An Accused Cannot Present Defence Evidence at the Charge or Discharge Stage

Posted inCode of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)No Comments
An accused in general cannot produce independent defence evidence or summon external documents at the stage of framing charges or seeking discharge. At that stage, the court is strictly confined to evaluating the police report and prosecution materials to determine whether a prima facie case exists to proceed to trial.

The 24 Hour for Production of Accused Runs from the Time of Curtailment of his Liberty

Posted inArrest & Related MattersNo Comments
In Sujit Das v. Union of India [2026: INSC: 1196], the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on personal liberty. The Court held that the 24-hour constitutional deadline to produce an arrested person before a magistrate begins the exact moment their liberty is effectively curtailed through detention, rather than when the law enforcement agency officially logs a "formal arrest".

Courts Possesses Limited Power to Modify Arbitral Award under Arbitration Act

Posted inArbitration and CounciliationNo Comments
In Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that courts possess a limited, functional power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by partially overruling its previous stance in NHAI v. M. Hakeem.

Procedural Defect in Informing Arrest Grounds Won’t Lead to Bail If No Prejudice Caused to Accused: Supreme Court

Posted inArrest & Related MattersNo Comments
The Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram [2026 INSC 1169] has held that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend, an alleged procedural defect in the mode of service cannot ipso facto invalidate detention or entitle an accused to regular bail, more so in cases involving grave allegations of espionage affecting national security and sovereign integrity.

Section 17A PC Act Does Not Apply to Bribe Demand as It Is Unconnected to Official Duty: Supreme Court

Posted inCorruption Cases and Related MattersNo Comments
The Supreme Court, in Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 1147), has held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not apply where a public servant is accused of demanding illegal gratification, as the demand of bribe was “a pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official functions or duties”, and so fell outside the protection of Section 17A.