List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2026), set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 109 of BNS) (Attempt to Murder), while acquitting him of the charge. 

• The Court held that a conviction for attempt to murder cannot be sustained merely on account of the gravity of injury suffered by the victim, unless the prosecution affirmatively establishes the requisite mens rea — namely, the intention or knowledge to cause death — as an independent element of the offence.

What was the Background of Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The injured (PW3 Amar Singh) had intervened to stop an altercation between the appellant and a third party (the driver of a jeep) when he sustained injuries. 
• The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, relying primarily on the fact that the injuries were opined to be dangerous to life. 
• The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court's reasoning. 
• The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, contending that the essential ingredient of intention to cause death had not been established by the prosecution. 
• The central issue before the Court was whether a conviction under Section 307 IPC could be sustained solely on the basis of the gravity of the injury, in the absence of proof of mens rea.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Essential Ingredients of Section 307 IPC: The Court held that to constitute the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, two essential elements must be independently established: (i) intention or knowledge to commit murder, and (ii) an actual act of trying to commit murder. Both elements must be proved by the prosecution; proof of one does not substitute for the other. 
• On Mens Rea Being Independent of the Act: The Court held that the intention to commit murder exists prior to the actual attempt and must be established independently of the act itself or the actus reus. Once requisite intention is proved, the eventual outcome of the attempt becomes irrelevant — unless the attempt culminates in death, in which case the offence falls under Section 300 IPC. In the absence of proof of intention, conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained. 
• On Gravity of Injury Not Being Determinative: The Court held that the gravity of injury alone is not sufficient to fasten liability under Section 307 IPC. The intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because the injuries were ultimately opined to be dangerous to life. The prosecution must independently establish prior motive, premeditation, repeated deliberate blows with deadly weapons, or conduct indicative of a determined effort to cause death. 
• On the Circumstances of the Incident: The Court observed that there was no history of enmity between the appellant and the injured. The prosecution failed to place on record any material suggesting prior planning, preparation, or concerted intention to cause death. The incident arose suddenly when the injured intervened in a third-party altercation, and the assault appeared to be a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment, rather than pursuant to any pre-conceived intention. 
• On Undue Reliance by Courts Below: The Court found that both the trial court and the High Court had placed undue reliance on the injury being dangerous to life, whilst entirely overlooking the critical absence of the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder on the part of the appellant. The conviction was accordingly set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

What is Section 109 of BNS? 

Section 109 BNS — Attempt to Murder 

Core Definition: 

• Whoever does any act with intention or knowledge that, if death were caused by that act, he would be guilty of murder. 
• Two essential ingredients: (i) intention/knowledge to cause death, and (ii) an overt act towards commission of murder.

Punishment: 

• Basic offence: Imprisonment up to 10 years + fine. 
• If hurt is caused: Life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to 10 years + fine. 
• If the offender is already under life sentence and hurt is caused: Death, or life imprisonment (meaning remainder of natural life).

Illustrations: 

• A shoots at Z intending to kill — liable under this section even if Z survives. 
• A exposes a child in a desert intending its death — offence complete even without death. 
• A buys and loads a gun intending to kill Z — no offence yet; offence committed only when A fires. 
• A mixes poison in food kept with himself — no offence yet; offence committed when food is placed on Z's table.

Key Legal Principle: 

• Mere preparation is not sufficient — an overt act beyond preparation is necessary. 
• Gravity of injury alone does not establish the offence; mens rea must be independently proved.

Procedural Classification: 

• Cognizable 
• Non-bailable 
• Triable by Court of Session 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in Mohseen v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026), set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to an accused in an attempt to murder and Arms Act case.  

• The Court held that where bail has previously been rejected or cancelled, any subsequent order granting bail must specifically record either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered earlier. The failure to do so renders the bail order perverse and liable to be interfered with.

What was the Background of Mohseen v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The accused was facing trial in a case involving attempt to murder along with offences under the Arms Act. 
• His bail application was rejected by the Trial Court, and his bail was subsequently cancelled by the Supreme Court in an order dated January 27, 2025. 
• Following cancellation, the accused was found to have absconded and to have threatened witnesses. 
• CCTV evidence existed against the accused, and a country-made pistol had been recovered at his instance. 
• His second bail application was also rejected by the Trial Court. 
• Despite all of the above, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused without engaging with any of this material. 
• The High Court's bail order made no reference to the Supreme Court's prior cancellation order, the accused's post-cancellation conduct, the CCTV evidence, the recovery of the pistol, or the Trial Court's rejection of the second bail application. 
• The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Requirement of Recording Change in Circumstances or Fresh Grounds: The Court held that while there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by the Supreme Court, such a grant must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered at the time of cancellation. The failure to record the existence of such fresh grounds while hearing a subsequent bail application renders the bail order liable to be interfered with. 
• On the Standard of a Reasoned Order: The Court observed that mere recitation of "the facts and circumstances of the case" without revealing the factors that actually weighed with the Court in granting relief does not constitute a reasoned order. Relying on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020), the Court reiterated that an order overlooking crucial and weighty material on record is perverse and cannot be sustained. 
• On the High Court's Failure to Engage with Material on Record: The Court noted that the impugned order failed to engage with four vital aspects — the Supreme Court's order dated January 27, 2025 in the first round; the accused's conduct in absconding and threatening witnesses after bail cancellation; the CCTV evidence and recovery of the country-made pistol at his instance; and the Trial Court's rejection of his second bail application. The High Court thus erred in ignoring material placed on record by the prosecution which prima facie demonstrated his involvement in the crime. 
• On the Principles Governing Bail Orders: The Court cited Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010), reiterating that the correctness of a bail order must be assessed on the following considerations — (i) whether there is prima facie ground to believe the accused committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of punishment upon conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding if released; (v) character, behaviour, means, and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) apprehension of witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

What is Bail? 

About:  

• Bail, a legal provision within the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) facilitates release from prison pending trial or appeal upon depositing security. 
• Bailable offences guarantee the right to bail, as per Section 436 of the CrPC, while non-bailable offences grant discretion to courts or designated police officers, as outlined in Section 437. 
• Justice V R Krishna Iyer in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) held that the basic rule is bail, not jail. It referred to a concept which is ‘Bail is a Right and Jail is an exception”.

Types of Bail:

• Regular Bail: It is a direction given by the Court (any Court within the country) to release a person who is already under arrest and kept in police custody. 
• Interim Bail: Bail granted for a temporary and short period by the Court till the application seeking Anticipatory Bail or Regular Bail is pending before a Court.  
• Anticipatory Bail: It is a legal provision that allows an accused person to apply for bail before being arrested. In India, pre-arrest bail is granted under section 438 of the CrPC It is issued only by the Sessions Court and High Court.

What are the Provisions concerning Bail under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Chapter 35 of BNSS provides for provisions as to Bail and Bonds.