ValkyaEditorial

Tagged “criminal-procedure”

15 articles on criminal-procedure.

Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement: BNSS s.223 pre-cognizance hearing is mandatory and substantive

On 19 May 2026, a two-judge bench held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS — requiring the accused to be heard before cognizance is taken on a complaint — is a mandatory, substantive Article 21 right; cognizance without compliance is void ab initio, and the rule applies to PMLA complaints where cognizance is taken on or after 1 July 2024 even if the complaint was filed earlier.

Valkya Editorial··9 min
Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI: how the Constitution Bench buried the Single Directive a second time

On 6 May 2014, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice R.M. Lodha struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 — the statutory revival of the executive 'Single Directive' that this Court had abrogated in Vineet Narain (1998) — as violative of Article 14. The judgment closes the doctrinal arc: an administrative immunity, struck down in 1997-98, cannot be reintroduced in legislative form when the underlying constitutional defect remains. The decision became the analytical scaffold for CBI v. R.R. Kishore (2023) and frames the still-pending challenge to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 inserted by the 2018 amendment.

Valkya Editorial··16 min
Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Asian Resurfacing v. CBI and its 2024 overruling: the rise and fall of the auto-vacation of stay orders

On 28 March 2018, a three-judge Bench held in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI that interim stays of trial granted by a High Court in civil and criminal proceedings would automatically vacate after six months, unless extended by a speaking order. The rule operated for almost six years before, on 29 February 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP held it constitutionally unsustainable and overruled it. A digest of both judgments, the practitioner architecture they produced, and the constitutional position that now obtains.

Valkya Editorial··7 min
Weekly Report

BNSS one year on: bail, custody, default release, trial in absentia, and the s.482 discretion

A year into the operation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the practitioner-level architecture is now substantially visible. The Supreme Court's April 2026 disposition in Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh settled the s.480(3) bail-condition question. Section 187(3)'s fragmentary-custody architecture has produced a competing High Court line — the Kulkarni interpretation against the Senthil Balaji line — without a definitive Article 141 resolution. The s.482 discretion has widened, on the Chhattisgarh High Court's reading. Trial in absentia under s.356, the s.183 recording-of-statements architecture, and the s.367–369 protective regime for accused with intellectual disability have each produced their own developing doctrine. This piece reads the year's jurisprudence as one practitioner architecture.

Valkya Editorial··11 min
Weekly Report

Weekly Report: The BNSS bail framework, one year on

As the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita completes its first year in force, the early picture on bail, default bail and police-station procedure is taking shape. A practitioner's scan of where the new Code has settled and where it has not.

Valkya Editorial··3 min
Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State (UT of A&N): the appellate court that convicts must hear on sentence

A short judgment with a long reach. When the appellate court reverses an acquittal and finds the accused guilty for the first time, Section 386(a) CrPC requires it to itself hear the convict on sentence — not remit the matter to the trial court. A reading of the doctrinal point, the section it turns on, and how the rule travels onto BNSS Section 427.

Valkya Editorial··9 min
Landmark JudgmentAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench

Kajal v. State of U.P.: the investigating officer's discretion under Section 183 BNSS

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the investigating officer's discretion to sponsor a witness for recording of statement under Section 183 BNSS — the successor to Section 164 CrPC — is not displaced by a party's request. The investigating agency cannot be compelled to record the statement of a particular witness. A digest of the section, the holding, and what it means for the criminal-investigation framework under the BNSS.

Valkya Editorial··10 min
Landmark JudgmentChhattisgarh High Court

Section 482 BNSS and the wider anticipatory-bail discretion: a Chhattisgarh High Court reading

Section 482 of the BNSS replaced Section 438 of the CrPC on 1 July 2024, but did so without reproducing the statutory guiding factors — nature of accusation, antecedents, possibility of fleeing — that the CrPC had attached. A reading of the Chhattisgarh High Court's diagnosis of what this means for the anticipatory-bail discretion, and how trial courts and the bar should approach the post-BNSS framework.

Valkya Editorial··9 min