.
93. State represented by The Inspector of Police v. Maridass and Anr, 2023	The Supreme Court held that the Investigating Agency has a right to conduct an investigation and should be given reasonable time to do so, unless the allegations in the FIR fail to disclose any cognizable offense or the complaint is barred by law.
94. Manik B v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023	The Supreme Court held that while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, the High Court should not examine the correctness of the chargesheet material; instead, it must only assess if, on the face of the allegations, no case is made out at all.
95. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U P, 2023	The Supreme Court of India ruled that courts must scrutinize First Information Reports (FIRs) more closely when an accused claims the case is frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by vengeance. The decision reinforces a court's duty to prevent the abuse of the legal process, and it sets important guidelines for using the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Article 226 of the Constitution.

Download Important Case Laws PDF