Supreme Court:Whether the court should release accused on anticipatory bail if his custody is not required for recovery of documents involved in the crime?

In the recent judgment in the case of Pradip N. Sharma (supra), this Court in para 18 has observed as under:

"18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the Appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the Appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the Appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the Accused can be secured without pre-trial detention. {Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2026

Decided On: 30.04.2026

Pawan Khera Vs. State of Assam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 437, MANU/SC/0428/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Mere recovery of currency notes from accused cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence

 I. RECOVERY OF CURRENCY NOTES

29. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that there is a grave discrepancy regarding the exact amount of currency notes recovered by the Investigating Officer (PW.22) purportedly in furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the Appellant-Pooranmal.

30. Whilst in the examination-in-chief, the Investigating Officer (PW.22) deposed that the Appellant-Pooranmal furnished an information Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Proviso to Section 23 of the BSA] regarding receipt of the amount of Rs. 46,000/- (Ex. P-44) from Ladu Lal pursuant to a plan to commit the murder of Smt. Aruna.

31. The Investigating Officer (PW.22) further stated that in consequence of the said disclosure, as also another disclosure pertaining to the shirt allegedly worn at the time of the incident, the Appellant-Pooranmal led the police party to his residence and got recovered a shirt (suspected to be blood-stained) kept in an iron box. The said recovery was reduced into writing vide memo (Ex. P-9), and the shirt was sealed at the spot. Further as per the information given by the Appellant-Pooranmal, a sum of Rs. 46,000/- was recovered from his house and was seized vide memo (Ex. P-13). The said amount was also sealed at the spot.

32. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer (PW.22) admitted that though on the chit of material exhibit (Ex. P-52), the currency notes were mentioned as Rs. 46,000/-, but when the notes were counted in Court, it was noticed that the amount was Rs. 46,145/-. The Investigating Officer (PW.22) admitted that there was no mention of these extra Rs. 145 on the packet marked as (Ex. P-52).

33. Thus, the very factum of recovery of the currency notes comes under a grave cloud of doubt. That apart, mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing a clear nexus between the said amount and the crime, would not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against the Appellant-Pooranmal. Thus, the said circumstance was wrongly treated to be incriminating by the trial Court as the recovery itself is doubtful and additionally, the mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2026 

Decided On: 10.03.2026

Pooranmal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 217,MANU/SC/0213/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused has to be given warning/ notice as per sub-sections 3 and 4 of S 313 of CRPC before putting incriminating circumstances against him

As the law is that the answers given admitting the guilt in the examination of the accused under Section 313 can form the basis of the conviction, surely before the accused is examined, he must be informed that he can decline to give answers to the questions put to him and that he will not render himself liable for punishment in case he refuses to answer the questions or he gives false answers. The accused has to informed that inculpatory statements made by him may be taken into consideration in the trial. The Court is under an obligation to put the accused to the notice as aforesaid before recording his statement. We find that most of the Sessions Courts in Maharashtra have consistently followed the practice of putting the accused to warning in terms of Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 313 of the said Code before recording the examination of the accused. If the accused is not given the said warning or notice, in a given case, a serious prejudice may be caused to the accused in as much as till Sub-Section (5) of Section 313 was brought on the statute book by Act No. 5 of 2009, the advocate appointed by the accused was not entitled to play any role while the statement of the accused is being recorded. Whether prejudice is caused to the accused or not will depend on facts of each case. In the present case, no such warning or notice was given to the Appellant before his examination under Section 313 of the said Code. The statement and the roznama are silent on this aspect. In the present case, we find that the Appellant pleaded as not guilty and, thereafter, his advocate has extensively cross-examined all the witnesses and, therefore, this is a case where serious prejudice has been caused to the Appellant as he was not put to notice that the statements made by him in his examination under Section 313 can be used against him. {Para 42}

43. We have already pointed out that in the facts of the case, the prosecution case which rests only on circumstantial evidence is not at all free from doubt. The circumstances forming the chain have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is very unsafe to base the conviction on such confessional statement especially when the Appellant was not warned that the statement may be used against him.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before A.S. Oka and Shrihari P. Davare, JJ.)

Laxman alias Laxmayya Gangaram Zinna and Another 

Versus

State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1992

Decided on May 9, 2012.

Citation: 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 723 : (2012) 4 AIR Bom R 1 : 2012 Cri LJ 2826 : (2012) 3 Bom CR (Cri) 1

Print Page

Whether accused is entitled to be acquitted if provisions of S 313 of CRPC is not properly complied?

It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that material questions regarding marriage, on which the prosecution had allegedly relied upon, were not put to the accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby causing great prejudice to them. We feel that there is no weight in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents since the purpose of Section 313 is only to bring the attention of the accused to all the inculpatory pieces of evidence to give him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. As has been succinctly held by this Court in Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0468/2013 : (2013) 5 SCC 722:

In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation.

