- PRADNYA PRANJAL KULKARNI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR (2025)
The Supreme Court observed that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognisance is taken, but once cognisance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognisance order, if duly pleaded.
2. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
which held that even in the absence of an explicit provision in the Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate has the authority to direct a “person” to provide a voice sample for investigation. The Court clarified that the term “person” is not confined to the accused alone but also extends to witnesses.
3. Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana
where Hon’ble Apex Court has held that non compliance of Article 22(1) of Indian Constitution and section
50(A) of Cr.P.C, 1973 i.e., Communication of Grounds of arrest no only to the accused but also to his friends and relative is
must. Without compliance of the same is ground for grant of
bail in all cases.
4. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs State of Maharashtra
The identity of the accused is not determinative at this stage, as the process is offence-centric rather than person-centric.
5. Anirudh Prasad @ Sadhu Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2006)
whereby the Apex Court directed the Patna High Court to consider the bail application of an applicant, who had filed a second application for anticipatory bail after submission of police report
6. Bindu K.P. v. Surendran C.K(2018)
wherein it was held that the claim of the wife or ex-wife for a dowry is not barred by any length of time.
7. Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and held that the anticipatory bail need not be in place for a limited duration of time. The Bench quoted from the Sushila case, “If the facts of the given case make the applicant entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, even after submission of charge sheet against him and cognizance of the same by the Court, the second anticipatory bail would be maintainable before the High Court even though the applicant was earlier granted anticipatory bail till the submission of charge sheet by the High Court.”
8. Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) VI SCC 667,
wherein the Apex Court held that when the anticipatory bail is granted by the court of Session or the High Court, it is at the stage of incomplete investigation. The nature of offence against the offender is not before the court, therefore, anticipatory bail order should be of limited duration only and after the aforesaid duration expires the matter should be left for the regular court to deal with it and the court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for
Justice Siddhartha however observed that the above case does not impose any restriction or absolute bar on the court granting anticipatory bail even in cases where either cognizance has been taken or a charge sheet has been filed.
The Judge observed that Salauddin’s case “only lays down a guideline that while considering prima facie case against an accused, the factum of cognizance having been taken and filing of charge sheet would be of some assistance for coming to the conclusion whether the accused is entitled for anticipatory bail or not.”
9. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602
wherein, the notice to the accused at the time of consideration of application for extension of period of investigation was held to be mandatory.
10. A Srinivasulu v. State
When the Special Court takes cognisance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, approvers need not be examined as per Section 306 of CrPC.