List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that dismissal of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR does not bar the filing of an anticipatory bail application, as both are distinct legal remedies. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Prashant Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Prashant Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another (2025) Case? 

• The case involves Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 398 of 2025 filed by Prashant Shukla. 
• An FIR (No. 0238 of 2025) was registered at Sushant Golf City Police Station, Lucknow South under Sections 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961.  
• The FIR was lodged on 31st March 2025 against the applicant, his father, mother, and elder brother. 
• The informant alleged that his daughter was married to the applicant's elder brother (Sushant Shukla) on 21st April 2024. 
• The informant claimed that all accused persons harassed his daughter for dowry demands. 
• The deceased's husband, working as Lance Naik in the Indian Army and posted in Guwahati, allegedly ill-treated her and had recently left her at his family home. 
• The informant's daughter had reportedly complained about ill-treatment, but the informant chose not to file any complaint. 
• The alleged offence took place on 29th March 2025 when the applicant's mother (co-accused Rekha) allegedly strangulated the informant's daughter. 
• The applicant is a 21-year-old B.Tech student whose examinations were scheduled to commence shortly. 
• The applicant approached the High Court directly after the Sessions Court had rejected interim protection from arrest for the three co-accused persons. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court noted that writ petition for quashing of FIR and application for anticipatory bail constitute altogether different remedies. 
• The Court observed that these remedies are to be decided on different sets of considerations and grounds. 
• The Court held that dismissal of a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR does not create a bar on filing an application for grant of anticipatory bail. 
• The Court emphasized that an anticipatory bail application must be considered on its own merits irrespective of previous writ petition outcomes. 
• The Court noted that the postmortem report mentioned a ligature mark around the neck, passing obliquely upward and backward, interrupted by 6cm on posterolateral aspect of left side of neck. 
• The Court observed that the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging with no other injuries found on the body. 
• The Court found that no specific allegation had been levelled against the applicant in particular. 
• The Court considered the applicant's young age (21 years) and his pursuit of a bachelor's degree in engineering as relevant factors. 
• The Court acknowledged the applicant's undertaking to cooperate in the investigation and trial. 
• The Court determined that the facts were sufficient to make out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 

What is Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNNS) provides the statutory framework for anticipatory bail in the Indian criminal justice system. 
• This provision empowers the High Court and Court of Sessions to grant pre-arrest bail to individuals who apprehend arrest for alleged commission of non-bailable offences. 
• Section 482 establishes the legal mechanism through which a person may seek judicial protection from potential arrest, maintaining personal liberty while ensuring cooperation with investigation. 
• The provision stipulates that any person with reasonable belief regarding possible arrest for a non-bailable offence may apply for anticipatory bail before the High Court or Court of Session. 
• Upon application, the Court is vested with discretionary power to direct release on bail in the event of arrest of the applicant. 
• The Court is empowered to impose specific conditions while granting anticipatory bail to balance individual liberty with investigative requirements. 
• Mandatory conditions include requiring the applicant to make themselves available for police interrogation as and when required. 
• The applicant is prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to witness or persons acquainted with case facts. 
• An anticipatory bail grantee is restricted from leaving India without prior court permission. 
• The Court may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary under Section 480(3) of the BNS. 
• Upon grant of anticipatory bail, if the person is subsequently arrested without warrant, they shall be released on bail upon readiness to provide bail. 
• If a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence determines that a warrant should be issued against the person, it must be a bailable warrant in conformity with the court's direction. 
• The provision specifically excludes its applicability in cases involving accusations under Section 65 (punishment for rape in certain cases) and Section 70(2) (gang rape on a woman under 18 years of age) of the BNS. 
• Section 482 represents the legislative continuation of the provision formerly contained in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What is Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

• Section 80 - Dowry Death 
  • Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) criminalizes "dowry death" as a specific form of homicide. 
  • The provision establishes a presumptive connection between dowry-related harassment and the subsequent unnatural death of a married woman. 
  • For an offence to be classified as dowry death under Section 80(1), the following essential elements must be established:  
    • Death of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury, or under circumstances not considered normal. 
    • Death occurring within seven years of marriage. 
    • Evidence showing the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives prior to death. 
    • Such cruelty or harassment being connected to dowry demands. 
  • The section creates a legal presumption that the husband or relatives who subjected the woman to dowry-related harassment shall be deemed to have caused her death. 
  • The term "dowry" carries the same meaning as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
  • Section 80(2) prescribes the punishment for dowry death as imprisonment for a minimum term of seven years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. 

Source: Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) protects the period of limitation when proceedings are withdrawn due to jurisdictional defects. 

• The Calcutta High Court held this in the case of Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr v. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr v. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• Radha Krishan Poddar (predecessor of the decree holders) initiated an execution proceeding (No. 9 of 2002) to execute an arbitral award dated December 22, 2001. 
• Radha Krishan Poddar passed away on August 24, 2014, and the opposite parties (legal heirs) were substituted in the case on October 30, 2014. 
• In 2018, the opposite parties realized that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction over the matter and consequently withdrew the proceeding. 
• They filed a fresh execution case (No. 535 of 2018) before the District Judge, Alipore, which was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Judge. 
• During the pendency of this execution proceeding, the petitioners (award debtors) filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) questioning the execution of the decree. 
• The Executing Court dismissed this application, leading to the present revision application.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The petitioners challenged the execution on three grounds:  
  • The arbitral award had lost enforceability due to delay. 
  • Improper appointment of the arbitrator. 
  • Absence of an arbitration agreement. 
• The Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 (LA) protects the period of limitation when proceedings are withdrawn due to jurisdictional defects. 
• The Court determined that challenging the appointment of an arbitrator during execution proceedings is not permissible, as such challenges must be made during arbitration proceedings under Sections 12-16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
• The Court affirmed that questions regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement must be raised either before the arbitral tribunal or in court proceedings at an early stage, not during execution. 
• The Court found that the withdrawal of the earlier execution case was properly done with a specific prayer to file before the appropriate forum due to jurisdictional issues. 
• The Court determined that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a complete code, and provisions of Section 47 of CPC have limited application in execution proceedings under this Act. 
• The Court dismissed the revision application, finding no grounds to interfere with the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

What is Section 14 of LA?

• When computing the limitation period for a suit, the time during which the plaintiff was diligently pursuing another civil proceeding against the same defendant for the same matter shall be excluded if that proceeding was filed in good faith in a court that lacked jurisdiction. 
• Similarly, for applications, the time spent pursuing another civil proceeding against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded if that proceeding was filed in good faith in a court without jurisdiction. 
• This provision also applies to fresh suits filed with court permission when the original suit failed due to jurisdictional defects. 
• When calculating the excluded time period, both the day on which the original proceeding began and the day it ended are counted. 
• A plaintiff or applicant who is resisting an appeal is considered to be prosecuting a proceeding for the purposes of this section. 
• Misjoinder of parties or causes of action is treated as equivalent to a jurisdictional defect under this provision. 
• This section essentially protects litigants who have filed cases in good faith in the wrong court by allowing them to exclude that time when calculating the limitation period for filing in the correct court.