IPC Section 34 — Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Judgments citing IPC Section 34

1. The State of Telangana vs. Mankala Shiva Kumar on 30 October, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana30 Oct 2023

   Case Name: The State of Telangana vs. Mankala Shiva Kumar on 30 October, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 30 October, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti Subject: Service Law – Cancellation of Provisional Selection – Suppression of Criminal History – Application of Supreme Court Guidelines Key Legal Propositions 1. Suppression of material facts in application/attestation forms can be grounds for disqualification from appointment. 2. Employers have discretion to consider cases of suppression, particularly when the concealed information relates to trivial offences or cases ending in acquittal. 3. Guidelines laid down in *Avtar Singh v. Union of India* must be considered when evaluating suppression of criminal history, and a rigid application of disqualification rules may be inappropriate. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from a challenge to a Single Judge’s order setting aside the cancellation of the Respondent’s (Mankala Shiva Kumar) provisional selection as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable. The Respondent’s selection was initially cancelled due to non-

2. Dudepaka Chalapathi, @ Chalam & Domakonda Raju @ Raju vs The State on 31 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana31 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Dudepaka Chalapathi, @ Chalam & Domakonda Raju @ Raju vs The State on 31 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 31 July, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Attempt to Murder, Arms Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Credible eyewitness testimony, particularly from the injured witness, is sufficient to establish guilt even in the absence of corroborating evidence regarding motive. 2. A Test Identification Parade (TIP) is valid unless there is demonstrable irregularity in its procedure, and a bald statement by the accused regarding prior identification does not invalidate the proceedings. 3. A conviction based solely on the presence of an accused at the scene and possession of a weapon, without evidence of overt acts, is unsustainable, and benefit of doubt should be extended. Judgment Summary Background: The appellants were convicted for offences under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with A1 also convicted under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and A2 under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case stemmed from an altercation where the appellants allegedly fired upon and injured P.W.2. The appel

3. Bandari Mallaiah vs State Of Telangana on 27 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Bandari Mallaiah vs State Of Telangana on 27 January, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 January, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani and Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in FIR – Identification of Accused – Common Intention – Motive Key Legal Propositions 1. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) can be examined to assess the genuineness of the prosecution case, but does not automatically invalidate it if adequately explained. 2. In homicide cases, the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and confession statements alone are insufficient without corroborating evidence. 3. The prosecution must prove the common intention between accused persons to commit the offence, and mere motive is insufficient to establish guilt. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arose from a judgment convicting the appellant/accused No.2 under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with Accused No.1, attacked and killed the deceased due to a di

4. Padakanti Krishnaiah vs The State of T.S. on 12 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the punishment prescribed for alleged offences is less than seven years, the accused may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer subject to compliance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and guidelines laid down in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar*. 2. The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, but may instead direct appearance before the Investigating Officer with safeguards. 3. Accused persons are obligated to cooperate with the investigation and provide necessary information and documents. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in FIR No. 92 of 2023 registered for offences under Section 505(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. A connected petition sought a stay of arrest. Held: A. On Quashing of FIR/Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Majority View: The Court did not quash the FIR but directed the petitioner/accused No. 2 to appear before the Investigating Officer. Dissenting View: None. B

5. Shanker Reddy Nimmala & Ors. vs State Of Telangana & Anr. on 21 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana21 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Shanker Reddy Nimmala & Ors. vs State Of Telangana & Anr. on 21 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 21 August, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Domestic Violence – Cheating – Infructuous Petition Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings. 2. A criminal petition becomes infructuous when the underlying cause of action no longer exists. 3. The Court may dismiss a petition as infructuous based on the submission of the prosecution that no further adjudication is required. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioners filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 222 of 2016 registered against them for offences under Sections 498-A, 415, and 418 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A connected Miscellaneous Petition sought a stay of investigation. Held: A. On Quashing of Proceedings/Issue of Survival of Cause of Action: Majority View: The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, recording the submission of

