SUPREME COURT
Pynchemalangaki vs State of Meghalaya [Decided on September 10, 2026]
The Supreme Court ruled that a Baptismal Certificate alone is insufficient to prove a victim’s minority under the POCSO Act and emphasized that age determination must strictly follow the statutory hierarchy mandated under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. As the prosecution failed to legally establish that the victim was a minor, the Court set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. However, it was held that the failure to prove minority does not automatically result in an absolute acquittal if the underlying act of sexual assault is independently established by the evidence. Invoking its appellate powers under the CrPC, the Supreme Court modified the conviction to rape under Section 376 of the IPC, clarifying that an accused can be convicted of a cognate offence sharing the same actus reus even if a separate formal charge was not framed during the trial.
Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol vs State of Punjab [Decided on September 21, 2026]
Setting aside an order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had allowed unrestricted re-arrest, the Supreme Court ruled that an investigative agency cannot automatically or unilaterally re-arrest an individual whose initial detention was declared unconstitutional. The appellant was accused of serious sexual offenses against a minor, but was initially released by a Magistrate because the police failed to provide written grounds for his arrest and delayed producing him within 24 hours. Establishing stringent guidelines for judicial supervision, the Court mandated that any subsequent re-arrest requires prior judicial approval by a formal application to a Magistrate, which must be officially endorsed by a superior police officer, and should result in the transfer of the investigation alongside departmental action against the defaulting officers.
Antonetto J D’Souza vs Aldila Braganza [Decided on September 22, 2026]
The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order and restored a criminal trial involving allegations of forgery and cheating. The dispute arose between two neighbours in Goa, where the informant alleged that the accused had relied on an interpolated and altered copy of an approved building plan to validate an illegal construction before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. The High Court discharged the accused on ground that the prosecution failed to recover or attach the original approved plan to the charge-sheet. Overturning this discharge, the Supreme Court delivered two propositions: first, the mere absence of an original forged document is not fatal at the charge-framing stage, as the prosecution is legally entitled to establish its case through circumstantial evidence and testimonies during a full trial and second, under the principle of issue estoppel, an accused cannot re-agitate the same grounds of discharge via a second writ petition under Section 482 of the CrPC after an identical challenge has already been dismissed by a coordinate bench in a prior round of litigation.
Paramjit Singh Bedi vs State of Punjab [Decided on September 25, 2026]
The Supreme Court set aside a rape conviction, holding that courts cannot selectively accept a prosecutrix’s testimony for one charge while rejecting it as untrustworthy for a connected charge. Noting that the appellant was acquitted of kidnapping because the major prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied him for days, the Court ruled that allegations of forcible sex were uncredible given her consensual conduct and lack of distress, emphasizing that convictions require solid evidence rather than moral disapproval.
HIGH COURTS
Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan v State of U.P. [Decided on 07-09-2026]
While rejecting the bail application of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC) President allegedly involved in the 2025 Bareilly riots, the Allahabad High Court made a critical distinction regarding the provocative slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi Ke Ek Hi Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda”, ruling that it directly challenges the authority of law, undermines India’s sovereignty and integrity, and incites armed rebellion. The Court held that such a call to violence cannot be equated with peaceful, devotional religious expressions like “Allahu Akbar”, “Jai Shri Ram”, “Har Har Mahadev”, or “Sat Sri Akal”, which merely denote reverence to a God or Guru.
Arshad & Anr. v. State of U.P. [Decided on 31-08-2026]
While disposing of a recall application involving compoundable offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC, the Allahabad High Court noted that even after a legally verified compromise was officially filed by both parties, the trial judge flagrantly ignored it. Instead of dismissing the case based on the settlement, the judicial officer forced the accused to obtain bail, framed charges, and put them through a full trial. Strikingly, the trial judge defended her actions by stating that the accused’s defense lawyer wanted the trial to continue just so he could secure his legal fees. Terming this explanation unacceptable and a mockery of judicial orders, the Court warned the judicial officer to be strictly careful in the future but ultimately accepted her apology, choosing not to recommend formal disciplinary action.
Chandrakanta v. State of U.P. [Decided on 15-09-2026]
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a woman accused in a dowry suicide case due to vague allegations and FIR discrepancies. Addressing investigative practices, the Court noted that while Section 180(3) of the BNSS permits electronic recording of statements, it remained optional under local circulars. Consequently, the Court directed the Uttar Pradesh DGP to consider mandating audio-video recording for witness statements to improve transparency.
Rayees Ahmad Hajam v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir [Decided on 17-09-2026]
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed a preventive detention order issued against a Pulwama resident under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT-NDPS) Act. The petitioner was originally arrested in September 2025 after police allegedly recovered 1.3 grams of heroin from his possession, but he was subsequently granted regular bail by the trial court. Despite bail, the executive authorities invoked preventive detention, relying on a police dossier that labelled him a ‘notorious drug peddler’ who was a part of a wider drug mafia. The Court ruled that personal liberty protected under Article 21 cannot be curtailed on “vague and dogmatic assertions of the executive” while emphasizing that when ordinary penal laws are adequate to deal with an offense, resorting to preventive detention is illegal, particularly when the prosecution has failed to approach the trial court to seek cancellation of the accused’s regular bail before resorting to detention.
Devidas vs State of Maharashtra [Decided on September 09, 2026]
The Bombay High Court ruled that when a convict’s case qualifies for multiple categories under premature release guidelines, authorities must apply the most beneficial category to the convict. The case involved a life convict challenging his 26-year placement for crimes against women, arguing he qualified for a 22-year term for murders arising from a “family feud”. The Court clarified that a “family feud” covers long-standing conflicts among family members, including relatives by marriage, and emphasized that a trial judge’s opinion under Section 432(2) of the CrPC on remission must be reasoned and contextualised.
Santhosh Kumar vs State of Karnataka [Decided on September 17, 2026]
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a charge sheet involving Section 307 of the IPC, ruling that an assault on the abdomen of a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy legally warrants the invocation of this charge. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to dismiss criminal proceedings, arguing that the medical certificates showed no visible bleeding injuries, no weapon was used, and that the mother subsequently gave birth to a completely healthy baby a month later. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the absence of a corresponding bleeding injury or weapon does not negate an attempt to murder charge when the target area is the abdomen of a heavily pregnant woman.