5 December 2025 Legal Updates

WHILE DECIDING S.319 CRPC APPLICATION, COURT NOT REQUIRED TO TEST CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• December 4, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background Facts

The appellant’s sister, Nishi, was shot by her husband, Rahul, on March 25, 2021. Before her death on May 15, 2021, Nishi gave two statements under Section 161 CrPC, implicating her husband and also naming her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and brother-in-law's husband (Respondents 2–4) as instigators.

The police filed a chargesheet only against Rahul, excluding the other accused. The prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the respondents as additional accused, relying on several testimonies and statements.

Both the Trial Court and the High Court dismissed the application, leading to this appeal.

Legal Issue

Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the prosecution’s application under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused based on the evidence presented during the trial.

Key Legal Principles Laid Down (Section 319 CrPC)

1. Power is Extraordinary but Enabling:

• The court can summon any person not already an accused if evidence during trial shows their involvement. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly.

2. Standard of Satisfaction:

• The evidence must be stronger than what is required for framing charges but need not be conclusive enough for conviction. It should be cogent, credible, and prima facie indicative of involvement.

3. Evidence Considered:

The court can rely on: Witness testimonies (examined in court).

• Statements under Section 161 CrPC (for corroboration).
• The court cannot rely solely on charge-sheet or case diary material.

5. No Mini-Trial at Summoning Stage:

• The court should not conduct a detailed examination or cross-examination of witnesses at this stage. Credibility and weight of evidence are to be decided during the trial.

6. Dying Declaration under Section 32, Evidence Act:

• A statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC by a deceased person regarding the cause of death is admissible as a dying declaration, even if not recorded before a magistrate or certified by a doctor.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

• Witness-1’s Testimony: Consistent with the overall narrative and not invalidated by omissions in the FIR.
• Witness-2’s Testimony (Minor Witness): Prima facie indicates instigation by the respondents. The High Court erred in discrediting her testimony at the summoning stage.
• Deceased’s Statements: Admissible as dying declarations. Inconsistencies and lack of medical certification are trial-stage issues, not relevant for summoning.
• The delay between the statement and death does not invalidate a dying declaration.

Decision

Appeal allowed.

Significance

• Section 319 CrPC: A tool to ensure no guilty person escapes trial. Focus on evidence during trial, not investigation material.
• Dying Declaration: Admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act even if recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC.
• Standard of Proof at Summoning Stage: Higher than framing charges, lower than conviction.
• Child Witness Testimony: Can be relied upon prima facie; tutoring and credibility are trial issues.
• Judicial Caution: Courts must avoid mini-trials at the summoning stage.

HIGH COURT SHOULD NOT GRANT PRE-ARREST BAIL WHILE REFUSING TO QUASH FIR; ACCUSED MUST FIRST APPLY FOR SUCH BAIL TO SESSIONS COURT: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Etc.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• December 1, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background Facts

The appellant (complainant) challenged two orders of the Allahabad High Court in writ petitions filed by the accused seeking quashing of FIR registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court, while refusing to quash the FIR, granted the accused blanket protection from arrest until the filing of the charge sheet and completion of investigation.

Legal Issue

Whether the High Court, while refusing to quash an FIR, can simultaneously grant anticipatory bail or protection from arrest to the accused in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Reasoning

1. Self-Contradictory Orders:

• The High Court’s orders were contradictory-it refused to quash the FIR (implying a prima facie case exists) yet granted blanket arrest protection, which prejudiced the investigation.

2. Improper Exercise of Power under Article 226:

• The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 226 powers are not to be used liberally as a substitute for Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail).
• While the High Court can grant relief akin to anticipatory bail in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice, such power must be exercised sparingly.
• A blanket order of “no arrest” or “no coercive steps” until charge sheet is filed is impermissible when the court has refused to quash the FIR.

3. Availability of Regular Remedy:

• Since pre-arrest bail provisions (like Section 438 CrPC) are applicable in Uttar Pradesh, the accused must approach the competent Sessions Court for such relief, not the High Court under Article 226 in a quashing petition.

Decision

Appeals allowed. Impugned High Court orders set aside. Matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the quashing petitions on merits.

Significance

• Article 226 vs. Anticipatory Bail: High Courts cannot routinely grant anticipatory bail under writ jurisdiction when refusing to quash FIRs. Such relief is exceptional.
• Separation of Remedies: Quashing petitions (under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226) and bail applications are distinct; they should not be merged.
• Investigative Prejudice: Blanket arrest protection can hamper investigation; courts must balance accused rights with investigative needs.