6. Sri S..B.G.V.Pra9a! Rao vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023 & T.Yadamma vs The State of Telangana on 19 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Sri S..B.G.V.Pra9a! Rao vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023 & T.Yadamma vs The State of Telangana on 19 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 04 July, 2023 & 19 June, 2023 Bench: Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Investigation Guidelines Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is less than seven years, it is appropriate to direct the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer. 2. The Investigating Officer must adhere to Section 41-A CrPC and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. 3. In cases involving allegations under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, the Court may not interfere with ongoing proceedings but may dispense with the accused’s personal appearance unless specifically required by the trial court. Judgment Summary Background: Criminal Petition No. 5921 of 2023 arises from an FIR registered under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR. Criminal Petition No. 5357 of 2023 seeks quashing of proce

7. State of Telangana vs Sri Agha Nayyar & Sri G.Nageswar Rao on 15 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana15 Mar 2023

   Case Name: State of Telangana vs Sri Agha Nayyar & Sri G.Nageswar Rao on 15 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 15 March, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Key Legal Propositions 1. To establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it must be proven that the public servant accepted gratification as a motive or reward for performing or abstaining from an official act. 2. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged illegal gratification was accepted by the accused public servants. 3. Mere acceptance of money is insufficient; a nexus must be established between the gratification and the official act the public servant was expected to perform or refrain from performing. Judgment Summary Background: The State of Telangana filed a Criminal Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C against the acquittal of two accused officers (Home Guard and Police Constable) by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. The charges were under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

8. Kanamoni Ramulu & Ors. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 26 December, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana26 Dec 2023

   Case Name: Kanamoni Ramulu & Ors. vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 26 December, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 26 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(r) – Abuse and Insult – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in Complaint – Hostile Witnesses. Key Legal Propositions 1. A conviction under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 requires proof of intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 2. If the allegation of abuse, which forms the basis of the charge under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, is not found to be credible, a conviction under that section cannot stand. 3. Unexplained delay in lodging a complaint, coupled with the failure to prove injuries and the presence of hostile witnesses, warrants a benefit of doubt to the accused. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 18.06.2021 of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, convicting the appellants under Section 3(1)(r

9. Bakaram Buchi Reddy and Ors. vs The State of Telangana and Anr. on 27 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Bakaram Buchi Reddy and Ors. vs The State of Telangana and Anr. on 27 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana Date of Judgment: 27 April, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Dispensation of Personal Appearance Key Legal Propositions 1. High Courts possess inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. 2. Courts may dispense with the personal appearance of accused persons, subject to conditions ensuring no prejudice to the proceedings. 3. A Magistrate, upon an application, must dispose of a discharge petition on merits within a specified timeframe if charges haven't been framed. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 525 of 2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, concerning offences punishable under Sections 447 and 127 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 sought the quashing of these proceedings and, additionally, a dispensation of their personal appearance. He

10. Gnaneshwar @ NanaVala Gnaneshwar Yadav & Anr. vs The State of Telangana on 26 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana26 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Gnaneshwar @ NanaVala Gnaneshwar Yadav & Bommaragoni Shekar vs The State of Telangana on 26 April, 2023 Court: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Date of Judgment: 26 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Key Legal Propositions 1. High Courts have the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. 2. Where the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment less than seven years, Investigating Officers are directed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. 3. Petitioners are obligated to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the conclusion of the investigation. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioners, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR No. 188 of 2023 registered with Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda District. The allegations against them were under Sections 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1), 3(r), 3(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes

11. Emni Pedda Gangaram & Ors. vs The State of A.P. on 13 December, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Emni Pedda Gangaram (A-1) & Ors. vs The State of A.P. on 13 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Smt Justice K. Sujana Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Appreciation of Evidence – Juvenile Justice Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction based solely on eyewitness testimony requires careful scrutiny, particularly regarding consistency and potential for bias. 2. Evidence establishing a homicide, coupled with proof of the accused’s presence and knowledge, may not necessarily establish the intent required for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, potentially reducing the charge to Section 304 Part-I IPC. 3. The provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, supersede other penal provisions when an accused is found to be a juvenile at the time of the offense, mandating a maximum sentence of three years. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan, convicting appellants 1-3 under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of C

