This appeal was at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh and was directed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh of judicature at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2004 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and acquitted him of the offence under Section(s) 302, 201 and 34 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the ‘IPC’).

The deceased, namely, Birendra Kumari was married to the respondent accused. In the wedlock, two sons and a daughter named Rani were born. Rani at the time of the incident in 2003, was seven years of age.

On 15.07.2003 sometime during the midnight, Bhoora Singh @ Yashpal i.e., the complainant along with his father Bharat Singh; reported an incident of unnatural death to the Indar Police Station at around 9:00 AM . In the said report, the Complainants stated that on the fateful night of the incident, at around 12:00 AM, they heard the cries and screams of the deceased which eventually ceased. Shortly, thereafter they saw the accused along with his family members cremating the deceased in their field. It was further stated that when they went to the house of the accused to inquire about the incident, the daughter of the deceased (Rani) informed that her mother had died.

Upon enquiry done by ASI Mahendra Singh Chauhan an FIR was lodged bearing no. 142 of 2003 dated 20.07.2003 came to be registered against the respondent and her sister, Jatan Bai for the offence punishable under Section(s) 302, 201 read with 34 respectively of the IPC.

Trial Court vide its final judgment and order dated 09.08.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 2003 held the respondent accused guilty of the said offences of IPC.

The accused convict being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, went in appeal before the High Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2004. The High Court vide its final judgment and order dated 29.06.2010 allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent accused.

The High Court holding the oral evidence of the daughter, who was just 7 years old at the time of incidence being unreliable and some other reasons to extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.

The Supreme Court of India, in the present matter, examined the law relating to the evidentiary value of a child witness and the tests for identifying tutored testimony. The Court held that the evidence of a child witness stands on the same footing as that of any other witness, subject to certain well-recognised safeguards and caution. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court were set aside, and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in S.T. No. 197 of 2003 were restored.

Author
Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc, LL.B& LL.M

LENTIS LEGALIS
ALLAHABAD| 14.02.2026

The Allahabad High Court has allowed a criminal appeal and set aside multiple orders passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, holding that a trial court cannot ignore a Final Report (closure report) filed after further investigation merely because cognizance had already been taken on an earlier charge sheet.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow this present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2024, 27.06.2024 and 10.05.2024 and all other consequential orders also passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District-Kannauj in S.C. No.1374/2023 (State Vs. Sonu @ Bhagwan Bhakt and others) arising out of Case Crime No.627/2023 U/s 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1)(d) SC/St Act, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj District-Kannauj. The Investigating Officer initially filed a charge sheet on 15.09.2023, on which cognizance was taken on 21.12.2023.

As the investigation was still under progress, supplementary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted by I.O. on 31.3.2024 by concluding that allegations against the appellants were found false. It can be said that a final report was submitted by I.O. subsequent to the order of taking cognizance upon the charge sheet on 21.12.2023

During further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the I.O. submitted a Final Report/Closure Report on 31.03.2024, concluding that the allegations were false. Despite this, the trial court proceeded to frame charges on 07.08.2025 without passing any order on the Final Report.

The central question before the High Court was:
What is the duty of a Magistrate when, after taking cognizance on a charge sheet, a subsequent Final Report (negative report) is filed following further investigation?

The High Court held that A supplementary report, including a Final Report, is an integral part of the primary police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Magistrate is duty-bound to consider every subsequent report filed during investigation, even after cognizance has been taken. Ignoring a Final Report and proceeding to frame charges amounts to a procedural illegality. Passing a fresh order on a Final Report does not amount to a review barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C., as cognizance does not finally dispose of the case.

The Court relied on landmark judgments including:

• Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) – holding that primary and supplementary reports must be read conjointly.
• Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) – recognising the necessity of further investigation even after cognizance.
• Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh – reiterating the Magistrate’s duty to independently assess conflicting police reports.
• Mariam Fasihuddin v. State (2024) – emphasising that courts must apply judicial mind to every valid supplementary report.

The impugned orders dated 21.08.2024, 27.06.2024 and 10.05.2024, including the order framing charges on 07.08.2025, were set aside. The trial court has been directed to first decide the Final Report after considering it along with the initial charge sheet. Charges may be framed only if a conjoint reading of both reports discloses a prima facie case.

See Here to read full Judgement

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | 9 February 2026

In a significant ruling clarifying the law on anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court of India held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily cannot be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet, unless exceptional circumstances are recorded. The Court set aside an order of the High Court of Allahabad which had denied continued protection to an accused after completion of investigation.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536 of 2026, titled Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

The appellant, Sumit, is the brother-in-law (devar) of a deceased woman who had been married to the appellant’s brother for about seven months prior to her death.

• The deceased died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home.
• An FIR bearing No. 560/2024 was registered at Akbarpur Police Station, Kanpur Dehat, under:
  • Sections 80(2) / 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
  • Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
• The FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased, alleging dowry-related harassment and death.

Apprehending arrest, the appellant initially approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Proceedings Before the High Court

First Anticipatory Bail Order

In Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3992/2025, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. However, the relief was restricted only till the filing of the police charge sheet.

The High Court:

• Accepted that there were no specific allegations against the appellant.
• Noted that he was implicated largely due to his relationship as a brother-in-law.
• Observed that he had no criminal antecedents.
• Still imposed a time-bound limitation, terminating protection once the investigation concluded.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application

After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant again sought anticipatory bail. This time, the High Court rejected the application without identifying any new aggravating circumstance or change in the factual matrix.

This rejection led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether anticipatory bail can be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet as a matter of routine?
2. Whether filing of a charge sheet automatically extinguishes the protection of anticipatory bail?
3. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the second anticipatory bail application without recording special reasons?

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Discussion

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the practice of granting time-bound anticipatory bail orders.

No Rationale for Automatic Expiry

The Bench observed:

• Once a court, after considering the nature of allegations, role of the accused, and overall facts, exercises discretion in favour of the accused, there must be strong and special reasons to subsequently deny protection.
• Merely because the charge sheet is filed, the anticipatory bail does not automatically lapse.

The Court questioned the logic behind such restrictions, noting:

“Either the Court grants anticipatory bail or declines it. Having granted it after due consideration, there was no justification to limit it till the filing of the charge sheet.”

Reliance on Constitution Bench Precedent

The Bench reaffirmed the law laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), holding that:

• Anticipatory bail need not have a fixed expiry period.
• Duration of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, not procedural milestones.
• Arbitrary timelines undermine personal liberty.

The Court also relied upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, reiterating that:

• Anticipatory bail should not hinge upon investigation stages like filing of charge sheet or taking cognizance.

Conditions, Not Time Limits, Are the Safeguard

Addressing concerns of misuse, the Court clarified that:

• Risks can be mitigated through conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering of evidence.
• If circumstances change, the prosecution is always at liberty to seek cancellation or modification of bail under law.
• However, expiry clauses at inception are legally unsustainable.

Clarification on Addition of Graver Offences

Before concluding, the Court addressed an important legal scenario:
What happens if new, serious non-bailable offences are added after bail is granted?

Relying on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi (2001), the Court held:

• Addition of graver cognizable and non-bailable offences may disentitle the accused from earlier bail.
• In such cases:
  • Courts must apply their mind afresh.
  • Investigating agencies may seek custody through appropriate judicial orders.
  • Arrest cannot be mechanical and must follow judicial authorization.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

• Set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court rejecting anticipatory bail.
• Directed that In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. The appellant shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bonds. Directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for placement before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

Click Below to read the Judgment
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/3119/3119_2026_5_32_68496_Judgement_09-Feb-2026.pdf