Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

Supreme Court Clarifies No Offence of Cheating Where Forged Document Did Not Induce Material Benefit The legal Bandhu 48.3K followers September 12, 2025 Authored by ABHISHEK J. The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in the criminal appeal of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2025 LiveLaw SC 893), elucidating the foundational principles for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment has substantial implications for litigants and legal practitioners engaged with white-collar offences involving forged documents. Background of the Case The appellant, representing JVRR Education Society, operated an educational institution from a building with a height of 14.20 metres. Allegations arose that the appellant submitted a forged Fire Department No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Education Department in Kurnool to secure affiliation and recognition for the college. The complaint origin...

Pre-Arrest Medical Examination and the 24-Hour Rule: Judicial Clarification by the Bombay High Court By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Bombay High Court, in the case of Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025), delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the legal position regarding the computation of the 24-hour period within which an arrested person must be produced before a magistrate. The Division Bench, comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held that the time spent in pre-arrest medical examination cannot be excluded from this statutory timeline, and any detention exceeding 24 hours without judicial authorization is illegal. Factual Background The petitioner, Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar, a 58-year-old retired individual, was implicated in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and dishonest misappropriation of a substantial sum. After the rejection of his anticipatory bail by both the High Court and subsequently the ...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Indian criminal justice system’s approach to FIRs and chargesheets is the result of a nuanced interplay between statutory law and judicial interpretation. Over the years, the Supreme Court and High Courts have delivered a series of transformative judgments that have clarified the powers of the police, the rights of the accused and complainants, and the supervisory role of the judiciary. This article presents a detailed analysis of these landmark rulings, reshuffling their order to offer fresh perspective on their collective impact.

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction Bail is a vital component of the Indian criminal justice system, serving as a bridge between the presumption of innocence and the necessity of ensuring the accused’s presence at trial. The concept of bail is rooted in the fundamental right to liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The process of seeking bail, however, is governed by statutory provisions, judicial discretion, and practical considerations that collectively ensure a balance between individual rights and societal interests. Legal Framework: Statutory Provisions Governing Bail The law relating to bail in India has undergone significant evolution, with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), now serving as the principal statute. The BNSS replaced corresponding sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and introduced certain refinements to the bail regime. The relevant sections under the BNSS are as follows: Section 479: Governs the ...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate A Fictional Case Study: When Law Meets Young Love Seventeen-year-old Aman and sixteen-year-old Priya, both from neighboring villages, found themselves at the center of a criminal case under the POCSO Act after Priya’s parents discovered their consensual relationship. Despite the absence of coercion or exploitation, Aman was arrested, and Priya was labeled a victim by law. Their story is not unique—across India, similar cases have raised questions about the proportionality of punishment under the POCSO Act in situations involving mutual adolescent consent. The Legal Issue: Is the POCSO Act Overreaching? The POCSO Act, 2012, was designed to provide robust protection for children against sexual offences. However, by criminalizing all sexual activity involving individuals under 18, the law makes no distinction between exploitative abuse and consensual adolescent relationships. This zero-tolerance approach has led to the prosecution of thousands of teenagers ...

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Case Title: Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019] Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Factual Matrix The Supreme Court addressed an appeal arising from a protracted dowry-related prosecution, where the appellant, Rajesh Chaddha, had been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complainant, Mala Chaddha, had alleged persistent mental and physical harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimonies of the complainant and her father, with no corroborative medical or documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations of physical cruelty or miscarriage. Procedural History The trial court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 323/34 and 506 IPC due to lack of evidence but convicted him under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the...

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction Anticipatory bail is a significant legal safeguard within the criminal justice system, designed to protect individuals from unwarranted arrest and detention. In a recent matter before the Patna High Court, the application of anticipatory bail was examined in the context of grave allegations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Case Overview Case Title: Raj Kumar & Devanti Devi v. State of Bihar Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10019 of 2018 Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya Court: Patna High Court Date of Order: 27th March 2018 Factual Matrix The petitioners, Raj Kumar and Devanti Devi, faced accusations stemming from Mahila P.S. Case No. 39 of 2017, registered in Aurangabad district. The charges invoked were under Section 354A (sexual harassment), Section 504 (intentional insult), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with Section 8 of ...

Supreme Court Mandates Disclosure of Criminal History in Bail Applications Key Procedural Reform Established in Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant ruling that refines bail application procedures, the Supreme Court of India has instituted a mandatory disclosure requirement for petitioners seeking relief under Sections 438/439 or 482/483 of procedural law. The directive came in the case of Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , where a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Allahabad High Court's bail rejection was dismissed. The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan noted that the petitioner, arrested in May 2018 in connection with a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, had failed to disclose his criminal antecedents, which included eight pending/closed cases and a conviction under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. The Bench observed that such non-disclosure constituted suppression ...