12. Smt.Rihana Begum & Anr. vs State of Telangana on 18 December, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana18 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Smt.Rihana Begum & Anr. vs State of Telangana on 18 December, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 18 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Lakshman & Smt Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction based solely on suspicion and circumstantial evidence, without direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime, is unsustainable. 2. Failure to examine a crucial witness, particularly one who allegedly provided extra-judicial confession, creates doubt regarding the prosecution's case. 3. In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any lingering doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a judgment dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, convicting the appellants (A.1 – wife and A.2 – son of the deceased) under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses indic

13. Arkuti Mahesh vs The State of Telangana on 04 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. 2. 3. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in connection with Crime No. 35 of 2023, registered at Ellanthakunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District, for offences under Sections 354-D, 290, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Held: A. On Anticipatory Bail: Majority View: The Petitioner withdrew the Criminal Petition. The Court granted permission for withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Dissenting View: N/A B. On Section 438 Cr.P.C.: Majority View: N/A Dissenting View: N/A C. On Offences under IPC and POCSO Act: Majority View: N/A Dissenting View: N/A Decision: The Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed. --- Additional Required Fields Case Title: Arkuti Mahesh vs The State of Telangana on 04 April, 2023 Keywords: anticipatory bail, section 438 crpc, withdrawal of petition, ipc 354-d, ipc 290, ipc 323, ipc 506, pocs

14. Union of India vs Y. Vijaya on 18 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana18 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Union of India vs Y. Vijaya on 18 April, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 18 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Sri Justice Pulla Karthik Subject: Writ Appeal – Rejection of candidature for Constable post due to past criminal case – Consideration of Acquittal – Principles of Natural Justice. Key Legal Propositions 1. An employer must consider the specific circumstances when assessing information regarding a candidate’s criminal history, particularly the nature of the offense and the outcome of the case. 2. A mere rejection of candidature without assigning reasons is unsustainable and requires re-examination in light of established legal principles and guidelines. 3. While a clean acquittal is preferable, an acquittal based on benefit of doubt should also be considered by the employer, along with other relevant factors, before rejecting a candidate. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from a challenge to a Single Judge’s order setting aside the rejection of a candidate (Respondent) for a Constable post in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The Respondent was prov

15. Gundabathina Jhansi Laxmi vs The State of Telangana on 20 March, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Mar 2023

    Case Name: Gundabathina Jhansi Laxmi vs The State of Telangana on 20 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 March, 2023 Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.J. and N. Tukaramji, J. Subject: Writ Appeal – Seeking directions for criminal case registration and eviction from property. Key Legal Propositions 1. The Writ Court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution is not justified when an efficacious remedy exists under criminal and civil law. 2. Discrepancies between the charge sheet and e-Court services regarding charged sections will be considered by the learned Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage. 3. An appellant can pursue remedies under both civil and criminal law if there is illegal trespass and occupation of property. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant filed a writ petition seeking directions to register a criminal case against respondents 5-7 based on FIR No. 263 of 2022 and to evict them from the subject premises. The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition after noting that notices under Section 41A CrPC had been issued and a charge sheet filed. The appellant preferred a Writ Appeal challenging this or

16. Md. Yakub Pasha Alias Noor Yakubmiya Mohammad & Ors. vs State of Telangana & Anr. on 02 March, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana2 Mar 2023

