Supreme Court: Court's Permission Needed To Arrest Accused For Offence Added After Grant Of Bail

 34. In such circumstances referred to above, we arrive at

following conclusions in respect of a circumstance whereafter

the grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and nonbailable

offences are added:-

(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly

added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In the event of

refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.

(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court

under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively for

arrest of the accused and his custody.

(iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections

437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for

taking into custody the accused who has already been granted

bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of

its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2)

respectively can direct the person who has already been

granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on

addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not

be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.

(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail,

the investigating authority on addition of an offence or

offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for

arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences

it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the

Court which had granted the bail.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.1536/2026)

SUMIT  Vs STATE OF U P & ANR. 

Coram: J.B.PARDIWALA & K.V.VISWANATHAN, J.J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 145.

Dated: 09TH FEBRUARY 2026

Print Page

Whether the accused should obtain permission for renewal of passport from the court where criminal case is pending?

The Respondent shall process the application of the petitioner for renewal of Passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is travelling abroad, then the Petitioner would be required to seek permission from the Court where criminal case is pending.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before S.V. Gangapurwala and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.)

Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs State of Maharashtra and Another.

Writ Petition No. 384 of 2019

Decided on August 23, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992 : (2022) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) 687.

Print Page

Whether Karta of a joint Hindu family must obtain the permission of the court for disposal of immovable property involving an undivided interest of the minor?

 A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in sections 6, 8

and12 of the Act, indicates that natural guardian of the property of Hindu minor is enjoined to seek permission of the Court to dispose of any immovable property of the minor. However, where the minor has undivided interest in the joint family property, the previous permission of the Court under section 8 of the Act for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. In other words, in view of the provisions contained in section 6 and 12, the permission envisaged under section 8 of the Act would not be required where a joint family property is alienated by Karta involving an undivided interest of minor in the said joint Hindu family property. A useful reference in this context can be

made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri

Narayan Bal & Others vs. Sridhar Sutar & Ors (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 54.. The observations in paragraph 5 are material and hence, extracted below. {Para 20}

5. With regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor

in joint family property, the provisions afore-culled are beads

of the same string and need be viewed in a single glimpse,

simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each

provision, and in particular Section 8, cannot be viewed in

isolation. If read together the intent of the legislative in this

beneficial legislation becomes manifest. Ordinarily the law

does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest

of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The natural

guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other than the

undivided interest in joint family property, is alone

contemplated under Section 8, where under his powers and

duties are defined. Section 12 carves out an exception to the

rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family

in management of the joint family property, in which the

minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be

appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for

such undivided interest of the minor. The adult member of the

family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property

may be a male or a female, not necessarily the Karta. The

power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a guardian, in

situations justifying, has been preserved. This is the legislative

scheme on the subject. Under Section 8 a natural guardian of

the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any

immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the

court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the

minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as

provided under sections 6 to 12 of the Act, the previous

permission of Court u/s. 8 of disposing of undivided interest of

the minor in the joint family property is not required. The joint

Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting

through its Karta and other adult members of the family in

management of the joint Hindu family property. Thus section

8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12 , would not

be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is

sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest

of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property. The

question posed at the outset therefore is so answered.

(emphasis supplied)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1499 OF 2021

IN

SUIT NO.108 OF 2021

Hriday Niraj Mehta  Vs. Umesh Jayantilal Mehta and Others 

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 15th FEBRUARY, 2022

Print Page

Whether mother can dispose off undivided interest of minor in joint family property without permission of court?

 The principal question that has arisen in this case is as to whether the mother of the original plaintiffs could have executed the aforesaid sale-deed dated 30.03.1974 in respect of the suit property without seeking permission of the Court as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the aforesaid Act.

But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the court under Section 8 for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. The joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the Joint Hindu family property. Thus Section 8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12, would not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property. The question posed at the outset therefore is so answered."

12. This position of law has been followed by this Court in the case of Sandhya Rajan Antapurkar and others v. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein it has been held as follows :-

"7. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father and after him the mother is natural guardian of Hindu minor in respect of minor person as well as in respect of the minor's property. The undivided interest of the minor in joint family property has been specifically excluded by this Section.

8. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 prevents natural guardian of Hindu minor to transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor without previous permission of the Court. This restriction on the natural guardian in relation to the property of the minor applies only to the separate or absolute property of the minor. It does not include the minor's undivided share in the joint family property, as, under Section 6, there cannot be a natural guardian in respect of such property which is specifically excluded."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal (SA) No. 582 of 2006

Decided On: 04.05.2018

 Vasantrao Gulabrao Thakre Vs. Sudhakar Wamanrao Hingankar 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 121

Print Page

Whether mother can sell property of minor without obtaining permission of court?

 In   the   present   case,   though   it   is   stated
that the property has been sold for the proper
benefit   of   the   minors,   their   protection,
education   and   marriage,there   is     nothing   on
record to suggest that previous permission of
the   Court   was     obtained   by   the   natural
guardian before transfer by sale  in question.
13. Where   the   father   dies   leaving   behind   only
minor   daughters   and   their   mother   as   natural
guardian,   the   share   of   the   daughters   became
definite;     the   question   of   family   partition
retaining the character of joint Hindu Family
property does not exist.  In the present case,
after   the   death   of   the   father,   the   property
has   been   shared   amongst   each   member   of   the
family   and recorded in the mutation register
having   1/4th   share   each.   In   such
circumstances,  the  provision of  sub­section
(3) of Section 8 shall attract as the  mother
sold the property without previous permission
of   the   Court.   Hence,   both   the   sale   deeds
executed by the second respondent in favour of
the first respondent shall become  voidable at
the instance  of the minor  i.e.  the  appellant
and the  Proforma­respondent nos.4&5.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10582 OF 2013

SAROJ  Vs SUNDER SINGH & ORS.

Dated:NOVEMBER 25,2013.

Print Page

Whether police can do further investigation without permission of court?

   The next point is regarding the permission of court for further

investigation. In this case, police reported that it was informed to the

court and sought a stay of proceedings. Further investigation is the

prerogative of the Police, permission is only a formality or courtesy.

Under such circumstances, no illegality committed by the Police in

respect of further investigation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

     MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

  10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016

                   Crl.MC.No. 3783 of 2015

           RADHAKRISHNAN
        Vs

             STATE OF KERALA
           Citation: 2016 CRLJ 4763 Kerala

Print Page

Whether litigant can be permitted to produce documents for cross examination of witness without permission of court?

 In the opinion of this court, if the petitioner seeks to bring
the documents on record to maintain the element of surprise,
the documents have to be put to the witness to confront him at
the time of cross-examination and are not required to be
produced by making an application for production of the same.
Therefore, the application made by the petitioner cannot be
treated as one under sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of Order VII of the
Code. However, since it has been contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the documents are sought to be produced on
record under sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of Order VII of the Code,
while upholding the order passed by the trial court, with a view
to balance equities, it is clarified that it would be permissible
for the petitioner to produce such documents for the purpose
of confronting the witness at the time of cross examination of
such witness for which purpose it would not be necessary to
obtain leave of the court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4826 of 2015


RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD
V
ARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL & 7.
CORAM: MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 04/05/2015
Citation; AIR 2015(NOC)1188 GUJ

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to obtain permission of court for production of documents for cross examination of witness?

 In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of
the Madras High Court in the case of T.M. Mohana v.
Kannan, AIR 1984 MADRAS 14, wherein the court has
observed that it is seen from the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1
(2) and (6), Order 8 Rule 8-A (1) and (3) and Order 13 Rule 2
(2) C.P.C. that at every stage at which the defendant is called
upon to produce the documents, an exception is always made
with reference to documents produced for the crossexamination
of the plaintiff’s witnesses or the crossexamination
of the witnesses of the other party or in answer to
a case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the suit
or with a view to refresh memory. In other words, the obligation
to produce the documents relied upon by the defendant at the
stages contemplated under Order 8, Rule 1 (2), Order 8 Rule
8A (1) and by both parties under Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. has
been done away with in all those cases with reference to
documents produced for cross-examination. That would mean
that a defendant in the suit confronting the plaintiff's
witnesses, as in this case, need not disclose the document in
the list or produce the document at an anterior point of time or
even seek and obtain the leave of court for tendering such a
document in the course of the cross-examination of the
witness of the other side. The benefit of the production of a
document for purposes of cross-examination can be availed of
either by the plaintiff or by the defendant with reference to the

witnesses of the other party. The court, after referring to
various decisions of different High Courts observed that from
the said decisions also, it is clear that where the document
relied upon is intended to be put to a witness in the course of
his cross-examination, it is not necessary that such a
document should be disclosed earlier or that leave of court
should be obtained for so producing the documents to the
witnesses in the course of cross-examination.
25. In the opinion of this court, if the petitioner seeks to bring
the documents on record to maintain the element of surprise,
the documents have to be put to the witness to confront him at
the time of cross-examination and are not required to be
produced by making an application for production of the same.
Therefore, the application made by the petitioner cannot be
treated as one under sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of Order VII of the
Code. However, since it has been contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the documents are sought to be produced on
record under sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of Order VII of the Code,
while upholding the order passed by the trial court, with a view
to balance equities, it is clarified that it would be permissible
for the petitioner to produce such documents for the purpose
of confronting the witness at the time of cross examination of
such witness for which purpose it would not be necessary to
obtain leave of the court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4826 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4827 of 2015

RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD V ARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL & 7

CORAM: MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 04/05/2015
Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)1188 Guj

Print Page