Supreme Court: Police Can Register FIR Even If Magistrate Rejected S.156(3) CrPC Application

The consequence is self-evident. The rejection of an application Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If, notwithstanding such rejection, information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is subsequently furnished to the Police, the statutory duty recognised in Lalita Kumari (supra) continues to operate with full force. {Para 43}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3931 of 2026 

Decided On: 19.08.2026

Pramod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 887, MANU/SC/0915/2026.

Print Page

Released for Grief: Under-Trial Prisoners, Funeral and Shraddha Ceremonies, and How to Write the Order

An under-trial prisoner (UTP) can be allowed to attend a close relative's funeral or shraddha, either on short interim bail or in police custody. The court decides on the facts of each case. It weighs humanitarian and religious needs against the risk of flight, witness interference and harm to the trial. This article also sets out how a judge can approach and write such an order, with a sample order.

Why It Matters

Death rites are among the most important religious and social duties in Indian life. An under-trial is presumed innocent and is held only to secure his presence at trial. Refusing him a last farewell to a parent, spouse or child can therefore be harsh. Article 21 protects dignity even in custody, and Article 25 protects religious practice. Neither right is absolute. Both can be reasonably restricted for legitimate custodial and public-interest reasons.

Funeral and Shraddha Compared

Print Page

Instagram Chat With Student Cannot Be Sole Material To Deny Bail': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Tuition Teacher In POCSO Case

Advocate for Respondent No.2, is that Instagram chat between Applicant and his friend are appended and this chat shows the nature of the crime allegedly committed by Applicant. However this singular chat when seen, prima facie does not explicitly describe the commission of the offence with which Applicant is charged neither does this chat state the time, place or nature of the offence. Hence in my opinion this cannot be the sole material for considering denying bail to Applicant.

IIN THE HIIGH COURT OF JUDIICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIIMIINAL APPELLATE JURIISDIICTIION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3066 OF 2026

Sunil Sundar Gandhi  Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. 

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026.

Print Page

Advocate Merely Allowed Office For Meeting, Did Not Play Major Role In Alleged Forex Fraud: Bombay High Court Grants interim Protection

 Although learned APP has pointed out that there are allegations in the FIR itself which shows that this applicant has allowed her office to be used for the purpose of meeting, it has to be noted that there is no material to show that this applicant was aware about the nature of meeting to be held. {Para 4} 

5) Considering the fact that the only allegation against this applicant about granting permission to use her office, it prima facie appears that she has not played any major role in the alleged offence. Further considering the fact that charge-sheet is already filed and there is no question of recovery from this applicant, her custody need not be insisted. The presence of this applicant can be secured by directing her to join the investigation and attend the police station.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2577/2026

SANGITA JAGANNATH SHETE  VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

Print Page