    Case Name: Md. Yakub Pasha Alias Noor Yakubmiya Mohammad & Ors. vs State of Telangana & Anr. on 02 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 02 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. Key Legal Propositions 1. High Courts possess inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. 2. Attendance of accused persons can be dispensed with during proceedings if represented by counsel, subject to conditions. 3. Courts are obligated to dispose of discharge applications (under Section 227 Cr.P.C.) on merits within a specified timeframe if filed before framing of charges. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in S.C. No. 358 of 2022 pending before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. The allegations against them were under Sections 452, 307, 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Held: A. On Section 482 Cr.P.C. & Dispensation of Attendance: Majority View: The Court exercised its powers under Sectio

17. Charukonda Shankar vs The State of Telangana & Ors on 28 March, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Mar 2023

    Case Name: Charukonda Shankar vs The State of Telangana & Ors on 28 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 March, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Revision – Refusal to take cognizance – Indian Penal Code – Sections 270, 379, 406, 420 r/w 34 – Criminal Procedure Code – Sections 397 & 401 Key Legal Propositions 1. Criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue based on mere assumptions. 2. In revision proceedings under Section 401 of CrPC, the High Court is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order passed by the lower court. 3. Adequate reasons given by the lower court for refusing to take cognizance are generally upheld unless demonstrably erroneous or illegal. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case challenges the order dated 22.01.2021 of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, refusing to take cognizance against Respondents 2 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 270, 379, 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner/Defacto Complainant alleged that the accused persons mistreated his mother, took her signature under duress, m

18. Smt. Azra Fatima & Ors. vs The State of Telangana on 10 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Smt. Azra Fatima & Ors. vs The State of Telangana on 10 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Scope of ‘Instigation’ – Standard of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. A solitary incident of asking a tenant to vacate premises, without more, does not constitute instigation under Section 306 IPC. 2. To establish abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, and the act must be suggestive of a particular consequence, specifically suicide. 3. Instigation, as contemplated under Section 306 IPC, requires more than mere emotional distress or anger; it necessitates a reasonable certainty that the accused’s actions would lead the deceased to commit suicide. Judgment Summary Background: The appellants were convicted by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the dying declaration of the deceased who committed suicide by self-immolation. The

19. Syed Illias vs The State of AP on 04 July, 2011

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Jul 2011

    Case Name: Syed Illias vs The State of AP on 04 July, 2011 & The State of AP vs Syed Mohinuddin on 04 July, 2011 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 14 March, 2023 Bench: Justice M.L.N. (Man) and Justice G.Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder/Culpable Homicide – Section 302/304 IPC – Common Intention – Appreciation of Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. The medical evidence establishing a grievous injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature supports a finding of murder, and the trial court erred in convicting for a lesser offense without considering the intent. 2. The credibility of eyewitness testimony is paramount, and discrepancies in the FIR regarding specific details of the assault do not necessarily invalidate the evidence if corroborated by other reliable testimony. 3. Establishing common intention amongst accused requires more than mere presence at the scene of the crime; there must be evidence of a shared plan or active participation in the offense. Judgment Summary Background: These criminal appeals arise from a conviction and acquittal in S.C.No.730 of 2007. Accused No.1 was convi

20. Abdul Raheem & Ors. vs The State of Telangana on 09 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Abdul Raheem & Ors. vs The State of Telangana on 09 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 February, 2023 Bench: M. Laxman & G. Anupama Chakravarthy, JJ. Subject: Criminal Appeal – NIA Act – Police Custody – Section 43D UAPA – Interpretation of Proviso Key Legal Propositions 1. The second proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) creates an exception to the general rule regarding the 30-day limit for police custody. 2. An application for police custody beyond 30 days is maintainable if reasonable reasons for the delay are demonstrated, and the accused is in judicial custody. 3. Multiple applications for police custody within the 30-day period are permissible, and a subsequent application beyond 30 days is also maintainable if justified by valid reasons. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from an order dated 17.01.2023, granting police custody of the appellants/accused Nos. 32-36 for three days. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) sought police custody based on forensic evidence collected from other accused’s cell phones and information derived from those p