List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court observed that "anticipatory bail is never granted in NDPS cases" while refusing to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana.  

What was the Background of Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner Dinesh Chander was implicated in a drug trafficking case where his name surfaced in disclosure statements of co-accused persons. 
• The co-accused were found in possession of 60 kgs of Doda Post and 1kg 800 grams of opium, and they named the petitioner as the supplier of the contraband. 
• The petitioner was not named in the original FIR but was subsequently implicated based on disclosure statements of the co-accused. 
• The case involved commercial quantity of contraband, which attracts the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 
• The petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail, claiming he was falsely implicated and roped in based on disclosure statements. 
• The state opposed the bail plea, contending that custodial interrogation was required to unearth the modus operandi of the drug trafficking network. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and KV Viswanathan observed that "We are not satisfied that any error has been committed by the High Court in refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in NDPS Case." 
• The Supreme Court made the oral observation that "Anticipatory bail is never granted in NDPS case", reinforcing the established jurisprudence on drug-related offences. 
• The Court noted that the High Court had correctly identified that the petitioner was specifically named as the supplier by the co-accused during their disclosure statements. 
• The High Court had also found evidence of telephonic conversations between the petitioner and the co-accused, along with bank transactions between them, establishing a prima facie case. 
• The Supreme Court, however, provided an alternative remedy, stating that the petitioner could surrender before the Trial Court and apply for regular bail, which shall be dealt with on its own merits in accordance with law. 
• The Court refused to interfere with the High Court's decision, upholding the stringent approach towards anticipatory bail in NDPS cases. 

What is the NDPS Act, 1985? 

About: 

• The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a comprehensive legislation to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 
• The Act aims to prevent and control the cultivation, production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, use, consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India, or transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 
• The Act classifies quantities of drugs into small quantity, commercial quantity, and intermediate quantity, with different penalties for each category. 
• The Act empowers officers to search and seizure without warrant under certain circumstances and provides for presumptive offences where the burden of proof shifts to the accused. 

Section 37 of NDPS Act: 

• Section 37 of the Act provides special provisions for bail in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, making bail more restrictive than ordinary criminal cases 
• Section 37(1) provides that every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable. 
• No person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A of the Act and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond. 
  • Unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application. 
  • The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 
• Section 37(2) states that no person accused of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for not less than ten years shall be released on bail unless the conditions under Section 37(1) are satisfied. 
  • Section 37(2) of NDPS Act explicitly states that "the limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 
• The provision applies to both regular bail and anticipatory bail, making it extremely difficult to obtain pre-arrest bail in NDPS cases.

Source: Patna High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Jitendra Kumar held that living in adultery under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) implies a continuous adulterous relationship, not isolated acts of infidelity. 

• The Patna High Court held this in the matter of Babul Khatoon & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Babul Khatoon & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2025) Case? 

• Bulbul Khatoon and Md. Shamshad were married and had a son named Danish Raza @ Rahul. The marriage faced difficulties when Md. Shamshad began making unlawful demands for additional dowry from his wife. 
• On 17th July 2017, Bulbul Khatoon left her matrimonial home along with her newly born child. According to her version, she was ousted by her husband due to her inability to meet his illegal dowry demands. 
• Triple Talaq Pronouncement: Md. Shamshad claimed that he divorced his wife by pronouncing Triple Talaq in the presence of one witness in a single sitting. However, he admitted that he neither paid maintenance to his wife during the iddat period nor paid the dainmehar (mehr amount) to her. 
• Md. Shamshad alleged that his wife had been living in an adulterous relationship with one Md. Tarikat, claiming this was the reason for her departure from the matrimonial home. Adultery is considered an offence against one's spouse under matrimonial laws. 
• Bulbul Khatoon filed a criminal complaint against her husband regarding the dowry harassment, which remained pending during the proceedings. 
• Second Marriage: Md. Shamshad subsequently entered into a second marriage with one Kajal Perween, and they had a minor daughter together. 
• Financial Circumstances: 
  • Md. Shamshad worked as a labourer. 
  • Bulbul Khatoon had no independent means of income. 
  • After leaving the matrimonial home, Bulbul Khatoon has been residing at her parental home with her minor son. 
• Maintenance Application: 
  • Bulbul Khatoon and her minor son filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC on 30th October 2017. 
• The Family Court denied maintenance to Bulbul Khatoon, accepting the husband's contention that she was living in adultery with Md. Tarikat. However, the court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the minor son Danish Raza @ Rahul. 
• Aggrieved by the Family Court's decision to deny maintenance to the wife, the matter was brought before the Patna High Court through a criminal revision petition. 
• Legal Issues Raised: 
  • Whether Triple Talaq pronounced by the husband was valid and effective. 
  • Whether the wife was actually living in adultery as alleged. 
  • Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 
  • The quantum of maintenance to be awarded considering the husband's financial capacity and dependents. 
  • The case primarily revolved around determining the wife's entitlement to maintenance, with the husband's defence being that she had forfeited her right due to alleged adultery, while the wife maintained that she was forced to leave due to dowry harassment and was living respectably at her parental home. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Legal Status of Triple Talaq: The Court observed that Triple Talaq is illegal and invalid in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shayara Bano case, wherein Triple Talaq has been held to be arbitrary and illegal, and the Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Marriage) Act, 2019 also declares Triple Talaq void and illegal. 
• Distinction Between Committing and Living in Adultery: The Court observed that "living in adultery" is distinct from "committing adultery" and noted that adultery is an offence against one's spouse, but "living in adultery" denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality. 
• Standard for Proving Adultery: The Court observed that one or two lapses from virtues would be acts of adultery but would be quite insufficient to show that the woman was "living in adultery", and a mere lapse followed by a return to normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery. 
• Evidence Assessment: The Court observed that there was no cogent evidence on record to show that Bulbul Khatoon was living with Md. Tarikat, nor was anybody a direct witness to any adulterous life, and no witness examined on behalf of Md. Shamshad had given any date, time and place of such alleged adulterous relationship. 
• Husband's Obligation to Maintain: The Court observed that an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, with the onus being on the husband to establish with necessary material that he is unable to maintain the family. 
• Maintenance from Date of Application: The Court observed that maintenance is required to be awarded from the date of application in the interest of justice and fair play, because the period during which the maintenance proceeding remains pending is not within the control of the applicant. 

What is Living in Adultery under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) ? 

• Definition and Scope: Living in adultery under Section 144 of the BNSS is a specific ground that disqualifies a wife from receiving maintenance allowance or interim maintenance from her husband. 
• Distinction from Committing Adultery: Living in adultery denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality, distinguishing it from merely committing adultery which may involve one or two lapses from virtue. 
• Standard of Proof Required: A mere lapse, whether it is one or two instances, followed by a return to normal life cannot be said to constitute living in adultery, as it requires a sustained pattern of adulterous behavior. 
• Continuity Requirement: If the lapse is continued and followed up by further adulterous life, only then can a woman be said to be living in adultery, establishing the need for ongoing misconduct rather than isolated incidents. 
• Burden of Proof: The husband claiming that his wife is living in adultery must provide cogent evidence with specific details including dates, times, and places of such alleged adulterous relationship to establish the continuous course of conduct. 
• Legal Consequences: Under Section 144(1) of BNSS, 2023, a wife who is living in adultery forfeits her right to claim maintenance from her husband, making it a complete bar to maintenance proceedings. 
• Evidentiary Standards: Courts require direct evidence or credible witnesses to establish that a woman is living in adultery, and mere allegations or suspicions without substantial proof are insufficient to deny maintenance. 
• Judicial Interpretation: The legal framework treats living in adultery as an offence against the spouse, but requires courts to carefully distinguish between temporary moral lapses and a sustained adulterous lifestyle before denying maintenance rights. 

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that marital discord, in the absence of cogent evidence of immediate provocation or instigation, is not sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court held this in the matter of Kulwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2025). 

What was the Background of Kulwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2025) Case? 

• Kulwinder Kaur married Lovepreet Singh on 19th February 2024, in a ceremony conducted according to religious rites and ceremonies.  
• Lovepreet Singh was the elder brother of the complainant Gurpreet Singh. Shortly after the marriage, marital discord began between the couple. 
• According to the complaint filed by Gurpreet Singh, his sister-in-law Kulwinder Kaur allegedly maintained telephonic conversations, chatting, and video calls with one Vijay Kumar, son of Malkit Singh, resident of Village Raipur, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. The deceased husband Lovepreet Singh reportedly expressed his distress about this situation to his brother multiple times. 
• When Lovepreet Singh approached his mother-in-law Reshma (wife of Ram Chand) seeking her intervention to persuade her daughter to cease these communications, Reshma allegedly stated that her daughter had been friends with Vijay Kumar for a long period and would continue having conversations with him. The family subsequently took Kulwinder Kaur back to her parental home at Village Burj, Tehsil Ratia. 
• Despite the separation, it was alleged that Kulwinder Kaur and her mother Reshma continued to harass Lovepreet Singh. The complainant stated that his brother became increasingly upset and depressed due to these ongoing issues. 
• On 21st May, 2024, at approximately 6:00 AM, Lovepreet Singh died during treatment at Adesh Hospital after consuming insecticide. He had initially been admitted to Juneja Hospital, Malout, before being referred to Adesh Hospital due to his critical condition. 
• An FIR was registered under Sections 306, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Section 506 IPC was later deleted from the charges. Kulwinder Kaur was arrested and remained in custody for over one year before filing this bail application. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the State failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish immediate provocation or instigation on the part of the petitioner, particularly noting the absence of a suicide note.  
• The Court found that direct allegations and frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased arising out of misunderstandings and discord alone were not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 
• The Court noted that such disputes between a husband and wife may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life and, without credible and substantial evidence, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide. 
• The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or prison is an exception.  
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, which established that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence. 
• The Court noted that the petitioner had already suffered incarceration of 1 year and 1 day and was a person of clean antecedents. Additionally, the co-accused had already been granted regular bail by the Court vide order dated 14th November, 2024. 
• The Court observed that the investigation was complete, challan had been presented on 20th July, 2024, and charges had been framed on 24th September 2024. However, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined so far, indicating that the conclusion of trial was likely to take considerable time. 
• The Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial is part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another. The Court quoted Oscar Wilde's "The Ballad of Reading Gaol" to highlight the impact of prolonged incarceration on an accused person. 
• The Court stressed that a humane attitude is required while dealing with bail applications, considering factors such as maintaining the dignity of an accused person, requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution, and the problem of overcrowding in prisons. 

What is Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the offence of abetment of suicide.  
  • This provision has replaced Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as part of the comprehensive reform of criminal law in India.  
  • The provision establishes criminal liability for any person who abets the commission of suicide by another individual. 
  • Under this section, abetment encompasses any conduct that encourages, assists, or incites another person to commit suicide.  
  • The provision covers a wide spectrum of actions including direct persuasion, emotional manipulation, psychological coercion, or providing means and opportunity for the commission of suicide. 
• Forms of Abetment: The abetment may manifest through various forms of conduct such as verbal instigation, written communication encouraging suicide, providing physical means or instruments for self-harm, creating circumstances that psychologically compel a person to end their life, or any other form of assistance or encouragement that contributes to the decision to commit suicide. 
• Criminal Liability Framework: The section establishes that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be held criminally liable.  
  • The provision requires a direct nexus between the act of abetment and the commission of suicide by the deceased person. 
• Punishment Structure: Upon conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS, the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.  
  • The court has discretionary power to determine the nature and duration of imprisonment based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• Types of Imprisonment: The phrase "imprisonment of either description" refers to the court's discretion to impose either rigorous imprisonment involving hard labour or simple imprisonment without hard labour. 
  • The choice between these two forms of imprisonment depends on the severity of the offence and the circumstances under which it was committed. 
• Additional Financial Penalty: In addition to imprisonment, the convicted person shall also be liable to payment of fine.  
  • The quantum of fine is not specified in the provision, leaving it to the judicial discretion of the court to determine an appropriate monetary penalty based on the gravity of the offence and the financial capacity of the offender. 
• Judicial Interpretation and Application: Courts have consistently held that mere existence of marital discord, family disputes, or ordinary disagreements between spouses does not automatically constitute abetment of suicide under this provision. 
  • The prosecution must establish clear and convincing evidence of instigation, encouragement, or assistance that directly contributed to the deceased's decision to commit suicide. 
• Evidentiary Requirements: The provision requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed specific acts constituting abetment of suicide.  
  • Circumstantial evidence alone, without corroborative material such as suicide notes, direct evidence of instigation, or credible witness testimony, may not be sufficient to establish guilt under this section. 
• Legal Safeguards: The provision incorporates safeguards against misuse by requiring substantial evidence of abetment rather than mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence. 
  •  Courts have emphasized that ordinary domestic disputes and marital discord should not be easily construed as abetment of suicide without concrete evidence of instigation or encouragement.