Supreme Court to examine if verdict requiring probe agency to give accused written grounds of arrest will apply retrospectively
The Supreme Court on Friday (June 27, 2025) decided to examine if its October 2023 judgment requiring the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide accused persons with grounds of arrest in writing will have retrospective application and include offences under the Indian Penal Code within its ambit.
A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh issued notice on the petition filed by the State of Karnataka, which had sought a clarification if the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India, which mandated the written communication of grounds of arrest to an accused, would have retrospective effect.
The apex court, subsequent to the Pankaj Bansal judgment, had extended the requirement to cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in a case filed by NewsClick founder and senior journalist Prabir Purkayastha last year.
On Friday, the Bench said the issue raised by Karnataka was already reserved for judgment in another case, Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra, in April. The Bench suggested waiting for the judgment in this case, adding that it would shed greater clarity on the question of law.
The State had appealed to the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court decision in April quashing the arrest of a murder accused on the ground that the reasons for his arrest were not shared with him by the police in writing. The High Court had applied the Pankaj Bansal judgment retrospectively.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Karnataka, objected to the High Court's reasoning, arguing that the Pankaj Bansal judgment had itself said its application was to be with prospective effect.
However, Justice Viswanathan pointed out that Pankaj Bansal judgment itself had been applied retrospectively by quashing an arrest which had, in fact, already taken place. The Bench questioned the State's take that the judgment would only have prospective effect.
The court listed the case on July 18, after the court reopens following summer vacation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Varanasi gang-rape case: Can't be denied that the accused committed the crime, says SIT
VARANASI The special investigation team formed to find out the truth behind the allegations of a 19-year-old girl that she was raped by 23 people during seven days between March 29 and April 4 submitted its report on Thursday. Based on the findings of the investigation, it cannot be denied that the accused committed the crime, the team concluded. Investigation revealed that during the period of disappearance, the victim was seen coming and going independently and with some of the accused. (Pic for representation) 'Investigation found the presence of several accused with the victim at different places on different dates during the period of disappearance. In such serious cases, the Supreme Court and high court have given various important guidelines and decisions, emphasizing that the statement of the victim be given priority. In this context, as per the statement of the victim, and the facts found in the investigation, it cannot be denied that the accused committed the crime,' the SIT stated. Commissioner of police, Mohit Agarwal, confirmed that the SIT submitted the report. During the investigation by SIT, all the evidences were examined by compiling CDR of various persons, statements of witnesses, CCTV footage, Instagram IP logs of the victim, statement of the victim, statements of the accused and their family members. Investigation revealed that during the period of disappearance, the victim was seen coming and going independently and with some of the accused. Meanwhile, she was seen visiting a mall and Chausatti Ghat with her friends. During the period of alleged incident, the victim borrowed mobile phones from about 11 different persons and used them to log in to Instagram and also made calls to many people. When the victim was asked why she did not go home or tell anyone about the incident, she said that she was scared to go home, and due to fear and shame, she did not tell anyone about the incident, the SIT said. The victim's mother lodged a complaint with the police that her daughter went missing from the house on March 29. The police registered a missing complaint, and the girl was recovered from the house of her friend on April 4. The victim's mother alleged that her daughter was sexually assaulted by some people at different locations during her period of disappearance. Thereafter, the police registered a case and arrested 14 accused. Moreover, on April 17, kin of the accused submitted an application to the commissioner of police, demanding that an investigation be conducted in the matter. The commissioner constituted an SIT chaired by deputy commissioner of police, Varuna Zone, Pramod Kumar. The team completed the investigation and submitted a report.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Trial courts shouldn't summon anyone as accused without proper reason: Delhi HC
Trial courts must not causally issue summons to an individual as an accused without good reason, the Delhi high court said while quashing the summons issued to a man in connection with a ₹ 98 lakh cheating case. The man in this case had approached the high court against a trial court's September 28, 2013, order summoning him as an accused. (HT Archive) A bench of justice Amit Mahajan observed that issuance of summons is a serious issue and the summoning order must reflect application of mind. 'Issuance of summons is a serious issue and it is imperative that the summoning order shows due application of mind and examination of the facts of the case as well as the evidence on record,' said justice Mahajan in his June 23 ruling. 'Merely taking note of the facts and recording prima facie satisfaction, without giving any reasons for the same, is insufficient.' The man in this case had approached the high court against a trial court's September 28, 2013, order summoning him as an accused. The case had stemmed from a complaint filed by a company, M/S Indiabulls Securities Limited, which trades stocks, under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. The company had alleged that the man dishonestly induced it to open an account in his name and availed the facility of margin trading, where investors borrow funds from their broker to increase their purchasing power and potentially amplify their returns, to buy shares but failed to repay the same despite multiple margin calls. The man's plea before the high court said that the allegations levelled against him were absurd and improbable in nature and the order was passed mechanically without appreciating the ingredients of the offence. It said that the company had caused losses to him by selling his shares worth ₹ 7 crore without his express instructions. The company had argued that the plea was frivolous and not maintainable since it was filed seven years after passing of the order. Justice Mahajan remarked that the summons were issued without due application of mind, appreciating or scrutinising the material and the company sought to give a criminal cloak to civil proceedings for recovery of dues. 'The impugned order is unreasonable and summons have been arbitrarily issued against the petitioner. Although the learned magistrate has recorded its satisfaction about the existence of prima facie case in the impugned order, however on a bare perusal of the complaint as well as pre- summoning evidence, the said observation seems to be without any application of mind,' the judgement said. It added that the allegations did not disclose an element of criminality and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the man would amount to abuse of law. The judge also sounded a note of caution against the misuse of criminal proceedings. 'Criminal proceedings ought not to be misused to wreak vengeance or harass the other side,' the court maintained.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Detention untenable: Supreme Court frees Madhya Pradesh student charged under NSA
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of a law student from Madhya Pradesh who had been taken into preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. The court termed the detention 'wholly untenable' and directed his immediate release from Bhopal Central Jail, provided he is not required in any other criminal law student had been detained by an order on July 11, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate of Betul. The detention order was extended four times, with the latest extension valid until July 12, 2025. The authorities cited nine criminal antecedents, including the present case, to justify the detention under Section 3(2) of the the appellant's counsel informed the court that the student had been acquitted in five out of the eight earlier cases, convicted in one where the punishment was limited to a fine and was currently out on bail in the remaining two pending cases. The apex court took note of multiple lapses in the detention process. It said, 'Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the court directed the appellant, who is presently lodged in the Central Jail at Bhopal, to be released forthwith from custody, if he is not required in any other criminal case.'The bench observed that the reasons for the detention did not fulfil the criteria under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the NSA. 'Preventive detention of the appellant, therefore, becomes wholly untenable,' the court further noted procedural lapses, including the District Collector's failure to forward the student's representation to the State Government. Additionally, the court pointed out that the authorities had failed to justify why preventive detention was necessary when the appellant was already under custody in connection with a regular criminal student was granted bail in the ongoing criminal case on January 28, 2025. The court remarked that he remained in custody solely due to the preventive detention Supreme Court concluded that it would issue a detailed and reasoned order in due course.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
