Wednesday, 7 October 2026

Gujarat High Court Allowed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Gujarat HC quashes FIR against two lenders over a borrower's suicide: no proximate act or intent to abet, extortion not made out

The question: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclose abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC against lenders alleged to have harassed the deceased for recovery

The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings against two lenders named in an FIR alleging that they abetted the suicide of a man who had borrowed on interest, and alleging extortion. Justice P. M. Raval held that, even if severe financial pressure and exorbitant interest were assumed, there was no proximate prior act showing a deliberate intent on the applicants' part to drive the deceased to suicide, as Sections 306 and 107 IPC require. On Section 386 IPC, the Court noted that the FIR did not allege the deceased was put in fear of death or grievous hurt when the signed blank cheques and stamp paper were handed over. It also found no documents to support the charges under the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and a suicide note that spoke only in general terms of financial stress. The FIR (C.R. No. I-37 of 2018, Malviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot, registered on 09.03.2018) was lodged by the wife of the deceased. It names five accused persons, including the two applicants, and alleges that her husband borrowed money on interest from them, was pressed with threats and heavy recovery demands, and consumed poisonous medicine on 08.03.2018 and died during treatment at about 09:00 p.m. It invokes Sections 306, 386 and 114 IPC and Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011. The applicants are Khodabhai Dhanabhai Jograna (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6657 of 2018), who is alleged to have lent Rs. 4,00,000 in 2012-2013, and Kalubhai Shiyaliya (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6389 of 2018), alleged to have lent Rs. 1,50,000 against two blank signed cheques and a blank stamp paper. The FIR states that he unilaterally filled in Rs.3,00,000 in each cheque, got them dishonoured and served a statutory legal notice. Both applications were heard together and allowed.

CR.MA/6657/2018

Delhi High Court Allowed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Delhi HC grants NDPS bail: alleged 259 gm recovery just above 250 gm commercial quantity, 15 months in custody, no evidence yet recorded

The question: Whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act bar bail where the alleged recovery is only marginally above the commercial quantity

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in a case where the alleged recovery of morphine was 259 grams against the commercial quantity of 250 grams. Justice Amit Bansal noted that the recovery was marginally above the commercial quantity, that the applicant had been in custody for one year and three months, that charges were framed but no evidence had been recorded, and that he had no other NDPS case. The Court held that a prima facie case for bail was made out on the grounds of absence of independent witnesses and prolonged delay in the trial. The application was filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 172/2025 of Police Station Crime Branch (South-East). The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on 6 July 2025. The order's account of the prosecution case gives the date of apprehension as 6 July 2026, which does not fit this date or the one year and three months of custody it records. According to the prosecution, the applicant was apprehended during regular patrolling and 259.3 grams of morphine was found in his possession. On his disclosure, 114 grams of morphine was allegedly recovered from one Lalit, who was also arrested. The samples sent to the forensic science laboratory were reported positive for morphine and several other substances. The status report states that the investigation is complete, the chargesheet is filed and charges have been framed. The State opposed bail on the ground that a commercial quantity attracts Section 37, that the recovery from the co-accused was of an intermediate quantity so parity could not be claimed, and that the applicant had an earlier FIR of 2015. The applicant answered that the earlier FIR concerned a different offence and that he had been granted bail in it. The order records these contentions without ruling on parity or the earlier FIR separately.

BAIL APPLN./2008/2026

Gujarat High Court Dismissed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Gujarat HC upholds acquittal in alleged rape and murder case as chain of circumstances was not complete

The question: Whether the High Court should interfere with an acquittal based on a view of the evidence that was reasonably possible

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed, at the admission stage, the State's appeal against the acquittal of an accused who was tried for the alleged rape and murder of his fiancée, whom the prosecution described as a minor. A Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani held that the prosecution, which relied wholly on circumstantial evidence, had not proved its circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence, and that the Trial Court's acquittal was a plausible view with no perversity in it. The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2026) was filed under Section 419 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. It challenged the judgment of the trial court in Special (POCSO) Case No. 31 of 2022, dated 29.11.2025, which acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(n)(3) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, the body of the girl was found in a farm on 09.07.2022. It alleged that the accused called her to the spot, raped her, and then, harbouring suspicion, strangled her with his hand and later with a scarf. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents. The Trial Court found that the prosecution had not even proved that the deceased was a minor, and that motive, conduct, the discovery of the place under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the forensic evidence were not established as a complete chain.

CR.A/1150/2026