Criminal law

In Sivasankaran @ Sankaran Kutty v. State of Kerala [2025:KER:85261], the High Court of Kerala observed that CCTVs installed in a private residence for the safety and security of its occupants cannot be ordered to be removed based on a neighbor's Right to Privacy, unless it is proven that the cameras are being used for snooping.

In State of UP & Anr V Mohd Archad Khan & Anr [ 2025 INSC 1480], the Supreme Court of India directed that High Courts should not grant "no arrest" or "no coercive steps" protection while simultaneously declining to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

In State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni and Ors [SC 118 of 2018], the Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Court on December 12, 2025 acquitted the Malayalam actor Dileep in the much deliberated 2017 actress assault case.

In Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar ( Rohit) v. State of Gujarat [2025 INSC 1433], the Supreme Court issued directions to all the trial courts aiming to institutionalize a standardized format for cataloguing witnesses, documentary evidence, and material objects. These directions intend to facilitate better comprehension and immediate reference for all stakeholders, including the Appellate Courts.

In Chandan Pasi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar [2025 INSC 1371], the Supreme Court stressed that examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 (CrPC) is a non-negotiable duty, , to allow them to explain incriminating evidence against them. It is not a mere formality.

The Supreme Court, in The State Of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey [2025 INSC 1413], held that the police and investigating agencies have the power to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 106 of the BNSS, when a proceeding is initiated against them under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

In Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh [2023 INSC 986], the Supreme Court categorically stated that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR, it by itself ought not to be regarded by the courts in all cases as fatal to the prosecution.

In Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs State of NCT of Delhi [2025 INSC 1322], the Supreme Court issued a binding directive that in all proceedings where a witness is examined via video conferencing, the trial court must ensure the electronic transmission of the witness's prior statements to them.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Yadwinder Singh @Sunny vs State Of Punjab that simply refusing to marry someone, even if true, does not constitute "instigation" under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Abetment to suicide means encouraging, helping, or forcing someone to kill himself/herself.

The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil and connected matters [2025 INSC 1260] has held that threatening a person to give false evidence is a cognizable offence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The police can register an FIR and investigate such offences under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (CrPC).

Anticipatory bail is generally barred in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by virtue of Section 18 of the Act. The Supreme Court, in cases like Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (2020) and the later judgment in Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain [2025 INSC 1067] clarified that this bar is not absolute. Courts must first determine if the allegations, on their face, constitute the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST Act.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) does not prohibit interim release of vehicles, which are seized for allegedly transporting contraband, under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), observed the Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam [2025 INSC 32].