Justice junction

“Needless to add, the respondents are free to exercise their remedies in accordance with law, and the same shall be decided uninfluenced of the observations made hereinabove”, it clarified. Cause Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prabhu Shankar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 766) Appellant: AOR Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, Additional Advocate General Prateek Chadha, AOR Sanchit Garga, Advocates Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Sreekar Aechuri, Surbhi Soni, Aniket chauhaan, Diksha Arora,Vijender Kumar Respondent: AOR Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mrigank Prabhakar, Advocates Sakshi Banga, Astha Singh, N.R. Shwetabh, AOR V. N. Raghupathy

Absence Of Proof Of Demand Of Illegal Gratification & Recovery May Be Ground For Acquittal But Not For Quashing FIR: Supreme Court The Supreme Court was considering appeals against order of Karnataka High Court quashing FIRs for Prevention of Corruption Act offences. ByTulip Kanth|31 July 2026 2:30 PM Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court While setting aside the impugned orders of the Karnataka High Court quashing the FIRs in a corruption case against certain police officials, the Supreme Court has held that the absence of proof as to the demand of illegal gratification and recovery may become a ground for discharge and/or ultimate acquittal in the trial, but these cannot become grounds for quashing of the FIR. The Apex Court was considering a batch of seven appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka. The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “In the considered view of this Court, the High Court vide the impugned orders has traversed beyond the contours of consideration of a petition under Section 482, CrPC. There were two material aspects which weighed with the High Court, the delay in lodging of the FIR and no evidence of demand/recovery of money. In our view, there cannot be any doubt that these aspects would have to be established through evidence in the criminal trial or may warrant consideration for discharge. Absence of proof as to demand of illegal gratification and recovery thereof, may become a ground for discharge and/or ultimate acquittal in the trial; however, they cannot become grounds for quashing of the FIR. Factual Background Six FIRs were registered against the respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru and Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by these FIRs, the accused persons filed criminal petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs before the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court, vide four impugned orders, allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the FIRs against these accused persons, primarily on the grounds of lack of prima facie material, unexplained delay, and allegations of malafides. Moreover, when a High Court is entertaining a petition for quashing of FIR, it is to refrain from entering into roving and fishing enquiry about the investigative material. What has to be seen is whether, prima facie, the contents of the FIR disclose any commission of a cognizable offence or not. At this initial stage, a ‘mini-trial’ cannot be conducted by the High Court”, it added. The Bench also refused to accept the High Court's observation in the first impugned order that the registration of certain FIRs amounted to second FIRs for the very same offence, as earlier Crime Nos. 63 and 64 of 2020 had been registered under IPC sections on the same set of allegations. “Upon a perusal of the contents of the FIRs, we are not inclined to accept this reasoning”, it added. Considering the aspects that weighed with the High Court, the Bench held that the High Court, vide the impugned orders, had traversed beyond the contours of consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. Also Read - Liberty Doesn’t Depend On Inaccuracy Of Court: Apex Court Rejects Uttarakhand's Appeal Against Bail Granted to Abdul Malik . The Bench reiterated the observations made in State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh (2023), wherein it was observed that it would be eminently desirable if the High Courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to “corruption” cases, especially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible. Thus, allowing the appeals, the Bench set aside the impugned orders.

The Delhi High Court today sought the stand of the city police on a plea by activist Umar Khalid seeking bail in a case under the anti-terror law UAPA concerning the “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi. Issuing a notice in the matter, a bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan asked Delhi Police to file its response within two weeks. Khalid's counsel said that it was the activist's third bail application since his arrest and that he was also seeking interim bail in the case. The bench said it will hear Khalid's plea on August 27, when the bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam is also listed. Khalid has challenged a trial court's July 4 decision dismissing his bail application. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, said Imam's bail plea was also rejected by the same trial court order, and both the cases could be taken up together by the bench. Arrested in September 2020, Khalid has been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on allegations of being one of the masterminds of the February 2020 riots that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured. The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Activists Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, among others, were also booked for their alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy case, which is being investigated by Delhi Police's Special Cell. On July 4, the trial court rejected Khalid’s bail application, saying it had "no option but to follow" the Supreme Court's January 5 order and, therefore, could neither entertain the plea nor grant him the relief. On September 2, 2025, a High Court division bench denied bail to Khalid. On January 5, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict, but granted the relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had then observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA and held that all accused could not be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation”.

The Bench further noted that the writ petitioner, despite repeated requests, did not disclose the place where the mortal remains of the parents of the detainee were lying. This was another aspect on which the Bench drew adverse inference as against the writ petitioner and the detainee. Thus, refusing to interfere with the decision of the authorities, the Bench dismissed the petition. Cause Title: Suman Molla v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.(Case No.: WPA(H)/58/2026) Appearance Petitioner: Advocates Mokaram Hossain, Razzak Hossain, Karnab Biswas Respondent: Additional Govt Pleader Dibasish Basu, Senior Advocate Souvik Nandy, Advocates Sneha Dutta, Purnendu Das, Arijit Majumder, Shreyashi Sarkar

Voter ID, Aadhaar, PAN, Bank Account, Record Of Rights Not Conclusive Proof Of Citizenship: Calcutta High Court The petition before the Calcutta High Court was filed by the uncle of the detainee, who, according to him, was wrongfully detained. ByTulip Kanth|31 July 2026 11:20 AM Voter ID, Aadhaar, PAN, Bank Account, Record Of Rights Not Conclusive Proof Of Citizenship: Calcutta High Court Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, Calcutta High Court While dismissing the petition of a man who alleged that his nephew was detained after his name was deleted from the electoral roll in the SIR, 2026 process, the Calcutta High Court has held that a Voter Identity card, Aadhaar card, bank account, and record of rights are not conclusive proof with regard to Indian Citizenship. The petition was filed by the uncle of the detainee, who, according to him, was wrongfully detained. The Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held, “Voter Identity Card is not a conclusive proof with regard to Indian Citizenship. It is evidence of enrolment of the detainee in the electoral roll. Name of the detainee stands deleted from the electoral roll in the SIR, 2026 process.” “AADHAAR Card, cannot by itself be conclusive proof of Indian citizen. So also a Permanent Account Number issued by the Income Tax Department. Opening of a Bank Account, by itself, again is not a proof of Indian citizenship”, it stated while also adding, “Record of Rights of the great grand-father and the grand-father of the detainee are annexed to the writ petition. Again, those do not establish conclusively the Indian citizenship of the detainee.” Advocate Mokaram Hossain represented the Petitioner while Additional Govt Pleader Dibasish Basu represented the Respondent. Factual Background The detainee, an adult, claimed himself to be 46 years of age. He was taken under detention on June 18, 2026, in terms of the Ministry of Home Affairs Circular dated May 2, 2025, and was housed at a detention centre. The case as set up by the petitioner was that in the Special Intensive Review (SIR), 2026, the detainee was initially classified as ‘under adjudication’. The name of the detainee was struck off from the Voters’ list in the SIR of 2026, but an appeal directed against such decision is pending. According to the petitioner, the detainee was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal under the SIR process of 2026. It was their case that the great-grandfather of the detainee was recorded in the CS Record of Rights in respect of an immovable property. The detainee possessed a Voter Identification Card as well as a Bank Account. Reasoning On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that a detention order dated June 18, 2026 was issued to the detainee and the same spoke of inquiry, interrogation and verification with regard to citizenship of the detainee. The detention order stated that such inquiry, interrogation and verification revealed the detainee to be a Bangladeshi National. The detention order, therefore, proceeded to exercise powers conferred under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, read with paragraph 8 and 12 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025. The Bench also stated, “When Indian authorities alleged that, a person detained is a foreign national, the onus is on the detainee to establish his or her nationality. This is so by reason of Section 16 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946.” The Bench noticed that there was an acknowledgement on the part of the detainee when he was in the detention centre that he is a Bangladeshi national. It was also noticed that the writ petition did not disclose the birth certificate of the detainee, and adequate material to establish the place of birth or date of birth was absent in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit. Citizenship by birth was also not established.