Supreme Court: Whether the filing of charge-sheet without additional copies would entitle the Appellant for the benefit of default bail?

Having considered the above statutory provisions and pronouncements of the Court, we are of the view that simple non-filing of additional copies of the chargesheet/police report will not entitle the Appellant to the relief of default bail. This Court while considering default bail under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure has expounded that the relief of default bail is limited to non-filing of the charge-sheet itself and once the charge-sheet is filed in its proper form, the question of default bail does not arise. {Para 21}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3094 of 2026 

Decided On: 01.07.2026

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 666,MANU/SC/0658/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sanction under Section 19, PC Act: Refusal Cannot Be Reviewed on a Mere Change of Opinion or Extraneous Pressure

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Grant or Refusal of Sanction – Reconsideration/Review of Order Refusing Sanction – Power, Scope and Standard of Evaluation

A. No express power of review. Section 19 of the Act does not expressly provide for review or reconsideration by the sanctioning authority once it has exercised its power to grant or refuse sanction.

B. Review on the same material is impermissible. A mere change of opinion on the very same material cannot justify reviewing an earlier order refusing sanction. Reversing a refusal on unchanged material is arbitrary and unsustainable.

C. When review is permissible. An order refusing sanction may be reviewed only if the investigating agency collects fresh material that was not available earlier. The sanctioning authority must also apply its mind properly to that new material.

D. External pressure and extraneous dictates vitiate sanction. Sanction is a statutory safeguard. It protects honest public servants from frivolous, vexatious and unsubstantiated prosecution. The authority must decide independently, so political dictates, extraneous considerations or pressure from higher authorities (such as the Chief Minister's office) cannot influence the decision. A sanction obtained under such influence is vitiated by non-application of mind.

E. Standard of evaluation by the sanctioning authority. Suppose the sanctioning authority itself entertains reasonable doubts or suspicions about the demand of bribe, the trap, or the recovery of money. Then sanction ought to be declined. Where two views are reasonably possible on the material produced, the view favouring the officer must be preferred.

Held: A subsequent sanction granted after an earlier refusal, without fresh material and under external pressure, is unsustainable. The prosecution founded on it is liable to be quashed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2951 of 2026

Decided On: 23.07.2026

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Dev Kant Meena

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 752,MANU/SC/0752/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court:The Cost of Contradiction: Why Varying Demand Figures Across Collateral Proceedings Defeated the Bribery Allegation

 From the aforesaid, it is clear that when the complainant deposed in the present proceedings, he did not refer to an initial demand of ` 200/- being made by A1 on 07.02.1996. He further does not state that by way of final settlement an amount of ` 120/- was agreed to be paid. The version of the complainant as recorded in this case, therefore, is in variance with his deposition in Criminal Case No. 826/1996 on the amount of demand by A1. Be it noted that the complaint leading to Criminal Case No. 826/1996 was made on 06.03.1996, which is within a month of the alleged demand.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1177 of 2015 and 1183 of 2015

Decided On: 19.08.2026

Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 890,MANU/SC/0917/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether prosecution case becomes doubtful if complainant fails to follow instructions of Anti-Corruption Bureau officer?

 From the aforesaid evidence of the complainant, it becomes clear that though he was instructed to give the entire amount of ` 120/- on demand being made, he gave ` 20/- only to A2. Further, according to the complainant an amount of ` 120 was demanded from him after receiving the certificate and A2 was standing at a distance of one to two feet from A1. However, A2 did not inquire from the complainant as to why only ` 20/- was being given though A1 had told him to give an amount of ` 120/-. This again raises a doubt as regards demand of ` 120/- by A1 in the backdrop of the complainant giving ` 20/- to A2 despite being instructed to give the entire amount of ` 120/- whenever the demand was made. When this conduct of the complainant is considered along with his admission in the cross-examination that A2 did not make any demand, the entire episode gives rise to serious suspicion. There is no explanation as to why the instructions given to the complainant at the Anti-Corruption Bureau office of giving the entire amount of ` 120/- on demand were not followed. {Para 12}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1177 of 2015 and 1183 of 2015

Decided On: 19.08.2026

Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 890,MANU/SC/0917/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page