Supreme Court Weekly Digest [September 10 - 14, 2025]

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 482 - Anticipatory Bail - Hierarchy of Courts - The concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS does not mean a person can directly approach the High Court, bypassing Sessions Court - The Hierarchy of Courts demands that a person seeking pre-arrest bail should not be allowed or encouraged to bypass the jurisdiction of the concerned Session court - Encouraging practice of directly approaching the High Court for anticipatory bail would flood the High Court with a large number of applications, creating a 'chaotic situation' - A significant number of applications would likely be granted at the Session Court level acting as a 'filtration process' before cases reach the High Court - In most states, there is a consistent practice requiring litigants to first approach the Session s Court for anticipatory bail and only if relief is denied, they can approach High Court. [Paras 6-9] Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 884Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Inherent power- Delay of 3966 days in filing second appeal – Held, High Court erroneously condoned a massive delay of 3966 days based on administrative lapses and lack of follow-up by the State's officials - Such grounds do not constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Condoning such a delay would defeat the fundamental objectives of the Limitation Act, which are to ensure finality in litigation and prevent a litigant from being kept in a state of uncertainty - Delay by State agencies due to administrative lethargy should not be condoned - Supreme Court warned High Courts not to condone inordinate delays by State agencies on grounds of administrative lethargy and laxity - Appeal allowed. [Para 116, 171, 255, 260-263] Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899 : 2025 INSC 1104Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 – FIR – Held, police officers, as 'sentinels' of the law, must be vigilant, prompt and objective in performing their duties, shedding any personal biases - Police's failure to register a FIR despite being informed of a cognizable offence was a total 'dereliction of duty' - As per Section 154 CrPC, Police are duty-bound to register a cognizable offence once they receive information - Supreme Court criticized the Superintendent of Police for not taking action on a written complaint sent by appellant's father as mandated by section 154(3) CrPC - Found it distressing that senior officials did not file an affidavit in the matter before the highest court, leaving it to a local police inspector - Directed the Home Ministry to form a SIT to investigate the appellant's allegations, register an FIR for the assault and take appropriate action - Appeal allowed. [Paras 16, 18-24] Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 894 : 2025 INSC 1100Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 - Registration of FIR - It is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out - The police are not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of information - High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC is not absolutely barred by the availability of alternative remedies - Held that when allegations pertain to the abuse of an official position and corrupt practices by public servants, such actions fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences that need to be inquired into - A preliminary inquiry is not necessary before the registration of an FIR in such cases - Report of a preliminary inquiry is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust a Constitutional Court's power to conclude that a cognizable offence has been committed - It is high time that those who investigate are also investigated to keep the public's faith in the system. [Paras 26 - 32] Vinod Kumar Pandey v. Seesh Ram Saini, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887 : 2025 INSC 1095Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 197 – Held that issue of sanction to prosecute under Section 197 CrPC can be taken up before Trial Court at any stage of proceedings - the determination depends on the nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial - The petitioner is permitted to apply to the trial court for an exemption from personal attendance under these sections 228 and 355 of BNSS. [Paras 7 - 9] Ram Sagar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 891Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Principles governing the conduct of joint or separate trials - i. Separate trial is rule under Section 218 CrPC, a joint trial may be permissible where the offence form part of the same transaction or the conditions in Section 219-223 CrPC are satisfied, but even then it is a matter of judicial discretion; ii. The decision to hold a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest [September 10 - 14, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags