List of Current Affairs
Home / List of Current Affairs
Criminal Law
Interim Bail Absolute After Illegal Arrest Invalid
24-Sep-2025
Source: Kerala High Court
Why in News?
Recently, Justice A. Badharudeen held that making interim bail absolute after declaring an arrest illegal has no legal effect, as it would prevent lawful re-arrest. The Court clarified that such orders are wrong and do not bar the investigating agency from proceeding with a proper arrest.
- The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala (2025).
What was the Background of Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala (2025)?
- Praveen Raj, an Industries Extension Officer, filed pre-arrest bail in Kerala High Court for VACB crime involving Rs. 1.14 crore misappropriation under self-employment scheme during 2021-22.
- He allegedly conspired with co-accused to grant subsidies to 38 ineligible beneficiaries without interviewing them or verifying document authenticity, violating established procedures.
- The prosecution case states he disbursed Rs. 3 lakhs each to fake groups under Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Project No. SO 760/22, causing wrongful loss to government.
- He faces multiple corruption cases totaling Rs. 6 crores and was previously arrested but released due to procedural irregularities in arrest.
- Charges include Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC sections for criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
- His counsel argued no evidence of unauthorized beneficiaries and claimed only departmental norm violations, while prosecution established prima facie case.
- The Special Judge earlier found his arrest illegal and granted absolute bail, giving liberty to investigating agency for re-arrest following proper procedures.
- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail claiming innocence and readiness to cooperate with investigation without risk of absconding.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Court held that anticipatory bail in serious corruption offences can be granted only in exceptional circumstances when accused is falsely implicated or allegations are politically motivated or frivolous.
- The Court found strong prima facie evidence against petitioner for misappropriating Rs. 1.14 crores and noted his involvement in multiple corruption cases as a public officer.
- The Court observed no exceptional circumstances were established and the prosecution case was not frivolous, making it unfit for anticipatory bail grant.
- The Court identified patent illegalities in Special Judge's order dated 31.07.2025 which made interim bail absolute after finding arrest illegal.
- The Court held that when arrest is found illegal, accused automatically becomes free from custody and no bail bond execution arises, making absolute bail unnecessary.
- The Court found that making bail absolute creates legal impossibility for investigating agency to re-arrest without first cancelling bail, despite court's liberty granted.
- The Court declared that Special Judge's order making interim bail absolute was wrong and had no legal effect, with accused being free at pre-arrest stage.
- The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as completely meritless considering serious corruption charges and large public money involvement.
- The Court directed petitioner to surrender forthwith and cooperate with investigation, failing which investigating officer can proceed as per law with proper arrest procedures.
What are Legal Provisions Referred?
- Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018
- Section 13(1)(a)
- Criminal misconduct by a public servant
- A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7.
- Section 13(2)
- Punishment for criminal misconduct
- Whoever commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 13(1)(a)
- Indian Penal Code Provisions
- Section 34 IPC
- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
- Section 120(B) IPC
- Punishment of criminal conspiracy
- Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
- Section 409 IPC
- Criminal breach of trust by public servant
- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 420 IPC
- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 468 IPC
- Forgery for purpose of cheating
- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 471 IPC
- Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record
- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
- Section 34 IPC
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
- Section 35(3) BNSS
- Notice provisions
- Relates to notice requirements under the new criminal procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Section 35(3) BNSS
Family Law
Absence from Matrimonial Home Amounts to Cruelty
24-Sep-2025
Source: Delhi High Court
Why in News?
Recently, Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that a wife’s repeated absence from the matrimonial home, denial of conjugal relations, and filing multiple complaints against her husband and his family amounts to cruelty, thereby upholding a divorce decree under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
- The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of X. v. Y (CM APPL. 4523/2022) (2025).
What was the Background of X v. Y (2025)?
- Dhan Vati and Satish Kumar married on 3rd March 1990 under Hindu rites. Their son Rahul was born on 3rd October 1997.
- The husband alleged persistent cruelty by his wife, claiming she refused to live in a joint family and frequently stayed at her parental home for 7-8 months annually without consent. Multiple panchayats were required to bring her back.
- From 2008, particularly after Karwa Chauth, the wife allegedly withdrew from marital relations and subjected him to humiliation, including throwing footwear, forcing him to do household work, and slapping his mother.
- The husband claimed his wife pressurized the family to transfer property in her name, threatening false criminal cases when refused, while showing indifference towards his parents.
- After the 2009 divorce petition, the wife filed three FIRs against the husband and his family under various IPC sections including assault, dowry harassment, and sexual harassment.
- The wife alleged dowry torture, claiming she was forced to arrange Rs. 5 lakh for house construction. She accused the husband's family of being habitual drunkards, making remarks about her appearance, and physically assaulting her.
- The Family Court accepted the husband's version and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Court held that cohabitation is essential to marriage and persistent denial of sexual relations without justifiable cause constitutes mental cruelty. The wife's admission of withdrawing from physical intimacy since 2008 and stopping Karwa Chauth observance was deemed prolonged refusal amounting to mental cruelty.
- The Court noted all three FIRs were filed only after the husband's divorce petition, viewing their timing as suspicious. These complaints were considered a counterblast to divorce proceedings rather than genuine grievances.
- The Court found the wife's conduct - refusal to cohabit, denial of conjugal relations, repeated absences from matrimonial home, and multiple complaints - reflected a deliberate pattern causing mental suffering, satisfying cruelty requirements under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- The Court observed systematic frustration of the husband's access to his son constituted serious psychological cruelty. Using a child as a tool in matrimonial conflict injures the affected parent and corrodes the child's emotional well-being.
- The wife's complete ignorance about her mother-in-law's health conditions, including inability to walk and hip replacement surgery, reflected disregard for essential marital obligations in Indian familial context.
- The Court concluded the cumulative effect of the wife's behaviour demonstrated sustained neglect of marital responsibilities, causing considerable emotional suffering to justify dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
How does Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Recognize Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce?
- Legal Framework:
- Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that any marriage may be dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of marriage.
- Essential Elements:
- The cruelty must occur after marriage solemnization, as pre-marital conduct cannot form the basis for divorce under this provision.
- The respondent must have treated the petitioner with cruelty, encompassing both physical and mental forms.
- Either spouse has the right to file for divorce under this ground if subjected to cruelty by the other party.
- Physical Cruelty Components:
- Physical cruelty includes actual physical violence or assault against the petitioner.
- It encompasses threats of physical harm or intimidation.
- Any conduct causing bodily injury to the spouse constitutes physical cruelty under this provision.
- Mental Cruelty Parameters:
- Mental cruelty involves conduct causing mental pain and suffering to the petitioner. It includes behaviour making it impossible for the aggrieved party to reasonably live with the other spouse.
- Sustained course of conduct affecting the mental health of the petitioner falls within this category.