(561) MOHD WASEEM KHAN AND OTHERS Vs. AZRA BIBI AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 28-09-2026 Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 — Section 12 — Nature of Proceedings — Proceedings under Section 12 cannot be equated with the lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of criminal prosecution — Such proceedings are not, in the strict sense, criminal proceedings — Consequently, the bar against alteration or recall of an order by a Magistrate, as applicable in criminal prosecutions, is not attracted in the same manner. India Law Library Docid # 2454929
(562) SAURABH DINESHCHANDRA PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 28-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Exercise of judicial discretion — Relevant considerations — Court must exercise discretion cautiously and strictly in terms of established principles — Factors to be evaluated include nature and gravity of accusations, criminal antecedents, risk of fleeing justice, and whether arrest is sought to humiliate or injure the applicant — Elaborate examination of evidence and detailed observations touching upon the merits of th India Law Library Docid # 2455018
(563) HASMUKHBHAI JIVRAJBHAI BHENSJALIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 28-09-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 372 proviso and Section 2(wa) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 413 — Status of complainant as "victim" — Right to appeal against acquittal — Complainant in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 suffers the direct impact of the offence and is a victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code — A victim under the deemed offence has a specific right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under the India Law Library Docid # 2455019
(564) MURARI LAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 28-09-2026 Service Law — Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023 — Notification dated 16.03.2023 — Disqualification or embargo on promotion for having more than two children — Validity — Challenge to substitution of existing rule imposing a three-year promotion embargo on employees having more than two children on or after 01.06.2002 — Impugned notification permitted consideration of employees deprived of promotion up to 2019-20 from the date promotion became due, while protecting already promote India Law Library Docid # 2455075
(565) DULHE RAM MEENA Vs. M/S OM GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 28-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 14 Rule 5 and Section 151 — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Framing of additional issues — Belated application — Suit for recovery of money — Petitioner filed application under Order 14 Rule 5 seeking addition of issues regarding status of trustees after completion of evidence by both parties and hearing of plaintiff's final arguments — Held, while parties may seek amendment or addition of issues, such application ought to be filed expeditiously after framing of India Law Library Docid # 2455076
(566) DIBYAJYOTI DATTA Vs. THE CNETRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 28-09-2026 Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 — Sections 9 and 10 — Immunity from Attachment — Freezing of PPF Account by Investigating Agency — CBI seized and froze petitioner's PPF account held in his son's name during corruption investigation — Held, statute creates an absolute embargo protecting PPF accounts from attachment under any decree or order of any court — Provident fund money is inalienable and statutorily exempted — Investigating agency has no power or authority to attach or freeze a PPF account India Law Library Docid # 2455161
(567) NANDLAL MANJHI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 28-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Circumstantial evidence — Extra-judicial confession — Hostile witness — Informant daughter alleged appellant confessed to killing his wife — Informant turned hostile during trial and denied that any confession took place — Prosecution witnesses were hearsay with no personal knowledge — Extra-judicial confession is weak evidence and remained legally unproved — Chain of circumstances not established beyond reasonable doubt — Conviction cannot be sust India Law Library Docid # 2455241
(568) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. ASPIRE AGRO INDUSTRIES[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 28-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — State as litigant — Routine administrative procedures — State sought condonation of 191 days' delay in filing appeal, citing file movements and administrative complexities — Held, the law of limitation binds the Government equally, and the legislature has provided no separate limitation period for the State — Citing routine, unverifiable administrative processes does not constitute a plausible explanation or sufficient cause — Courts cann India Law Library Docid # 2455242
(569) DILIP MALAKAR Vs. SANTOSH MALAKAR[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 28-09-2026 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 45 — Joint purchase — Presumption of equal share — Suit for partition of land jointly purchased vide registered sale deed — Defendant claimed plaintiff contributed no consideration — Sale deed specified neither respective shares nor individual contributions — Held, under Section 45, where property is transferred jointly without evidence of respective shares advanced, purchasers are presumed to be equally interested — Serial order of names in deed is immat India Law Library Docid # 2455243
(570) MOBIN ANSARI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] 28-09-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 and 34 — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of proof — Murder of a minor boy — Incomplete chain of circumstances — FIR registered against unknown persons with no eyewitnesses to the crime — Allegation that the appellant was seen throwing an unidentified object behind a mosque during an electricity outage — Held, in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is duty-bound to prove each link conclusively pointing to the guilt of th India Law Library Docid # 2455240
