List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice C.T. Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar have observed that simply asserting innocence or agreeing to participate in the trial is not a valid reason for granting bail to an accused in serious offences.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of The State of Jharkhand v. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta.

What is the Background of State of Jharkhand v. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta Case?

• First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused under several provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including Section 307 (Punishments for Attempt to Murder) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Punishment for using arms).
• The accused was arrested however, he was granted bail by the High Court on January 12, 2023.
• He pleaded innocence and submitted an undertaking for agreeing to participate in the trial.
• As no overt act had been alleged against the accused, the High Court directed the release of the accused on bail.
• Supreme Court observed that, in cases involving an attempt to murder, the fact that investigation has been completed cannot be a reason to grant bail.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• At any rate, mere claim of innocence or undertaking to participate in the trial or contention of absence of specific allegation of any overt act cannot, in such circumstances, be assigned as reasons for grant of bail in a case of serious nature.

What is Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959?

• Punishment for using arms, etc.

(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.

• Section 5 of the act deals with ‘Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition’.
• Section 7 deals with ‘Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition’.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Vishnu Sajanan v. State of Kerala, has held that the conditions imposed on an accused when he was released on default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI).

What was the Background of Vishnu Sajanan v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the petitioner is arrayed as an accused for the offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
• The petitioner filed a petition before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, for bail, because the investigation was not completed within the statutory period of sixty days.
• The Sessions Court, while allowing the petition imposed some stringent bail conditions.
• Aggrieved by the bail conditions, the petitioner filed a case before the High Court of Kerala for setting aside the bail conditions.
• The High Court set aside the stringent bail conditions.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed that while imposing conditions in default bail, the Court can only impose such conditions to ensure that the accused will appear before the court concerned for trial and will also co-operate with the investigation.
• The Court further held that an accused in detention shall be released on bail after the period of detention mentioned in Section 167(2) of CrPC, if he is prepared to and furnish bail. This statutory right cannot be circumvented by imposing onerous conditions. Such arbitrary condition imposed while granting statutory bail amounts to infringement of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the COI.
• The Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana and Others (2023) and held that when the petitioner was released based on default bail, there cannot be an imposition of stringent conditions.

What is Section 167 of CrPC?

• This section deals with the procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. It states that -

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that--

(a) the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,

and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter.

(b) no magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage.

(c) no magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered on this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police.


Explanation I.--For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.


Explanation II.--If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorizing detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.


Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorized be in the custody of a remand home or recognized social institution.


(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorize the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorized, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where no order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section, shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2).


Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.


(3) A Magistrate authorizing under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.

(4) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such an order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.

(6) Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made under sub-section (5), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify.