Kanoon Ki Dastak, Jammu (2026)

26/09/2026

Jammu Court Rejects Bail to Seven Accused in 2022 Dacoity Case

JAMMU// The Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu, presided over by Anoop Kumar Sharma, has rejected bail applications filed by seven under-trial accused in the 2022 dacoity case.

The court observed that no substantial change in circumstances had been shown to warrant reconsideration of bail and noted that crucial prosecution witnesses were now being examined.

The court further held that there remained a reasonable apprehension of the accused influencing or tampering with prosecution evidence, particularly as the testimony of key witnesses was underway.

The accused are facing trial in FIR No. 310/2022 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar under Sections 395, 342, 120-B and 171 IPC and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.

The court accordingly dismissed all six bail applications.

26/09/2026

Muslim Personal Law Cannot Shield Sexual In*******se With Minor Wife From POCSO: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that a marriage recognised under Muslim personal law does not grant immunity from prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), where the wife was below 18 years of age at the time of sexual in*******se.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that personal law cannot override statutory protections afforded to children under the POCSO Act and the BNS.

The Court held that a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot, merely by virtue of that status, confer immunity from prosecution for sexual in*******se with a wife who was below 18 years at the relevant time.

“Any other view would create, through judicial decision, an exception which Parliament has expressly excluded,” the Court observed.

The ruling underscores that the statutory protection accorded to minors under the POCSO Act operates irrespective of the personal law under which a marriage is claimed to be valid.

26/09/2026

Non-Recovery of Train Ticket Cannot Defeat Compensation Claim: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI// The Supreme Court has held that non-recovery of a train ticket from a deceased passenger cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny compensation, observing that the status of a bona fide passenger can be established on the basis of the overall circumstances and evidence on record.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order which had rejected the compensation claim filed by the parents of a man who died after falling from a moving train in Gujarat in 2017.

The deceased, Maheshbhai, had fallen from the general compartment after an alleged sudden jerk and jolt while travelling towards Surat via Ahmedabad on September 27, 2017. He was subsequently hospitalised for more than a month before succumbing to his injuries.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had given undue importance to the absence of a railway ticket, while failing to adequately consider the statement made on oath by the deceased’s father and the fact that the victim had remained hospitalised for over a month.

“On the preponderance of probabilities, it can be concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that absence of recovery of his ticket cannot result in defeating the claim for compensation,” the bench observed.

The Supreme Court accordingly restored the compensation awarded to the deceased’s parents.

26/09/2026

Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Against Replacement of J&K Legal Aid Defence Counsels with Panel Lawyers

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the proposed non-renewal of Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) in Jammu & Kashmir and their replacement with a panel-lawyer system.

A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale directed that no third-party rights shall be created in respect of the engagement of Legal Aid Defence Counsels, observing that such engagements shall remain subject to the further orders of the Court. The matter was also directed to be tagged with connected proceedings.

The plea challenges the proposed discontinuation of existing LADC engagements upon completion of their contractual tenure and the subsequent selection/interview process for appointment of panel lawyers.

The petitioners have sought continuation of the LADC system and existing counsels, including continuation till March/April 2027, besides consideration of their continuation on the basis of performance, availability of funds and NALSA instructions.

The Supreme Court’s September 18 order does not finally decide the legality of replacing the LADC system with a panel-lawyer system. The Court has only issued notice and passed the interim direction protecting the existing engagements from creation of third-party rights pending further orders.

26/09/2026

Remarks Against PM Did Not Constitute Intentional Insult: Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Shopkeeper

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a shopkeeper accused of offences under Sections 285 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that remarks allegedly made against the Prime Minister did not amount to intentional insult of the complainant.

Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner had abused or intentionally insulted the complainant with an intention to provoke a breach of peace. The allegation that he made statements against the Prime Minister was found to be general and omnibus.

The Court also noted a four-day delay in lodging the complaint, which was not properly explained.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., the Court held that mere abuse or rudeness does not constitute intentional insult unless the requisite intention or knowledge to provoke breach of peace is established.

Holding that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

26/09/2026

Supreme Court Issues Notice on Proposed Replacement of J&K Legal Aid Defence Counsels with Panel Lawyers

New Delhi// The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the proposed non-renewal of Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) in Jammu & Kashmir and their replacement with a panel-lawyer system.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale also directed that the matter be tagged with connected proceedings concerning the issue.

The petition challenges the decision to discontinue existing LADC engagements upon completion of their contractual tenure and the subsequent process for selection of panel lawyers.

It seeks continuation of the existing LADC system and existing counsels, subject to the applicable scheme and NALSA instructions.

Passing an interim direction, the Supreme Court ordered that “no third party rights shall be created” in respect of the engagement of Legal Aid Defence Counsels, making such engagements subject to the further orders of the Court.

The Court has not yet finally decided the legality of replacing the LADC system with a panel-lawyer system. The matter will be considered further after notice.

26/09/2026

Supreme Court Restricts Re-Arrest After Illegal Arrest, Directs Departmental Action Against Erring Officers

The Supreme Court has held that where an accused is released because of a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the investigating agency cannot be permitted to re-arrest him solely at the discretion of the same authority that committed the constitutional violation.

A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observations while deciding an appeal in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab.

The Court reiterated that the requirement to furnish the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard and not a mere procedural formality. The grounds of arrest must ordinarily be communicated in writing and in a language understood by the arrested person.

The Court held that if, after the release of an accused for violation of Article 22(1), the investigating agency considers custodial interrogation necessary, it must first furnish the grounds of arrest and thereafter move an application before the concerned Magistrate seeking custody.

The application must specify the reasons and necessity for re-arrest and must also explain why the grounds of arrest were not supplied at the first instance.

Importantly, the Court directed that such an application must carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.

“It must have the judicial imprimatur,” the Court observed, holding that the power to re-arrest cannot be left to the discretion of the very authority which had earlier violated Article 22(1).

The Supreme Court also laid down administrative safeguards in cases involving such constitutional violations.

It directed that when the superior authority receives an application seeking custody of an accused who was released for violation of Article 22(1), the investigation should be handed over to another officer and a departmental enquiry should be directed against the officer(s) responsible for the violation.

The Court further held that if the departmental enquiry results in an adverse finding against the erring police officer(s), it would entail departmental action with an entry in the service book of the concerned officer(s).

The Court also considered violation of Article 22(2), which requires an arrested person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey.

It held that where an accused has been released because of a violation of Article 22(2), and the investigating agency still seeks his custody, the safeguards and procedure laid down by the Court must likewise be followed. Depending upon the facts, the High Court may also award compensation as a public law remedy for violation of Article 22(2).

The Bench emphasized that constitutional safeguards cannot be diluted on the basis of the gravity of the alleged offence.

The Court observed that violation of the Constitution “cannot be countenanced” and that the safeguards under Article 22 are “not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence.”

It further stressed that whenever the Constitution or law prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty, courts must ensure that the procedure is “rigorously observed.”

In the case before it, the appellant had been arrested in connection with allegations under the BNS and POCSO Act. The Magistrate had found that written grounds of arrest were not supplied and had directed his release. The appellant was also allegedly produced before the Magistrate beyond the constitutionally prescribed period of 24 hours.

The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order and directed that if the respondents consider custodial interrogation necessary, they must follow the procedure prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah and the additional safeguards laid down in the present judgment.

26/09/2026

JKCA Case: J&K High Court Rejects ED Plea to Add Sections 411, 424 RPC Against Farooq Abdullah, Others

Srinagar, September 25: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s plea seeking addition of charges under Sections 411 and 424 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) in the alleged Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) funds-misappropriation case involving former JKCA president and National Conference leader Dr. Farooq Abdullah and others.

Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the material presently forming part of the CBI charge-sheet did not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 411 and 424 RPC.

The case relates to allegations of misappropriation of JKCA funds received from the BCCI. The CBI charge-sheet alleges that approximately ₹43.69 crore was misappropriated pursuant to a criminal conspiracy involving Farooq Abdullah and other accused. Charges have already been framed under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC.

The ED had approached the Trial Court seeking addition of Sections 411 and 424 RPC, contending that the material in the CBI charge-sheet also disclosed these offences. The Trial Court had rejected the application, including on the ground that the ED lacked locus standi.

The High Court held that the Trial Court was wrong in completely negating the ED’s locus to bring relevant material to its notice, particularly after liberty had earlier been granted to the ED to approach the Trial Court.

