ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(601) ILAMARAN Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 52A — Bail — Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner pending the disposal of the Special Leave Petition, as he had already served 2 years of his 5-year sentence — The Court also noted that the issue of the applicability of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was pending before a larger bench and tagged the present petition with the related case.
India Law Library Docid # 2421942

(602) RAJESWARI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4 — Burden of Proof on the Prosecution — The prosecution is required to establish its case with consistent and credible evidence, especially in cases concerning allegations of dowry demands — The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt"
India Law Library Docid # 2422095

(603) PRITHIVIRAJAN Vs. THE STATE REP BY THE INPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 90 417, 376 & 506 Part I — False Promise of Marriage — Appellant was charged with sexual offenses under IPC for allegedly engaging in sexual relations under a false promise of marriage — The key issue was whether this constituted rape under Section 376 IPC or a consensual relationship, and whether to quash the criminal proceedings — The prosecution argued that the false promise invalidated the consent, while the defense claimed it was a consensual relationship
India Law Library Docid # 2422054

(604) PRASANTH M.P. Vs. THE MANAGER, AIDED MUSLIM lower PRIMARY SCHOOL KULAMUKKU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-01-2025
Service Law — Interference with Disciplinary Proceedings — The Supreme Court generally does not interfere with the findings of disciplinary proceedings unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
India Law Library Docid # 2422587

(605) SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. SANTOBAI AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 19 — Condonation of Delay — The Supreme Court held that a substantial delay of 2,422 days in filing an application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC (for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and non-payment of court fees) cannot be condoned without sufficient reason, emphasizing that parties must remain vigilant in pursuing their cases, and a mere two-year delay in discovering the dismissal afte
India Law Library Docid # 2422637

(606) BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK AND ANOTHER Vs. RANAJIT GHOSHAL AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 136 — Decree for Permanent Injunction can be Executed at any Time Upon Breach — A decree for permanent injunction is not subject to a limitation period and can be executed at any time when the judgment-debtor tries to disturb the peaceful possession of the decree-holder or creates obstruction in the enjoyment of the property. (Paras 39, 41, 42)
India Law Library Docid # 2422406

(607) BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28 — Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed — The trial court initially decreed four suits for specific performance, requiring plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days — The first appellate court reversed this, but the High Court restored the trial court's decree in second appeals — Plaintiffs then deposited the balance after the
India Law Library Docid # 2421739

(608) U. SUDHEERA AND OTHERS Vs. C. YASHODA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Jurisdiction of the High Court in Second Appeals — The High Court's jurisdiction to hear a second appeal is dependent on the existence of a substantial question of law — Section 100 of the CPC specifies that an appeal can only be made to the High Court from a lower appellate court's decree if the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved.
India Law Library Docid # 2421740

(609) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. VIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH NATH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Prisoners Act, 1900 — Section 29 — Jharkhand Jail Manual — Rule 770(b) — Administrative Power of Transfer — The Inspector General of Prisons has the authority to transfer prisoners within the state, based on Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and Rule 770(B) of the State Jail Manual — This power is subject to the orders and control of the State Government.
India Law Library Docid # 2421741

(610) VIMAL BABU DHUMADIYA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 32 and 136 — Jurisdiction under Article 32 — The court reaffirmed that a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to declare a High Court judgment as illegal — If a party feels aggrieved by a High Court judgment, the appropriate remedies are to either file a petition for recall of the judgment or to challenge it under Article 136 before the Supreme Court
India Law Library Docid # 2421742

(611) MAHENDRA AWASE Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 — Abement to suicide — To convict someone under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence that the accused actively instigated, encouraged, or aided the deceased in committing suicide — The accused must have had the intention (mens rea) to push the deceased into a situation where suicide was the only option
India Law Library Docid # 2421743

(612) MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE THROUGH REP., BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Bail — Unjustified Financial Condition for Anticipatory Bail – The High Court of Madras imposed a condition requiring the appellants to deposit a total sum of Rs. 30,00,000 (₹10,00,000 each) as a prerequisite for granting interim anticipatory bail — The Supreme Court found this condition to be unjustified and disproportionate, particularly in the context of anticipatory bail, which is meant to protect the liberty of the accused pending trial.
India Law Library Docid # 2421745

(613) SANTOSH MALLUR NAGRAJ @ SANTOSH Vs. THE STATE BY JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 6, 8 and 12 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Bail — The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was in custody since 16.01.2024 — The Court considered the fact that the investigation had been completed, and the trial was yet to commence — The Court emphasized that the decision to grant bail was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, without e
India Law Library Docid # 2421746

(614) ARJUN JALBA ICHKE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 354 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 4, 8 and 12 —Bail — Delay in Trial and Prejudice to the Accused — The Court considered the fact that the appellant had been in incarceration for three and a half years without the charges being framed or the trial progressing significantly — This delay was seen as prejudicial to the appellant's right to a speedy trial, which is a fu
India Law Library Docid # 2421747

(615) MUSTAFA JOHAR VANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 — Bail — The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the role allegedly attributed to the appellant, and the period of incarceration he had already undergone — The Court directed the trial court to fix the terms and conditions for bail, including the requirement for the appellant to provide a mobile number for contact by the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer — The Court clarified tha
India Law Library Docid # 2421748

(616) IRFAN IQRAMUDDIN KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 — Bail — Bail should be granted in cases under the NDPS Act, 1985, considering the period of custody already undergone by the accused and the specific circumstances of the case, without expressing an opinion on the guilt of the accused — This decision underscores the importance of not detaining an individual unnecessarily before trial, even in cases involving serious offenses, and provides guidance for lower
India Law Library Docid # 2421749

(617) YASHASVI JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
bail, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice

A. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A and 304B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Bail — Absence of Dowry Demand — The appellant and his wife had married on their own accord, and there was no evidence of any demand for dowry from the appellant or his family
India Law Library Docid # 2421750

(618) NANURAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 — Sections 3 and 5 — Bail — The Court granted bail to the appellant, recognizing that the offences alleged were not of such a serious nature as to warrant continued detention, especially since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.
India Law Library Docid # 2421751

(619) ASHISH PALIWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Bail — Modification of Bail Condition — The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the condition of depositing Rs. 14,94,000/- was excessively burdensome — The Court modified the bail condition, allowing the petitioner to be released on bail without requiring the full deposit, provided he deposited a reduced amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- within two weeks
India Law Library Docid # 2421752

(620) MUSHEER ALAM Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1) (e) and 13(2) — The petitioner was denied anticipatory bail by the High Court of Allahabad in a case involving disproportionate assets —The charge-sheet had been filed, and the CBI Court issued summons for his appearance — The main issue was whether the petitioner should be arrested after the charge-sheet was filed, given that the investigation was complete and no arrest was made during the investigation — The petitioner's counsel argued that
India Law Library Docid # 2421789