List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh in the case of Sagar v. State of UP and Anr. (2025) set aside an Allahabad High Court order that granted bail on the ground of parity, holding that the High Court failed to consider the specific role attributed to the accused in the alleged offence.

What was the Background of Sagar v. State of UP and Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The prosecution alleged that an altercation escalated into fatal violence when a group of accused persons blocked the complainant's family's way. 
• During the confrontation, Respondent No. 2 (Rajveer) allegedly instigated co-accused Aditya to shoot the deceased. 
• Aditya's bail application was rejected by the court. 
• The High Court had earlier granted bail to Suresh Pal (Aditya's father), but the Supreme Court subsequently overturned this decision for lack of proper reasoning. 
• Relying solely on the bail granted to Suresh Pal, the High Court later extended bail to Respondent No. 2 (Rajveer, the alleged instigator) and Prince, another co-accused. 
• The High Court granted bail without substantive analysis of their individual roles in the crime. 
• The complainant filed a plea against the grant of bail on the ground of parity alone.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that parity as a ground for bail must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence. 
• The Court emphasized that parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 
• Relying on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Anr., (2021) the Court emphasized that parity requires similarity in roles and circumstances, not merely that accused persons face the same charges. 
• The Court observed that different roles can be played in a crime: someone part of a large group intending to intimidate, an instigator of violence, someone who physically attacks, someone who fired a weapon or used a deadly weapon. 
• The Court stated that parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts, not with someone whose role was significantly different. 
• The Court noted that the High Court erroneously granted bail on the sole ground of parity, misunderstanding it as a tool of direct application rather than one focused on the role played by the accused. 
• The Court applied principles from Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and Anr., (2022)  which emphasized that while detailed reasoning is not warranted in a bail order, the order should not be devoid of any reasoning. 
• The Court set aside the impugned bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court.

Factors to be Assessed While Granting Bail 

According to Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and Anr.(2022), the following facts must be independently assessed while granting bail: 

1. Nature of allegations made against the accused. 
2. Severity of punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction. 
3. Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by the accused. 
4. Tampering of evidence. 
5. Frivolity in the case of the prosecution. 
6. Criminal antecedents of the accused. 
7. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the accused.

What is Bail? 

About:  

• Bail is the conditional release of an accused person before trial, fundamentally rooted in the presumption of innocence. It serves as a crucial mechanism ensuring that individuals are not unjustly detained while awaiting judicial proceedings. The primary objective is to guarantee that the accused does not abscond from justice, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses during the pendency of the case. 

Legal Provisions: 

• The legal framework for bail in India is now governed by Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973. This comprehensive legislation establishes the procedural guidelines and judicial powers concerning bail matters. 
• The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) established the fundamental principle that "the basic rule is bail, not jail," emphasising that bail is a right and imprisonment is an exception. This landmark judgment reinforced the constitutional philosophy that liberty is the norm and detention is the exception. 

Types and Powers: 

• Bail provisions are categorised based on the nature of offences. Bailable offences guarantee an automatic right to bail under Section 436 of the former CrPC, while non-bailable offences vest discretionary powers in courts and designated police officers as per Section 437. 
• High Courts and Sessions Courts possess special powers under Section 483 of BNSS to grant, modify, or cancel bail. They can direct the release of any accused person in custody, impose specific conditions, or modify existing bail terms. 
• Anticipatory bail, covered under Section 482 of BNSS, allows individuals who reasonably fear arrest for non-bailable offences to seek pre-arrest protection from High Courts or Sessions Courts. 

Bail Conditions: 

• Courts typically impose several conditions while granting bail. The accused must furnish a personal bond with sureties to ensure appearance during trial proceedings. Standard conditions include prohibitions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or contacting victims. Courts may also impose specific restrictions relevant to the case circumstances, such as surrendering passports or periodic reporting to police stations. 
• Default or mandatory bail provisions under Section 187 of BNSS ensure that accused persons are granted bail if investigations exceed prescribed time limits, making judicial intervention automatic rather than discretionary. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in the case of Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar (2025) allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for proper recording of statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), holding that the trial court had failed to put material circumstances specifically to the accused persons. 

What was the Background of Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar (2025) Case? 

• On 31st March 2016, the informant Kachan Pasi, along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi, and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi, were returning from fields when they were surrounded by the accused persons. 
• The accused persons allegedly assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a katta (country-made firearm), resulting in his death. 
• Specific allegations of assault were levelled against multiple accused persons including Joni Pasi @ Ravindra Pasi. 
• A total of six persons were tried in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016 before the Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar. 
• The Trial Court convicted all six accused persons to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC (murder with common intention). 
• They were also sentenced to one year simple imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 read with Section 34 IPC (house trespass and voluntarily causing hurt), with all sentences running concurrently. 
• The Trial Court's judgment of conviction was dated 27th March 2017, and the order of sentence was passed on 29th March 2017. 
• A seventh accused person was found to be a juvenile and was dealt with separately under applicable juvenile justice law. 
• All six convicted persons filed appeals under Section 374(2) CrPC before the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017. 
• The High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings through judgments dated 4th September 2024 and 26th September 2024. 
• Three of the six convicts – Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi – approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3685-3686 of 2025. 
• The primary contention raised was non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC during the examination of the accused. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court noted that the statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC for all three appellants were "carbon copies of each other," revealing an "abject failure" on the part of the Trial Court. 
• Out of four questions asked to each accused, only two were directly related to the sequence of events, and both were framed in the most general manner possible. 
• The second question merely referred to "bare allegations" without specifying particular incriminating circumstances, receiving only an "omnibus denial." 
• The third question simply stated that allegations had been "alleged and evidenced" without elaborating on specific material circumstances. 
• The Court held that such questioning "cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance" as required under Section 313 CrPC. 
• The Court expressed concern that both the Trial Judge and the prosecutor failed in their duties – the prosecutor being "an officer of the Court" with a "solemn duty to act in the interest of justice." 
• The Court emphasized that prosecutors cannot act merely as "defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused." 
• Without examining other grounds challenging the conviction, the Court allowed the appeals solely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC. 
• The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to recommence from the stage of recording Section 313 CrPC statements. 
• The remand was limited only to the three appellants before the Supreme Court and would not affect findings against other accused persons. 
• Recognizing that "a trial is a function of memory" susceptible to "vagaries of time," and given that the offence occurred in 2016, the Court directed the Trial Court to complete the proceedings within four months.

What is Section 313 CrPC? 

About: 

• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been replaced by Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 
• Both sections deal with the Power to Examine the Accused. 

Object and Purpose: 

• Provides an opportunity for the accused to understand the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. 
• Establishes a direct dialogue between the court and the accused to enable the accused to give his explanation. 
• Of immense help to accused persons who are undefended, poor, uneducated and helpless. 
• Not intended to enable the court to trap or beguile the accused into an admission of facts the prosecution has failed to establish. 

Key Provisions of Section 351 BNSS / 313 CrPC: 

Sub-section (1) - Two Parts: 

• Clause (a) - Discretionary: Court may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions as it considers necessary. 
• Clause (b) - Mandatory: After prosecution witnesses are examined and before accused is called for defence, court shall question him generally on the case. 
• Proviso: In summons cases where personal attendance is dispensed with, examination under clause (b) may also be dispensed with. 

Sub-section (2) - No Oath: 

• No oath shall be administered to the accused when examined. 
• Reason: The accused is not a witness when examined under this section. 

Sub-section (3) - No Liability: 

• Accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer questions. 
• No punishment for giving false answers to questions. 

Sub-section (4) - Evidentiary Value: 

• Answers given by accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. 
• Answers may be put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry or trial for any other offence. 
• Example: In murder trial, if accused says he concealed the body but didn't kill, statement can be used in subsequent trial under Section 201 IPC. 

Sub-section (5) - New Addition in BNSS: 

• Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions. 
• Court may permit filing of written statement by accused as sufficient compliance.