49. We feel that no such prejudice has been caused to the accused on account of the failure of this Court to examine them Under Section 313 on the facts alleged by the prosecution since they were not incriminating in nature. In any case, Nar Singh v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/1004/2014 : (2015) 1 SCC 496, is an authority for the proposition that accused is not per se entitled for acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013

Decided On: 20.10.2016

 Yogesh Singh Vs.  Mahabeer Singh and Ors.

Print Page

Whether incriminating circumstance not put to accused U/S 313 of CRPC can be used to convict him?

Significantly, in the statement under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused

a question has been put to him that the age of the
prosecutrix was between 15½ - 16½ years. This
reveals that the prosecution itself is not sure as to
what was the exact age of the prosecutrix at that
time and rather as per its own version, her age was
15½ - 16½ years. No question has been put to the
accused that the prosecutrix being born on 5th
August, 1997 was minor, in his statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, such incriminating circumstance
appeared in the prosecution evidence cannot be
used against him. It is held so by the Apex Court in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1984 SC 1622, as under:
“142. Apart from the aforesaid comments
there is one vital defect in some of the
circumstances mentioned above and relied
upon by the High Court, viz., circumstances
Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17. As
these circumstances were not put to the
appellant in his statement under Section 313
of the Criminal Procedure Code they must be
completely excluded from consideration
because the appellant did not have any
chance to explain them. This has been
consistently held by this Court as far back as
1953 where in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat

Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1953 SC
468 this Court held that any circumstance in
respect of which an accused was not
examined under Section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code cannot be used against
him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
 Cr. Appeal No. 264 of 2009
 Reserved on : 16.12.2016
 Decided on: 2nd March, 2017
State of H.P.
V
Raghubir Singh and others 
Coram
 Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
 Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Print Page

Whether trial will be vitiated if identical questions were put up to all accused under S 313 of CRPC?

Lastly, an attempt is also made by learned counsel for the Accused
to submit that, here in the case, the Trial Court has committed an error
while recording the statements of Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
as identical sets of questions were asked to the different Accused, which
practice is deprecated by our own High Court and the Apex Court also. In
support of his submission, he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court
in Swapnali @ Sapana Sharad Mahadik Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
(in Criminal Appeal No.415 of 2010, along with connected matters,
dated 22nd April 2015), in which various Judgments of Supreme Court
were relied upon. However, in our considered opinion, this Judgment
cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, because in
the said case the roles played by Accused Nos.5, 6 and 7, even according
to prosecution case, were different one. Accused Nos.5 and 6 were
guarding at the gate of the building and Accused No.7 passed on the
information to Accused No.5, who executed the plan. Accused No.7 was

not present on the spot. Hence, it was held that there was no meaning in
putting all 66 questions to each of the Accused. As against it, in the
present case, the role of all the Accused persons is identical. At-least, no
material is brought on record to show that they had played any different
role.
45. Moreover, no material is brought on record to show as to what and
in which manner the prejudice, if any, is caused to any of the Accused.
More so, all the Accused were aware of the accusation and the charge
against them. It is not the case of any of the Accused that some
incriminating evidence was not put to them and hence they could not offer
their explanation for the same; therefore, any prejudice was caused to
them. Conversely, each and every piece of incriminating material and
evidence is put up to them and their explanation for the same was
obtained. Only when there is omission to put up the incriminating material,
it can prove fatal to uphold the conviction. As a matter of fact, as per the
law laid down by the Apex Court in Shivaji Vs. State of Maharashtra,
1973 SCC (Cri.) 1033, mere omission to put incriminating material to the
Accused also, does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings. The burden lies
on the Accused to prove that prejudice was occasioned by such defect.
46. Here in the instant case, the Accused have not succeeded in

bringing to the notice of this Court that any incriminating material was not
put up to them and it has resulted into causing prejudice to them in their
defence and thereby resulted in failure of justice. In such situation, the
above said authority is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
47. Further, even assuming that the statements of all the Accused in the
present case are identical, considering the fact that the role played by
them is identical, the evidence against them was also, more or less, the
same in respect of the homicidal death and recovery of the gold
ornaments, it cannot become fatal. If some additional material is also put
to them in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. than the
actual role played by them, there is no question of any prejudice being
caused to them, as the incriminating material appearing against each
individual Accused was also put up to them in addition to incriminating
material appearing against the other Accused. Thus, there was no
omission in putting up to the Accused any incriminating material and
hence no prejudice being caused to the Accused on account of mere
irregularity in recording the statements of the Accused, it has to be held
that this submission also fails.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.441 OF 2005

Futarmal Kapurji Borana  Vs  The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, ACTING C.J. &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH DECEMBER, 2015
Citation; 2016 ALLMR(CRI)901

Print Page

When court can grant police custody remand?

Conditions for grant of police custody remand

1) There are strong and reasonable grounds for believing that accusation or information against accused is well founded.

2)Detention of accused in police custody is necessary.

3) To ensure the continuity,speed and swiftness of investigation immediately after commission of offence or registration of crime under reference.

4)To secure invaluable piece of incriminating material  or get clues of crime.

5) To secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from offender himself.

6)To recover some incriminating property from accused.

7) To find out whether there are other conspirators along with accused who have taken part in the crime.

Print Page