Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2025 On Bail & Arrest

Amicus Curiae Suggestions - Policy strategy for bail and speedy disposal of criminal appeals - Model Action Plan for Baseline Report of NCMS (National Case Management System) - which has been approved by Chief Justice of India and forwarded to all High Courts for adoption - Vacancies in High Courts directly impact and corelate with the pendency of criminal appeals - Video Conferencing and roster rationalization by having dedicated benches for criminal appeals to improve disposal of old appeals - Adjournments and legal aid - Relied on Bani Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720 - If counsel for accused is not cooperating, recourse must be taken by appointing legal aid lawyer for accused - Automatic calling of soft copy records of Trial Court by the Registry - This Court directed High Courts to consider above suggestions and place their action plans on record. [Paras 3-15] In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Collegium & HC Practice Directions), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 671 Anticipatory Bail - Condition for Automatic Custody Upon Charge-Sheet Submission - Such a specific direction, mandating coercive steps for custody, was improper. When granting anticipatory bail, the court should leave it open for the trial court to decide on bail after the charge-sheet is filed and the accused appears. (Para 3) Ritesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 326 Anticipatory Bail – Investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed - Investigating Officer did not arrest the petitioner during the investigation phase, and the Court had issued summons for the petitioner's appearance. The Court expressed disapproval of the practice in Uttar Pradesh where arrests are made post-charge sheet filing and cognizance by the Court, deeming it illogical. The Court held that once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed, the accused should appear before the trial court and furnish bail. Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83 Anticipatory Bail – Investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed - Investigating Officer did not arrest the petitioner during the investigation phase, and the Court had issued summons for the petitioner's appearance. The Court expressed disapproval of the practice in Uttar Pradesh where arrests are made post-charge sheet filing and cognizance by the Court, deeming it illogical. The Court held that once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed, the accused should appear before the trial court and furnish bail. Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83 Anticipatory Bail - Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) - Section 18 - Applicability of Section 438 of CrPC – Held, anticipatory bail is permissible under SC/ST Act only if prima facie offence isn't made out - The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which excludes the application of Section 438 CrPC, is not absolute - This requires a court to verify the complaint's averments and determine if a prima facie is established - The Court is not permitted to conduct a 'mini-trial' by evaluating evidence or other materials - The bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 is intended to uphold the Act's objective of protecting vulnerable SC/ST communities and ensuring social justice - The denial of anticipatory bail for these offences is not considered unreasonable or a violation of Article 14 of Constitution, as these offences are a distinct class - The bar is not held to be violative of Article 21 - High Court committed a 'manifest error' and a 'jurisdictional error' by evaluating witness testimonies and concluding that no offence was made out - The incident occurred outside the complainant's house, which was a place 'within public view' - The caste nexus was established and the humiliation was clearly intentional - Anticipatory bail was granted by overlooking and disregarding the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, was a clear illegality - Appeal is allowed. [Paras 5-8] Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 869 : 2025 INSC 1067 Anticipatory Bail - Supreme Court criticises High Court for asking why accused was not arrested instead of deciding anticipatory bail plea - Held that petitioner was not arrested for 4 years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and grant anticipatory bail - Supreme Court disapproved of the manner in which the High Court dealt with the anticipatory bail plea by passing a 'very cryptic and unusual order' and seeking an affidavit from the Director General of Police (DGP) as to why the accused had not been arrested for 4 years - The High Court should either allow the application for anticipatory or decline it on its own merits. Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 873 Article 21, 22 - Duty of Courts to Uphold Fundamental Rights -...

Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2025 On Bail & Arrest

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags