Bombay HC: The court can grant an interim bail under SC &ST Atrocities Act and simultaneously issue notice to Victim

There could be variety of situations and eventualities in which for the grant of relief it would become imperative for the court to pass an order without waiting for the service of notice to the informant/ victim. For example, prima facie case is not made out under the act and liberty of such individual is at stake. At various stages different orders are to be passed not affecting rights of the parties, etc. {Para 15}

16. In considered view of this court, appropriate interpretation to Section 15A(3) and (5) would be that right of parties involved in the proceedings cannot be decided finally without notice/hearing to the victim. This however would not take away power of the court to protect the liberty of person in appropriate cases keeping in mind the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

17. Moreover, it is well settled principle that the prima facie observations made by the Court at interim stage are not binding on the same court while deciding the application finally. Hence, the Special Court is within is power to grant ad-interim bail and issue notice at the same instance.

18. The issue involved in this proceeding as recorded in Para 1 above is answered in affirmative. It is held that Special Court or High Court would have jurisdiction to grant ad-interim relief to protect liberty of applicant in appropriate cases and simultaneously issue notice to Victim/Informant for hearing of proceeding for its decision.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2025

Decided On: 27.02.2026

Sahil Ramesh Sonavane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:10270,MANU/MH/1970/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Admission Of Claim By Resolution Professional Does Not Amount To Acknowledgment Of Debt as per S 18 of limitation Act

The third issue pertains to legal character of the admission of a claim by the IRP/RP and whether such admission can be construed as admission of liability so as to extend the period of limitation Under Section 18 of the 1963 Act. At the outset, it must be noted that scope and ambit of Section 18 of the 1963 Act are well-settled. For a writing to constitute a valid acknowledgment, it must be made by the party against whom the right is claimed, or by a person duly authorized on its behalf; it must be made before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation; and, most importantly, it must evince a conscious and unequivocal intention to admit a subsisting jural relationship and an existing liability. A mere reference to a past transaction or a bald recital of a debt, without an intention to admit liability, would not suffice. The said principle has been authoritatively enunciated by this Court6. The provisions of the Code and the Regulations were considered by this Court7 and it has been held that RP has no adjudicatory powers and his role involves collation of claims. RP performs its administrative duties Under Section 18 of the Code. The admission of a claim by RP is merely an administrative/clerical task performed as part of its statutory duties Under Section 18 of the Code8 and, therefore, admission of claim by RP only means induction/entry of a claim. An admission of a claim by RP is akin to mere recital/reference of debt, which does not amount to an acknowledgment Under Section 18 of the 1963 Act9. Therefore, IRP's admission of secured financial creditors debt in first CIRP was not an acknowledgement Under Section 18 of 1963 Act. Accordingly, third issue is answered. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 13158-13159 of 2025

Decided On: 29.04.2026

Shankar Khandelwal Vs. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.

Author: Alok Aradhe, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 429,MANU/SC/0421/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Credibility of injured witness becomes doubtful if injury caused to them is not proved

 The credibility of an injured eyewitness, as has been held by this Court is a tad higher than an eyewitness who has just seen the incident. The very fact that the witness suffered an injury in the same transaction adds to its credibility. On the other hand, when the prosecution fails to prove the very injuries projected as sustained in the same transaction, not only are we unable to concede a greater credibility than that available to a chance witness, but it also makes doubtful their very presence in the P.O. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 558 of 2021, 

Decided On: 28.04.2026

Sadek Ali and Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 421,MANU/SC/0412/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate Doesn't Require Prior Sanction To Direct FIR Registration Under S.156(3) CrPC

 Part IV

Our Conclusions

164. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, our conclusions are summarised as follows:

V. The statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), provides a comprehensive and layered mechanism to set the criminal law in motion. The duty of the police to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence is mandatory, as settled in Lalita Kumari (supra).

VI. In cases of non-registration of FIR, the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS provide efficacious remedies. An aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police Under Section 154(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure or corresponding Section 173(4) of BNSS and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding Section 175 of BNSS) or proceed by way of a complaint Under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding Section 223 of BNSS). These remedies constitute a complete statutory architecture.

VII. The availability of such remedies, coupled with the supervisory jurisdiction of constitutional Courts Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution demonstrates that no legislative vacuum exists warranting the intervention sought. The appropriate course lies in ensuring faithful and even-handed enforcement of existing law.

VIII. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure or corresponding Section 175 of BNSS is of wide amplitude and includes supervisory oversight over the investigation at appropriate stages. This power is intended to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a fair, impartial, and lawful manner, and may be exercised simultaneously during the stage of investigation, where the material on record discloses any deficiency, inaction, or taint in the investigative process.

IX. The requirement of prior sanction Under Sections 196 and 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding Sections 217 and 218 of BNSS) operates at the stage of taking cognizance and does not extend to the pre-cognizance stage of registration of FIR or investigation Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding Section 175(3) of BNSS). An order directing investigation Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure does not amount to taking cognizance within the meaning of Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding Section 210 of BNSS).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 943 of 2021, 

Decided On: 29.04.2026

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0419/2026,

Print Page