Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Bail in a Stabbing Incident, Where the Applicant Shared a Similar Role to Co-Accused

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

This criminal bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) / corresponding provisions by the accused/applicant, Devender @ Johny, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 185/2023 registered at Police Station Nangloi for offenses punishable under Sections 302, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case alleged that the deceased Sahil was stabbed to death by one of the accused persons following a dispute regarding a damaged motorcycle, while the applicant and others were present. The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on regular bail, taking into consideration factors such as the nature of the role attributed to the applicant (which was identical to that of a co-accused who had already been granted bail), long incarceration since May 2024, the belated introduction of supplementary allegations, and the delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP).

  • Role Attributed and Parity: The primary role ascribed to the applicant during the investigation was merely his presence at the scene of the crime at the time of the stabbing, mirroring the exact role of co-accused Rahul, who had already been granted bail by the High Court.
  • Belated Supplementary Allegations: The allegation that the applicant caught hold of an eye-witness (Nadim) and beat him up surfaced much later through a subsequently recorded statement, and it was not established that the applicant prevented anyone from trying to rescue the deceased.
  • Significance of Delay in TIP: Although the prosecution argued that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was successful, the High Court noted that while the incident occurred on 14.02.2023, the TIP was conducted over a year later on 13.05.2024, a delay period significant for evaluating the strength of the proceedings for the limited purpose of bail.
  • Antecedents and Pre-Trial Detention: The applicant had already been granted bail in the other pending cases registered against him (involving an attempt to murder and the Arms Act). Having been in custody since 09.05.2024, the Court found no justification to continue depriving him of personal liberty, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety and a strict condition not to contact prosecution witnesses.

2026 DHC 6759

Devender @ Johny v. State (NCT of Delhi) (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6759 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

A Judicial Review: Constitutional Validity of Hanging as a Sole Method of Execution

August 21, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a public interest litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and its equivalent Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The petitioner contended that hanging by the neck as the sole method of executing a death sentence is barbaric, cruel, and violates the right to live and die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court, speaking through Justice Sandeep Mehta, reaffirmed the binding precedent set by the three-judge bench in Deena v. Union of India (1983) and approved by a Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India, which held that hanging does not violate Article 21. The Court held that the petitioners failed to provide concrete, unimpeachable scientific or empirical evidence demonstrating that alternative methods, such as lethal injection or shooting, are demonstrably superior, less painful, or free from systemic flaws. Consequently, the challenge was dismissed, leaving any future policy changes regarding penal methods to the domain of the Legislature and the Executive.

  • Core Challenge to Section 354(5) CrPC / Section 393(5) BNSS: The petition sought to declare hanging by the neck as unconstitutional, arguing that it causes intense physical torture, mental agony, and violates the modern constitutional standard of a dignified death under Article 21.
  • Application of Stare Decisis: The validity of hanging was thoroughly evaluated and upheld in Deena v. Union of India (1983), a stance later approved by a Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India (1992). The current two-judge bench noted that a bench of lesser strength cannot depart from this settled precedent without robust, definitive evidence of changed scientific or constitutional realities.
  • Flaws in Proposed Alternatives:
    • The Court examined alternative execution modes (electrocution, lethal gas, shooting, and lethal injection) and noted that Deena previously established that none of these alternatives possess a distinct or demonstrable advantage over hanging.
    • Material introduced regarding lethal injections in the United States highlighted high rates of botched executions and practical difficulties, showing that it is not a universally reliable or painless alternative.
    • Arguments regarding the use of shooting under military laws (Army, Air Force, and Navy Acts) were rejected as irrelevant because military statutes operate in a distinct legal category separate from ordinary civilian criminal jurisprudence.
  • Role of the Legislature & Executive: The Court observed that the Law Commission’s 187th Report recommending alternative options is purely recommendatory. Parliament was presumed to have considered these aspects when enacting the updated Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, consciously retaining hanging.
  • Final Ruling and Future Scope: The writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that this dismissal does not foreclose future challenges if compelling, robust medical or empirical evidence emerges later, and noted that the Union Government retains the policy freedom to establish an expert committee to study penal execution methods if deemed appropriate.

2026 INSC 873

Rishi Malhotra & Anr. v. Union of India (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

2026 INSC 873 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Bridging the Pre-Deposit Paradox: Resolving Conflict in Arbitration Clauses and Constitutional Fairness

August 21, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal arose from an order passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram, which upheld an arbitral tribunal’s decision to dismiss the appellant-contractor’s claims in their entirety due to non-compliance with a contractual stipulation requiring a 10% pre-deposit security of the total claim amount before reference to arbitration. The appellant challenged this condition as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 under various precedents (ICOMM Tele Ltd., Lombardi Engineering, and CORE), while the respondent defended it relying on the three-judge bench decision in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court examined the apparent judicial conflict concerning whether a mandatory refundable security/pre-deposit clause prior to invoking arbitration violates the constitutional guarantee of non-arbitrariness and equality.

