List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke held that a pregnant woman should be released on bail.              

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Surbhi d/o Raju Soni v. State of Maharashtra, through PSO Railway Police Station, Gondia, District Gondia. 

What was the Background of Surbhi d/o Raju Soni v. State of Maharashtra, through PSO Railway Police Station, Gondia, District Gondia Case?  

• The crime was registered and a raid was conducted where contraband was recovered from five persons including the applicant. 
• It was the case that the applicant and her husband along with the co-accused were carrying commercial quantity of “Ganja” worth Rs. 6,64,020. 
• A search was conducted and samples were obtained in the presence of Panchas. 
• At the time of her arrest the applicant was two months pregnant and now she is carrying an advanced pregnancy and hence she seeks regular bail for offences under Section 20 (b) (ii), 29 and 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that it is well settled that the applicant and her husband were in possession of contraband along with other co-accused. 
• It was further observed that as the applicant was carrying was carrying pregnancy on the date of arrest and, now, is carrying an advanced pregnancy, there is an apprehension of complications during delivery of child. 
• It was held that delivering child during pregnancy in jail atmosphere would certainly impact not only on the applicant but also on child, which cannot be lost sight of. 
• Delivering child in prison may have consequence on mother as well as child and, therefore, humane considerations are required. 
• Thus, the Court held that in the present facts the application to release the applicant on temporary bail deserves to be considered on humanitarian grounds.

Which Provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Govern Bail? 

• The BNSS provides for provisions of bail under Chapter XXXV.

• Section 478 provides for the following: 
  • A person (not accused of a non-bailable offense) who is arrested or detained can be released on bail if they are willing to provide bail. 
  •  If the person cannot afford a surety (guarantor for bail), the officer or Court must release them on their personal bond (a promise to appear in court). 
  • If someone cannot provide a bail bond within a week of their arrest, it is assumed they are indigent (unable to afford it). 
  • These provisions do not affect specific other legal sections (e.g., sub-section (3) of Section 135 or Section 492). 
  • If a person fails to follow bail conditions (like showing up in court as required), the Court may refuse to grant them bail in the future for the same case. 
  • Even if bail is refused, the Court can still enforce penalties for breaking the terms of the bail bond (under Section 491). 
• Section 480 provides for following: 
  • A person accused or suspected of committing a non-bailable offense may not be released on bail if: 
    • The offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment, and there are reasonable grounds to believe they are guilty. 
    • The offense is cognizable, and the person has prior convictions for: 
      • An offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for 7 years or more. 
      • Two or more offenses punishable by imprisonment for 3–7 years. 
  • The Court may grant bail to such persons if: 
    • They are a child, a woman, or someone sick or infirm. 
    • There is another special reason that makes granting bail just and proper. 
  • A person entitled to bail cannot be refused solely because they may be required for witness identification during the investigation or for police custody beyond 15 days, provided they agree to follow the Court's directions. 
  • If the offense is punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 7 years or more, the Court must give the Public Prosecutor a chance to present their views before granting bail.

Is Pregnancy a Consideration While Granting Bail?

• Pregnancy is a factor which should be considered while granting bail to a woman. 
• Delivering in jail can impact the mother and child. 
• There is a need to protect the health and welfare of pregnant women and their infants. 
• Courts have considered the need to ensure that the prisoner has access to necessary medical care. 
• Courts have considered the need to ensure that the prisoner can maintain her physical and mental well being. 
• Courts have considered the need to ensure that the prisoner can provide a nurturing environment for her newborn.

What are Important Case Laws on Bail During Pregnancy? 

• R.D. Upadhya v. State of A.P. and Ors (2007): 
  • The Court laid down the following in this case: 
    • Temporary Release for Expectant Prisoners: 
      • Pregnant prisoners should be temporarily released (on parole or suspended sentence) to give birth outside prison if they have a suitable option. 
      • This facility can be denied only in exceptional cases, like high-security risks or similarly grave situations. 
    • Birth Registration: 
      • Births occurring in prison must be registered at the local birth registration office. 
      • The birth certificate should not mention the prison; only the general locality's address should be recorded. 
    • Naming Rites for Children: 
      • Where possible, facilities for conducting naming ceremonies for children born in prison should be excluded. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. has held that while considering the discharge application only the documents forming part of the chargesheet to be considered. 

What was the Background of the Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Case? 

• The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma (appellant) and his wife(defendant)  
• Prior to 8^th May, 2019, the appellant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 
•  In this petition, he sought a declaration to nullify his marriage. 
• On 8^th May 2019, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the appellant. 
• The FIR accused him of offenses under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).   
• Appellant initially filed a writ petition to quash the FIR. However, in November 2020, he withdrew this petition. 
• On 23^rd June 2021, a Family Court passed an ex-parte decree of nullity of marriage. 
• Subsequently, appellant filed another writ petition seeking to quash the FIR. This petition was dismissed by the High Court. 
• The wife (second respondent) challenged the ex-parte decree of nullity before the High Court. 
• The High Court directed the trial court to take into account the present writ petition. 
• The same has been challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court after filing the writ petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • High Court's Procedural Error: 
    • The High Court committed a "gross error" by directing the Trial Court to consider documents not part of the charge-sheet while framing charges. 
    • This direction was contrary to the legal principle established in the State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) case, which states that while considering discharge, a Trial Court cannot consider documents outside the charge-sheet. 
  • Incomplete Hearing of Writ Petition: 
    • The High Court did not consider the merits of the writ petition seeking to quash the FIR. 
    • The court noted that various grounds were urged in the writ petition, including the argument that filing the FIR after appellant’s petition for marriage nullity was an abuse of legal process. 
  • Timing of FIR Challenge: 
    • The court rejected the argument that a challenge to an FIR must be made at its inception. 
    • It clarified that an accused can challenge an FIR at any stage of the proceedings, either under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
    • The court emphasized that whether to entertain such a challenge is at the discretion of the High Court. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations, found that the High Court's order to be "completely illegal". 
  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the original writ petition of the appellant to be heard again. 
  • The Supreme Court clearly states that while considering the discharge application only the documents forming part of the chargesheet to be considered.

What is a Discharge Application? 

About: 

• Earlier section 227 of CrPC deals with the discharge of the accused in sessions cases. 
• The same has now been covered under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• It states that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 
• The new subsection (1) has been added under the Sanhita which states that the accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232 of BNSS. 
• This section was enacted for the purpose of saving the accused from unnecessary harassment. 

Case Law: 

• State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (1977) 
  • The Supreme Court held that the object of the provisions which require the Session Judge to record its reasons while entertaining discharge petition under section 227 of CrPC is to enable the superior court to examine illegality of the impugned order.  
  • In that case the trial court did not assign any reason in the impugned order while refusing to discharge the accused as such it suffers from serious infirmity. 
• Asim Shariff v. NIA (2019) 
  • The Supreme Court held that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected that the Trial Judge to exercise his judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not.
  • The Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record. 

Source: Madras High Court  

Why in News? 

The Madras High Court emphasized the need for stringent laws and awareness programs to combat child sexual abuse by family members or close friends. Highlighting National Crime Records Bureau data showing that 96% of abusers are known to the victims, the court urged the State to establish protection homes and increase vigilance in schools and hostels.  

• The observations came while upholding the conviction of a man for raping and impregnating his stepdaughter. 

What was the Background of R. v The State? 

• The victim is a girl who lost her biological father at four months old, and her mother subsequently remarried the accused, her stepfather. 
• The accused persuaded his wife to bring the victim home from her grandparents and enrolled her in 10th standard at a local government school. 
• On 12^th August 2018, when the victim was alone at home, the accused allegedly sexually assaulted her, and repeated the act two weeks later. 
• The accused threatened to kill the victim's brother and other family members if she revealed the abuse, which prevented her from speaking out initially. 
• On 15^th February 2019, the victim informed her mother that she was six months pregnant and that the stepfather was responsible for her condition. 
• The accused admitted to causing the pregnancy and threatened to kill the mother and her children if the victim was not brought back home. 
• Considering the welfare of her other children and after consulting her father, the mother filed a complaint with the All Woman Police Station in Aranthangi on 18th February 2019. 
• The police registered an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code, initiating legal proceedings against the accused. 
• Medical examination confirmed the victim's pregnancy, and the case was subsequently investigated and charge-sheeted. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court critically examined the pervasive issue of child sexual abuse, highlighting that 96% of such offenses are perpetrated by individuals known to the victims, predominantly family members, who exploit their dominant positions through threat and coercion. 
• The judicial observations the profound societal stigmatization of sexual assault survivors, wherein victims are frequently marginalized and treated as though they have committed a transgression, which systematically inhibits disclosure and pursuit of justice. 
• Recognizing the inherent vulnerability of children, the court emphasized that victims often remain silent due to familial pressures, fear of social repercussions, and the psychological manipulation by perpetrators who leverage their position of trust and dependency. 
• The court noted the multi-dimensional impact of sexual abuse, articulating that while physical injuries may heal with time, the psychological and emotional trauma inflicted upon child victims represents an enduring wound that potentially disrupts their entire developmental trajectory. 
• The court strongly recommended comprehensive state-level interventions, including legislative reforms, severe punitive measures against familial sexual offenders, widespread awareness programs, and the establishment of protective infrastructures for vulnerable children. 
• Ultimately, the court reaffirmed the judicial commitment to protecting child victims by dismissing procedural challenges that might potentially compromise the prosecution's case, thereby prioritizing the substantive interests of justice over technical impediments. 
• The court found the appellant's actions particularly egregious, noting the breach of trust inherent in a stepfather sexually abusing a child entrusted to his care after the child had already experienced the loss of a biological father. 
• The High Court rejected the appellant's procedural challenges, specifically holding that minor inconsistencies in victim testimony, delayed complaint filing, and absence of DNA evidence do not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case, particularly in sensitive child sexual abuse matter 

What Are the Legal Framework and Provisions Addressing Child Sexual Abuse in India? 

• Legal Framework and Provisions: 
  • Statutory Protection 
    • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 provides comprehensive legal protection for children against sexual abuse 
    • Specifically addresses sexual offenses committed by family members, guardians, and persons in positions of trust 
• Key Provisions under POCSO Act 
  • Section 5(l), 5(n), and 5(j)(ii) cover aggravated sexual assault scenarios 
  • Enhanced punishments for sexual offenses committed by close relatives 
  • Strict liability provisions for familial sexual abuse cases 
• Punishment Specifications 
  • Minimum punishment of imprisonment for life 
  • Maximum penalty can extend to rigorous imprisonment 
  • Mandatory monetary fine (typically Rs. 5,000) 
  • Additional provisions for consecutive sentencing 

Cases Referred

• Tulshidas Kanolkar v. The State of Goa,2003  
  • Delay in filing a First Information Report (FIR) should not automatically lead to dismissal of a prosecution case.  
  • The court should look for a satisfactory explanation for the delay.  
  • If the explanation is natural and convincing, the delay does not render the prosecution case unreliable. 
• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. 1996 
  • In cases of sexual assault, minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the victim's statement should not be grounds for dismissing an otherwise reliable prosecution case.  
  • The testimony of a sexual assault victim is considered reliable and does not necessarily require corroboration if her statement inspires confidence.