(571) MOHAMMAD SULTAN BHAT Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR] 26-09-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 7 Rule 11 — Striking out improperly joined parties — Partial rejection of plaint — Where private defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground of lack of cause of action against them, the trial court correctly recognized that a plaint cannot be rejected in part — However, the court is not powerless and possesses the authority under Order 1 Rule 10(2) to strike out the names of defendants improperly jo India Law Library Docid # 2454055
(572) JAYDEEP SINGH JADEJA Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT AT JAMMU] 26-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 91 — Summons to produce document or other thing — Scope and applicability — Power under Section 91 CrPC can be exercised by a Court or officer-in-charge of a police station only when necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code — The expression "other proceeding" must be construed ejusdem generis with the preceding words "investigation, inquiry, or trial" — Where the police agency is conducting mere India Law Library Docid # 2454111
(573) MOHAMMED KASIM H.K Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP[KERALA HIGH COURT] 26-09-2026 Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 — Section 2, Explanation 3 — Insult to Indian National Flag — Meaning of "public place" and "place within public view" — Distinction — Private WhatsApp group involving multiple members — Held, while Explanation 3 defines a "public place" as any place intended for use by or accessible to the public, a "place within public view" can include a private place where presence of or access by members of the public to view the material is possible — A pr India Law Library Docid # 2454250
(574) RASLIN Vs. KURUDANKANDI SHAMEER[KERALA HIGH COURT] 26-09-2026 Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 14 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 92 — Admissibility of evidence overriding statutory bar — Variation of recital of consideration in sale deed — Husband contended that Section 92 barred oral evidence to show actual consideration paid was higher than the recital in the registered deed. Held, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act enables the Family Court to receive any document or statement to effectually resolve a dispute, regardless of its admissibility und India Law Library Docid # 2454260
(575) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. SEVTI BAI SAHU AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 26-09-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and Section 168 — Assessment of income — Fatal accident — Absence of documentary proof — Deceased claimed to be a head-mason earning Rs. 15,000 per month — Tribunal assessed income at Rs. 7,800 per month — High Court held that in the absence of evidence regarding exact income and occupation, income should be assessed based on notifications of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages for unskilled labour at the time of accident — Income enhanced to Rs. 8,400 per month — A India Law Library Docid # 2454584
(576) MANOJ KUMAR SAHU AND OTHERS Vs. HEMLAL SAHU AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 26-09-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and Section 173 — Fatal accident — Assessment of income — Absence of documentary proof — The Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 5,000/- as an unskilled worker — High Court held the assessment to be on the lower side — In the absence of evidence regarding exact income and nature of work, the monthly income of the deceased was reassessed at Rs. 8,960/- in accordance with the prevalent notifications of the Minimum Wages Act applicable in th India Law Library Docid # 2454594
(577) AKHIL SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-09-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 — Grant of regular bail — Prolonged pre-trial detention — Right to speedy trial and personal liberty — Petitioners detained for about five years as undertrial prisoners for offences including Section 302 IPC — Prosecution cited 98 witnesses, but only 13 examined and 84 remained — Statement of the complainant/victim already recorded — Trial proceeding at a slow pace with delay not attributable to petitioners — Accused cannot be subjected to u India Law Library Docid # 2454048
(578) GHANTHU RAM Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311 — Power to summon material witness or examine person present — Scope and principles — Object of Section 311 is to prevent failure of justice and aid in discovery of truth — Section contains two parts: discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses at any stage, and mandatory obligation to do so if evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case — Power must be exercised judiciously with caution and circumspection, and not arbitrar India Law Library Docid # 2454050
(579) SRI. UDAYKIRAN VASIREDDI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 25-09-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 7 and 11(ii) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 354A(1) — Matrimonial dispute — Malicious allegations of child abuse — Quashing of proceedings — Wife filed a POCSO complaint against husband after Family Court granted him interim custody of their minor daughter — Medical records showed no sexual assault or molestation — Allegations were an afterthought to settle personal scores — India Law Library Docid # 2454054
(580) PUNE RAM Vs. RUPESH SHARMA[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-09-2026 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 118, 138 and 139 — Dishonour of cheque — Rebuttal of statutory presumption — Complainant's financial capacity — Complainant alleged advancing a cash loan of ?5,00,000/- to the accused — In cross-examination, complainant admitted earning merely ?2,000/- to ?3,000/- per month and produced no documentary evidence regarding the alleged sale of land or bank withdrawal — Accused is entitled to demonstrate lack of financial capacity through cross-examination India Law Library Docid # 2454058