When CCTV Contradicts the Allegations: Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 INSC 322 (Ind. Sup. Ct. Apr. 6, 2026).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 18 October 2022, a 77 year old complainant filed FIR No. 150 of 2022 against eight accused following a dispute on 11 October 2022 over a scooter parked near the meter boxes in a Kolkata apartment complex. Later on, it turned into serious allegations of assault and threats. Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar and Sautrik Joardar were accused of threatening the complainant’s family. The Calcutta High Court quashed the proceedings against two women co-accused but declined the same relief to the appellants.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The issue was whether CCTV footage in the chargesheet, which contradicted the allegations, justified quashing under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), and whether the High Court’s distinction between the appellants and co-accused was sustainable.
CONCLUSION/ HELD
On 6 April 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the chargesheet against all appellants.
BRIEF ANALYSIS
The Court held that the CCTV footage showed the appellants reached later and tried to pacify the parties, with no overt act against them. Applying Bhajan Lal and the four step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, it held the allegations unsustainable. The High Court failed to meaningfully analyse the footage or sufficiently explain the differential treatment.
Order II Rule 2 and Rejection of Plaint: S. Valliammai v. S. Ramanathan, 2026 INSC 372 (Ind. Sup. Ct. Apr. 16, 2026).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The dispute arose within a family over properties in Chennai, Ooty and Pudukottai. In 2012, M. Sokkalingam and his wife sued their son, S. Ramanathan, for an injunction protecting their Chennai residence and bank accounts. After Sokkalingam died in 2013, his widow and daughters filed a second suit to declare a 2011 Power of Attorney in favour of the son’s friend void for fraud and coercion. S. Ramanathan sought rejection of the second plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that Order II Rule 2 was attracted. The Trial Court refused, but the Madras High Court rejected the plaint.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The Court concerned the maintainability of a plea under Order II Rule 2 CPC as a ground for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by law.
CONCLUSION/ HELD
On 16 April 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and restored the Trial Court order, reviving the second suit.
BRIEF ANALYSIS
The Court held that Order II Rule 2 is not a bar by law but a defence the defendant must prove by evidence, by comparing both plaints. The High Court treated the averments as evidence, when only the plaint may be read.
NDPS Conviction and the Rule Against Double Jeopardy: Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2026 INSC 332 (Ind. Sup. Ct. Apr. 8, 2026)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 22nd December 2014, the police at Tunnuhatti Police Barrier detected 4.1 kg. of charas hidden in the front seat of a car driven by its owner Kulwant Singh, with Hem Raj as front seat passengers and charged them under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Sections 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, imposing concurrent sentences and fine. The Himachal Pradesh High Court later reduced the imprisonment from 12 years to 10 years, though the fine was retained.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The question arose whether punishment and penalty can be imposed under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act for one transaction without being covered under the principle of Double Jeopardy.
CONCLUSION/ HELD
On 8th April 2026, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and directed immediate release of Hem and Raj, who had already suffered about 11 years imprisonment including default imprisonment.
BRIEF ANALYSIS
The Court held that Sections 25 and 29 are independent offences and the expression ‘punishment for that offence’ only takes away penalty of the principal offence. Article 20(2) of the Constitution bars prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once, but is not attracted where the offences are distinct. Therefore, separate sentences may be imposed, but as they arise out of one transaction the sentences should be concurrent and the fine should not be imposed twice.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY ANINDITA SARKAR, A SECOND-YEAR LL.B. (HONS.) STUDENT AT LAW COLLEGE DURGAPUR, AFFILIATED WITH KAZI NAZRUL UNIVERSITY.
