In an important ruling recently, the Supreme Court has declared that courts can order house arrest of accused persons under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 167 deals with remand and incarceration of an accused person during his trial. The Apex Court held that courts can consider appropriate factors like ages, health conditions and antecedents of the accused along with the nature and gravity of offences while ordering house arrest.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Gautam Navalakha, who has been accused of being involved in the Bhima Koregaon case. It was alleged by the appellant that his house arrest of 34 days should be counted in the period of 90 days stipulated by Section 167 for default bail.

The Supreme Court went on to clarify that judicial custody under Section 167 does not include only jail custody and can also include house arrest, which can be ordered by courts in appropriate circumstances.

Judgement details :

• Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency [CrA 510 OF 2021].

Judgement link :
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/4836/4836_2021_33_1502_28011_Judgement_12-May-2021.pdf

The Karnataka High Court recently clarified that evidence recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be counted as evidence under Section 35 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

While deciding a reference by a single judge of the High Court following another judgement stating the contrary position, the High Court clarified that statements recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC is just a statement for investigation purposes, which is different from a statement under Section 35 of POCSO Act recorded for evidence purposes.

The court also held that non-compliance with Section 35 in terms of not recording the statement of the victim and completion of trial within the stipulated timeframes cannot be a ground to grant bail to the accused.

This judgement arose after a single judge of the High Court disagreed with another judgement of the same Court on these issues.

Judgement details :

• Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Petition No. 2951/2020].

Judgement link :
http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/380766/1/CRLP2951-20-23-04-2021.pdf

The Supreme Court has recently held that digital offences like hacking and data theft can be punishable under not just the Information Technology Act, but under the Indian Penal Code as well.

These observations were made by the Apex Court while deciding a bail application of a person working in an IT company against whom an FIR was registered for allegations of theft, data hacking and illegal copying of computer source codes.

The petitioner argued that all offences alleged against him in the FIR can be covered by provisions of the IT Act. He further argued that since the IT Act is a special law, provisions of IPC, which is a general law, cannot be applied.

The Court disagreed with this argument and stated that although provisions of IT Act do cover offences like hacking and data theft, provisions of IPC can also be applied of other offences of criminal breach of trust, theft, common intention and criminal conspiracy.

Judgement details :

• Jagjeet Singh v. State of Punjab [SLP (Criminal) No. 3207/2021].

Judgement link :
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/11327/11327_2021_40_17_28020_Order_18-May-2021.pdf

The Supreme Court recently issued important guidelines to be followed while dealing with dowry death cases arising from Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

While deciding an appeal from an order of conviction passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Apex Court held that the phrase “soon before” used in Section 304B cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”.

It was held that the prosecution in dowry death cases has to establish a proximate and live link between dowry death of a woman and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand made by her husband or his relatives.

The court also went on to issue the following guidelines for dowry death trials :

• Section 304B must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
• The prosecution in such cases must establish the existence of necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under section 304B.
• Section 313 of CrPC cannot be treated as a mere formality. The court must be careful in using this provision fairly with care and caution.
• The court must put all incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. Counsel for the accused must prepare his defences in accordance with the requirements of Section 304B of IPC read with Section 113 of the Evidence Act.
• Sometimes other relatives of and family members of the husband who may not even be involved in the offence are roped in these cases. Therefore, the court needs to be cautious in its approach in such trials.

Judgement details :

• Satbir Singh v. State Of Haryana [CRA 1735¬-1736 of 2010].

Judgement link :
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/70857/70857_2009_31_1501_28042_Judgement_28-May-2021.pdf

In a recent case, the Supreme Court has held that an accused person cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC in the anticipation of arrest after his regular bail is cancelled.

The Court made these observations in a case in which an accused was granted regular bail (i.e. bail under Section 439, CrPC after being arrested) for a case under the Environment Protection Act. His bail was later cancelled by the court due to non-appearance. The accused person then sought anticipatory bail in apprehension of arrest again.

The Apex Court held that even after a person is released after being granted bail, he is still said to be in “constructive custody” of the court. Therefore, a person who is technically still in the court’s custody cannot apprehend arrest.

The Court then went on direct that if he surrenders before the court within two weeks, his fresh bail application would be heard the same day in the interest of justice.

Judgement details :

• Manish Jain v. Haryana Pollution Control Board (SLP (Criminal) No. 5385 of 2020).

Judgement link :
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-384922.pdf

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has ordered that CCVTs and recording equipment must be installed in all police stations across all states and Union Territories, including those relating to central investigation agencies like CBI, NIA, NCB, ED, SFIO, etc.

Noting that such directions are in furtherance of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court directed that all police stations must have CCTV cameras as well as recording equipment in such manner that no part of police stations, including entry and exit points, are left uncovered.

Such CCTV cameras must also contain audio recording and night vision facilities. Such data must be stored for a period upto 18 months or, when not possible, at least 1 year. The Station House Officer of each police station shall be duty-bound to ensure that all CCTVs function regularly.

In order to ensure that all complaints of custodial violence and deaths are decided appropriately, the Court also directed that any court or authority deciding such cases can seek these CCTV recordings as well.

Judgement details :

• Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (SLP (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020).

Judgement link :
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/13346/13346_2020_33_1501_24909_Judgement_02-Dec-2020.pdf

The Supreme Court has recently stated that default bail that is granted under Section 167, CrPC erroneously or illegally can be cancelled by court under Section 439(2). In a case under the NDPS Act, the trial court had granted bail to the accused person under Section 167 (default bail).

The investigation agencies the approached the High Court under Section 439(2) to seek cancellation of bail by arguing that such default bail was granted erroneously because a charge sheet was already filed in the same offence in another state, but this fact was not brought to the attention of the trial court.

The High Court had set the default bail aside on this ground. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision by relying upon the ratio of Pandit Khot v. State of Maharashtra, in which it was stated that if a person is illegally or erroneously released on default bail, such bail can be cancelled under Section 439(2).

Judgement details :

• Venkatesan Balasubramaniyan vs. The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Bangalore [Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2020].

Judgement link :
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/4200/4200_2019_36_1501_24718_Judgement_20-Nov-2020.pdf

The Supreme Court clarified the law on electronic evidence and the requirement of a certificate for it under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act vide its judgement of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14th July, 2020.

In this judgement, the Supreme Court has clarified that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to file electronic records in evidence, as it had been previously held in Anvar P.K. v. Basheer P.K.

This judgement arose from a reference on this issue raised by a bench of the Supreme Court in July, 2019, whereby the court was asked to decide whether non-filing of a Section 65B certificate invalidates electronic evidence. This issue arose because a different previous judgement of the court had held that such a certificate is merely a procedure requirement, which can be relaxed if the court deems fit.

Putting this issue to rest, the court finally held that a certificate is necessary to be filed for producing electronic records in evidence. However, the court also clarified that this is not necessary if the original document is itself produced in evidence.

The court also stated that in most cases, such a certificate must ideally and generally be produced at the same time at which the relevant evidence is being produced in court.

This judgement can be accessed here :
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/39058/39058_2017_34_1501_22897_Judgement_14-Jul-2020.pdf