However, the High Court clarified that such liberty did not mean that the proposed charges had to be framed. The Court was required to independently examine whether the material on record prima facie established the ingredients of the additional offences.

On Section 411 RPC, Justice Parihar observed that participation in the principal offence of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation does not, by itself, make a person a receiver of stolen property. There must be material showing a distinct receipt or retention of stolen property with knowledge or reason to believe that it was stolen.

The Court held that the alleged movement of JKCA funds through different accounts, on the material presently available, formed part of the alleged principal transaction of conspiracy and misappropriation and did not establish a distinct subsequent receipt or retention attracting Section 411 RPC.

The Court accordingly partly allowed the ED’s petition by setting aside the finding that the ED had no locus to move the application, but rejected its substantive request to add Sections 411 and 424 RPC.

The High Court made it clear that the Trial Court would remain free to alter or add charges under Section 216 CrPC if further evidence emerging during the trial prima facie discloses these or any other offences.

25/09/2026

Collegium Should Include President’s Nominee, Attorney General: Retired Justice Pankaj Mithal

New Delhi: Retired Supreme Court Justice Pankaj Mithal has called for reform of the judicial appointments process, suggesting that the Supreme Court Collegium should be expanded to include representatives beyond the senior judiciary.

Speaking at the fifth edition of Nyay Nirman @ 2047: Building the Legal Architecture of India’s Global Future, Justice Mithal proposed a seven-member Collegium, with the additional members including an eminent person nominated by the President of India or the Attorney General for India.

He further suggested that the seventh member could be a distinguished constitutional functionary nominated by the President, such as the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

Justice Mithal said the present Collegium system, though established with good intentions, requires substantial improvement and greater inclusiveness. He said participation of the Bar and independent constitutional authorities could help restore public confidence in judicial appointments.

He also called for fixing the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges at 65 years and questioned the practice of appointing Chief Justices of High Courts shortly before their retirement.

Justice Mithal urged the Law Ministry, Supreme Court and other stakeholders to seriously deliberate on reforms to the judicial appointments mechanism.

25/09/2026

“Failed Relationship Cannot Justify Implication of Extended Family”: Jammu Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Four

Jammu, September 25: The Fast Track Court Jammu has granted anticipatory bail to four members of the family of a man accused in a sexual exploitation case, observing that implication of extended family members merely because a long-standing relationship between the prosecutrix and the main accused had turned sour is not something the law encourages.

Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh passed the order while considering an application for anticipatory bail filed by four family members of the main accused.

The prosecution opposed the plea, submitting that the applicants were the parents and siblings of the main accused and that the investigation was at an initial stage. It was also argued that important electronic evidence was yet to be collected.

The complainant also opposed the application, alleging that the applicants were aware of her relationship with the main accused and had given assurances concerning their proposed marriage.

According to the investigation referred to by the Court, the complainant and the main accused had met while working together at a computer centre around three years ago. Their acquaintance allegedly developed into regular conversations and subsequently into a relationship.

It was alleged that the main accused had promised to marry the complainant and subsequently established physical relations with her on several occasions. The investigation further alleged that on one occasion he took her to a secluded place and, on another occasion, to a hotel, where he allegedly put a mangalsutra around her neck and applied sindoor, declaring her to be his wife.

The relationship subsequently turned sour after the complainant allegedly came to know that the main accused had become engaged to another woman. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged.

While examining the allegations against the family members, the Court noted that they were the parents and siblings of the main accused and that the allegations against them were essentially derivative.

The Court observed that, apart from the allegation that the family members had allegedly assured the complainant regarding her marriage with the main accused, no specific and overt role in any deceitful design had been attributed to them.

The Court remarked:

“Long standing relation between prosecutrix and main accused having been turned sour, implication of extended family members in such failed relationship – is something law does not encourage.”

The Court further observed that the investigation conducted so far did not demonstrate that the family members were parties to the private understanding and intimate relationship between the complainant and the main accused.

It held that merely on the basis of an alleged assurance regarding marriage, criminal liability could not be fastened upon the parents and siblings of the man involved in the failed relationship, on the facts of the case.

Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to all four applicants and directed that, in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds of ₹25,000 each.

Kanoon Ki Dastak

26/09/2026

26/09/2026

26/09/2026

26/09/2026

26/09/2026

26/09/2026

26/09/2026

26/09/2026

25/09/2026

25/09/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request