  • The Conflict of Precedents: The judgment highlights a sharp judicial divergence between larger benches and smaller benches regarding pre-deposit conditions in arbitration clauses.
  • Three-Judge Bench Stand (K. Jain): A three-judge bench in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana previously upheld a similar pre-deposit/security clause (ranging from 2% to 10%), holding that it serves as a rational balancing factor to deter frivolous and inflated claims.
  • Two-Judge Bench Stand (ICOMM Tele Ltd.): Conversely, a two-judge bench in ICOMM Tele Ltd. struck down a pre-deposit requirement, concluding that it discourages alternative dispute resolution, acts arbitrarily prior to any determination of a claim’s frivolousness, and was passed sub silentio regarding Article 14 arguments in K. Jain.
  • Broader Judicial Developments: The appellant also emphasized later rulings like Lombardi Engineering and the Constitution Bench decision in CORE, which reinforced that party autonomy cannot override fundamental constitutional rights or the rule of law.
  • Refundable vs. Forfeitable Nature: A core argument debated was whether clauses providing for full refund post-award (like K. Jain) can be distinguished from those mandating arbitrary forfeiture irrespective of success (like ICOMM Tele).

2026 INSC 872

M/s Santosh Associate Private Limited v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 INSC 872 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Strict Safeguards and Mandatory Surety Verification for Foreign Nationals in Drug Cases

August 21, 2026 No Comments

This criminal appeal by the Union of India challenged the Bombay High Court’s order granting regular bail to a foreign national (a Nigerian accused) involved in a major drug trafficking case concerning approximately 5 kilograms of heroin under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and cancelled the bail after discovering that the accused had jumped custody and that the local sureties furnished on his behalf were completely fictitious and non-existent. Expressing grave concern over systemic vulnerabilities where foreign drug offenders escape trial using fake guarantees, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to issue sweeping nationwide guidelines and strict verification protocols to govern bail and surety procedures for foreign nationals.

  • Cancellation of Bail for Violations: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail without properly satisfying the rigorous statutory thresholds under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly given the commercial quantity involved and the accused’s prior NDPS conviction. Furthermore, the bail stood violated because the accused became untraceable upon release.
  • Exposing the Fake Surety Racket: During proceedings, verification revealed that the address provided by the surety did not exist, the stated employer had never employed him, and the bank and ID details were completely forged. The Court noted that fictitious sureties defeat the foundational objective of securing an accused’s presence for trial.
  • Mandatory Safeguards for Foreign Nationals in NDPS Cases: Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to establish uniform national standards, the Supreme Court mandated several binding guidelines:
    • Surrender of Passports: Passports of foreign nationals accused in commercial-quantity NDPS cases must be surrendered and kept in court custody.
    • FRRO Registration: Released foreign accused must mandatorily register with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) within one week of release via a dedicated portal.
    • Double Sureties: Accused must ordinarily provide two verified local sureties of equivalent amounts, with any relaxation subject to strict recorded judicial reasons.
    • Fast 3-Day Physical Verification: Police must physically re-verify the residential address and background of both the foreign national and their local sureties within three days prior to release.
    • Property Lien: A legal lien or charge equivalent to the surety amount must be created on the property furnished by the guarantor to ensure accountability.
  • Accountability and Legal Amendments: The Court directed departmental inquiries against officials who negligently verify false sureties and recommended the insertion of a comprehensive new form (Form 47A) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) specifically tailored for foreign bail-bond and surety verification.

2026 INSC 870

Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 INSC 870 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Untangling a Three-Decade-Old Rioting and Murder Case

August 21, 2026 No Comments

This criminal appeal arises from a long-standing 1993 rioting and murder case involving an unlawful assembly and a violent altercation over a land dispute. The Trial Court had convicted several accused persons—including the appellant Nepal Singh—while acquitting others, a decision subsequently upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Upon reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and quashed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the primary eyewitnesses suffered from severe contradictions, embellishments, and material improvements that rendered their testimonies untrustworthy, alongside noting that the lower courts failed to justify why similar evidence resulted in selective convictions rather than wholesale acquittals.

  • Contradictory Eyewitness Testimony: The testimony of the injured eye-witness (PW-6) and the deceased’s wife (PW-7) lacked credibility due to mutual contradictions and self-defeating admissions, such as PW-6 claiming he lost consciousness instantly yet describing specific blows, and later admitting he never personally saw his father being struck.
  • Belated or Hearsay Presence: PW-7’s cross-examination exposed that she was inside her house feeding her children when the commotion began and only arrived after her husband had already been placed on a cot, completely undermining her claim of witnessing the assault.
  • Planted Witnesses and Land Disputes: The testimonies of other alleged eyewitnesses (PW-8 and PW-9) appeared planted during cross-examination, and the presence of a prior land dispute alongside a retaliatory assault on the landowners made the possibility of false implication very real.
  • Inconsistent Treatment of Co-Accused: The Trial Court convicted certain individuals while acquitting others on the exact same set of facts and depositions, with the High Court failing to address or rectify this arbitrary differentiation.
  • Inconclusive Recovery of Weapons: The routine recovery of common household rural items like lathis, farsas, and ballams did not establish any direct linkage or guilt against the accused.

2026 INSC 869

Nepal Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

2026 INSC 869 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins