List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the convict need not apply for remission as it is the duty of the Government to grant premature release of the prisoner. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2025).

What was the Background of In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail Case?   

• The issues that the Court determined in this case are: 
  • Whether the power to grant remission can be exercised without the convict or anyone on behalf of the convict applying to the appropriate Government for a grant of remission? 
  • What are the nature of conditions that can be imposed while granting remission? 
  • Whether there can be automatic revocation of remission granted to the convict if he commits a breach of the terms and conditions on which remission is granted? 
  • Whether there is a requirement to record reasons while rejecting applications of the convicts for grant of permanent remission?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that when setting remission conditions, necessary considerations include: 
  • Must control criminal tendencies and promote rehabilitation. 
  • Cannot be overly oppressive or prevent benefit. 
  • Must be clear and performable, not vague. 
• The appropriate Government can cancel remission only for breach of conditions, following procedures in Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024) case. 
•  The Court held that premature release decisions affect liberty under Article 21, require: 
  • Fair and reasonable exercise of power 
  • Recorded reasons for decisions 
  • Natural justice principles 
• The Court further held that Section 433-A limits remission power, requiring life-sentenced convicts to serve minimum 14 years actual imprisonment.  
• The Court clarified that the Government's power to commute sentences under Section 433 CrPC/474 BNSS is separate from remission power. 
• The Court ruled that considering remission for eligible prisoners is the Government's duty, not just an option. 
• The State must proactively identify and consider eligible prisoners for premature release without requiring applications from convicts.

What are the Provisions Related to Remission? 

• The provisions related to remission in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) are Section 432, Section 433 and Section 433A of CrPC. 
• This is contained in Section 473, Section 474 and Section 475 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Section 473 of BNSS contains the following salient provisions: 
  • The appropriate Government may suspend or remit sentences with or without conditions. 
  • Government may request the trial judge's opinion when considering applications. 
  • If conditions are not fulfilled, Government may cancel remission/suspension and the person may be arrested to serve the remaining sentence. 
  • Conditions may depend on the person's actions or be independent of their will. 
  • Government may issue rules about suspension and petition requirements, with specific provisions that:  
    • For sentences other than fines for persons over 18, petitions are only valid if the person is in jail. 
    • Petitions must be presented through jail officers or contain declaration that person is in jail. 
  • These provisions apply to any court order restricting liberty or imposing liability. 
  • "Appropriate Government" means:  
    • Central Government for offenses against Union laws 
    • State Government for other cases 
• Section 474 of BNSS provides for power to commute sentence: 
  • The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute— 
    • a sentence of death, for imprisonment for life;  
    • a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not less than seven years;  
    • a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more, for imprisonment for a term not less than three years; 
    •  a sentence of imprisonment for less than seven years, for fine;  
    • a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced. 
• Section 475 of BNSS provides for restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases: 
  • Notwithstanding anything contained in section 473, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 474 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

What are the Guidelines Issued by the Court for Remission? 

• The conclusions drawn by the Court are as follows: 
  • The appropriate Government must automatically consider all eligible convicts for premature release under Section 432 of CrPC or Section 473 of BNSS when they meet policy guidelines - no specific application from the convict or relatives is required. This obligation applies whenever jail manuals or departmental instructions contain such policy guidelines. 
  • We direct those States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to formulate a policy within two months from today.  
  • The Appropriate Government can impose conditions when granting permanent remission, but these conditions must: 
    • Be based on relevant factors mentioned in paragraph 13 
    • Aim to check criminal tendencies and support rehabilitation 
    • Not be overly oppressive or stringent that would prevent the convict from benefiting 
    • Be clear and practically performable, not vague 
  • Any order granting or refusing permanent remission must include brief reasons and be promptly communicated to the convict through prison authorities. Copies must be sent to District Legal Services Authority Secretaries. Prison authorities must inform convicts of their right to challenge remission rejection orders. 
  • As held in the case of Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat (2024), an order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict. An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons; 
  • The District Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to implement NALSA SOP in its true letter and spirit. 
  • District Legal Services Authorities must monitor implementation of conclusion (a), maintain records of convicts' relevant dates, and take necessary action when convicts become eligible for premature release consideration. State Legal Services Authorities should develop a real-time data portal for tracking this information.

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has held that the complete screenshot does not constitute fresh evidence, it's merely a rectification of an inadvertent omission and no new allegations or material changes to prosecution's case and hence, does not require compliance with Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 

• The Delhi High Court has held that in the case of Sonu v. CBI (2025). 

What was the Background of the Sonu v. CBI Case?  

• On 7th April  2017, the Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda, New Delhi, filed a complaint with the CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch regarding financial irregularities at the bank's Azadpur Branch during the demonetization period. 
• The complaint alleged fraudulent transactions involving misuse of demonetized Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes (Specified Bank Notes). 
• The CBI registered the case on 7th April 2017. While the petitioner was not initially named, he was later implicated following a subsequent complaint by the bank dated 21st April 2017. 
• The petitioner worked as a Single Window Operator – A (SWO-A) at Bank of Baroda's Azadpur Branch in Delhi. 
• During investigation, the CBI examined bank records and statements, finding that the petitioner allegedly: 
  • Falsified cash deposit slips. 
  • Altered transaction records. 
  • Replaced valid currency deposited by customers with demonetized notes. 
  • Enabled unauthorized exchange of demonetized notes in violation of RBI regulations. 
• The CBI filed a chargesheet against the petitioner under: 
  • Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• On 22nd December 2022, the prosecution filed an application seeking to: 
  • Place on record a complete screenshot from the bank's Finacle System's OHDTM menu. 
  • Recall and re-examine four witnesses. 
  • The screenshot contained transaction numbers linking the petitioner to the alleged fraud. 
• Trial Court's Observations: 
  • The screenshots sought to be placed on record were not new documents but complete copies of incomplete screenshots already on record. 
  • The incomplete filing was a non-deliberate fault on the part of the Investigating Officer, and the delay in moving the application was partly due to:  
    • Courts remaining closed during pandemic (March 2020). 
    • Court vacancy  
    • after transfer of previous judge (Nov 2021 to April 2022). 
    • Transfer of earlier prosecutor. 
  • Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to:  
    • Allow additional evidence at any stage of trial. 
    • Allow additional documents if essential for just decision. 
    • Provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. 
  • The recall of witnesses was necessary because:  
    • They were earlier shown only incomplete screenshots. 
    • They needed opportunity to clarify disputes about transaction numbers. 
    • Complete screenshots would help bring clarity to the record. 
  • Based on the above observations the trial court allowed the application of CBI. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the present appeal has been filed before the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court made the following observations: 
  • On Document Admission:  
    • The complete screenshot does not constitute fresh evidence. 
    • It's merely a rectification of an inadvertent omission. 
    • No new allegations or material changes to prosecution's case. 
    • Does not require compliance with Section 173(8) CrPC. 
  • On Fair Trial Rights:  
    • No prejudice caused to accused. 
    • Accused will get opportunity to cross-examine recalled witnesses. 
    • Accused can challenge document on all permissible grounds. 
    • No material prejudice justifying court's interference. 
  • On Procedural Aspects:  
    • Document was already part of record though incomplete. 
    • No further investigation was conducted. 
    • No new evidence collected beyond original possession. 
    • Section 173(8) CrPC not applicable. 
  • On Justice and Fair Adjudication:  
    • Criminal trial's purpose is to ensure best possible evidence. 
    • Minor omissions shouldn't hinder court's ability to ascertain truth. 
    • Incomplete evidentiary record would lead to inconclusive assessment. 
    • Technical flaws shouldn't prevent proper adjudication. 
• Based on the above observations the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the trial court finding it legally justified and procedurally sound. 

What is Section 193 of BNSS? 

About:  

• Section 173 of CrPC mandates that upon completing an investigation, the officer in charge must submit a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense.  
• This report, commonly known as a police report or charge sheet, must detail whether an offense appears to have been committed, the names of the accused, the nature of evidence collected, and whether the accused have been arrested.   
• The provision also requires that in cases where the accused has been released on bail, the report must state whether the complainant has been informed of their right to object to such release.  
• Under new criminal law this provision is given under Section 193 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).  

Legal Provisions of Section 193 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 

• Section 193 of BNSS deals with Report of police officer on completion of investigation.  
• Temporal Requirements:   
  • All investigations must be completed without unnecessary delay.  
  • For specific offenses (sections 64-68, 70-71 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4, 6, 8, 10 of POCSO Act), investigations must be completed within two months from the date of information recording.  
• Reporting Requirements:   
  • Upon completion, the officer must forward a report to an empowered Magistrate.  
  • Electronic communication is permitted for report submission.  
• The report must contain specified elements including:  
  • Names of parties  
  • Nature of information  
  • Names of persons acquainted with case circumstances   
  • Whether an offense appears committed and by whom  
  • Arrest status of accused  
  • Release status on bond/bail  
  • Custody forwarding information   
  • Medical examination reports for specific offenses  
• Communication Obligations:   
  • Officers must inform investigation progress to informant/victim within 90 days.  
  • Communication can be through any means, including electronic.  
  • Action taken must be communicated to the original informant as per State Government rules.  
• Supervisory Provisions:   
  • Where appointed, superior officers may direct further investigation pending Magistrate orders.  
  • Reports may need to be submitted through superior officers as per State Government directives.  
• Documentation Requirements:   
  • All relevant documents for prosecution must be forwarded with the report.  
  • Statements of proposed prosecution witnesses must be included.  
  • Officers may request exclusion of statement parts deemed not relevant or inexpedient.  
• Further Investigation Provisions:   
  • Further investigation is permitted after the initial report submission.  
  • Additional evidence requires forwarding of further reports.  
  • During trial, further investigation requires Court permission.  
  • Such an investigation must be completed within 90 days.  
  • The court may extend the 90-day period.  
• Procedural Safeguards:   
  • Magistrates can make orders regarding discharge of bonds.  
  • Specified number of report copies must be submitted for accused.  
  • Electronic communication of reports is considered a valid service. 

Source: Punjab & Haryana High 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi stated that the Pankaj Bansal ruling is new because it mandates that written reasons for arrest must be provided, a requirement not previously enforced. It confirmed that this rule applies prospectively to all arrests made after 03rd October 2023. 

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court held this in the matter of Ravinder v. State of Haryana (2025). 

What was the Background of Ravinder v. State of Haryana ? 

• On 23rd February 2022, Anurag @ Arjun was arrested in connection with a murder investigation. 
• Upon arrest, Anurag provided a disclosure statement admitting to committing the offence alongside Ravinder @ Tanni @ Tarun (petitioner) and Sandeep @ Koki. 
• According to Anurag's statement, he fired at the deceased with a country-made pistol, while the petitioner allegedly inflicted Danda (stick) blows to the victim's head, and Sandeep @ Koki inflicted leg and fist blows. 
• The petitioner and Sandeep @ Koki were arrested on 24th February 2022. 
• Upon their arrest, both made disclosure statements admitting involvement and stated they could help recover the motorcycle used in the incident. 
• Following Anurag's disclosure, police recovered a country-made pistol and a motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-06-AK-7850. 
• The petitioner's disclosure led to the recovery of a Danda (stick) and a motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-99KK-5009. 
• On 27th February 2022, co-accused Sahil alias Poli was arrested and admitted to selling the country-made pistol to Anurag. 
• On 8th March 2022, CCTV footage was recovered showing the deceased walking on foot at 21:27:16, followed by the petitioner and Anurag on a Pulsar motorcycle at 21:38:49, and Sandeep @ Koki with the deceased on a Splendor motorcycle at 21:38:51. 
• Post-mortem examination revealed the deceased sustained multiple injuries including a lacerated wound on the left occipital region of the scalp, a contusion on the left side of the chest wall, scratch marks on the neck, and a fatal gunshot wound. 
• The petitioner filed for bail, arguing that no specific role had been attributed to him beyond the confessional statements, and that Sandeep @ Koki (who received bail on 28th October 2024) was the one seen with the deceased in CCTV footage. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from that of Sandeep @ Koki, as the post-mortem report showed injuries caused by a blunt weapon (attributed to the petitioner) and a firearm injury (attributed to Anurag). 
• Regarding the "last seen" evidence, the Court noted that two motorcycles were captured in CCTV footage within two seconds - one carrying the petitioner with Anurag, and another carrying Sandeep with the deceased, establishing that all accused were traveling together. 
• The Court examined three Supreme Court judgments regarding the requirement to provide written grounds of arrest:  
  • Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) established that written grounds of arrest must be provided to arrestees 
  • Ram Kishore Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) clarified that the Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively from 3rd October 2023 
  • Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) endorsed both previous judgments 
• The Court determined that since the petitioner was arrested on 23rd February 2022 well before the 3rd October 2023 date when the Pankaj Bansal judgment was pronounced - he could not benefit from the requirement to provide written grounds of arrest. 
• The Court concluded that based on the evidence and legal precedents, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. 

What is the Provision for Arrest and Notice for Arrest ?  

• Section 41 and Section 41 A of CrPC provides for arrest and the notice of appearance before police officer respectively. This is contained in Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).  
• Comparison between CrPC and BNSS:

• It is to be noted that under CrPC the notice for appearance before police officer is contained in Section 41 A and the grounds of arrest are mentioned in Section 41. However, under BNSS both these provisions have been amalgamated under Section 35 of BNSS.   
• A new provision is added in the form of Section 35 (7).   
• Section 35 (7) of BNSS provides that no arrest shall be made without prior permission of the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in case:  
  • The offence is punishable for less than three years; and  
  • Such a person is infirm or above sixty years of age.