ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(921) 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

(922) 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

(923) 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

(924) 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

(925) 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

(926) 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

(927) 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

(928) 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

(929) 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

(930) 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

(931) SUNKARI TIRUMALA RAO AND OTHERS Vs. PENKI ARUNA KUMARI[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-01-2025
Partnership Act, 1932 — Section 69 — Maintainability of a suit filed by partners of an unregistered firm, specifically for the recovery of money — Supreme Court determined that Section 69(1) is mandatory, prohibiting suits among partners of an unregistered firm to enforce a right arising from a contract, unless the suit is for the dissolution of the firm or for rendition of accounts — The court found that the suit filed by the petitioners for recovery of money fell under this prohibition, as it
India Law Library Docid # 2421926

(932) 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) read with 13(2) — The court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to appear before the CBI Court and furnish bail — The court noted that the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed — The court observed that the Investigating Officer had not arrested the petitioner during the investigation — The court questioned the practice in Uttar Pradesh State of arresting individuals after the charge sheet is filed — The
India Law Library Docid # 2422165

(933) THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SURVENDRA KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 8 —Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25 — Double Murder — Acquittal — The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed a High Court judgment acquitting respondents in a double murder case involving a property dispute — The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony from the victims' sons and the discovery of firearms, but no ballistic report was obtained — The High Court overturned the Trial Court's conviction, citing unreliable eyewitness accounts a
India Law Library Docid # 2422381

(934) IRFAN ALIAS BHAYU MEVATI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
DNA Evidence — Requirement of Expert Testimony — DNA evidence in criminal trials requires testimony from expert scientists who conducted the analysis to explain methodology, analysis, and conclusions.
India Law Library Docid # 2422640

(935) RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 15 and 54 — Conscious Possession under the NDPS Act — The court reaffirmed that conscious possession is a crucial element for conviction under the NDPS Act — Conscious possession implies that the accused not only had physical control over the contraband but was also aware of its presence and nature — This concept has been emphasized in several earlier judgments, and this case reiterates its importance — The court held that the pr
India Law Library Docid # 2421893

(936) SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397(1) and 482 — In a case involving a home buyer's complaint against developers for deceptive practices, the Trial Court issued a cognizance order, later dismissed on appeal — The developers then filed a second revision in the High Court, which quashed the criminal proceedings — The issues were the maintainability of the second revision and the justification of quashing the proceedings — The court found that while a second revision is generally no
India Law Library Docid # 2422051

(937) BISWAJIT DAS Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 468, 120(B), 271, 465 and 420 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) — Scope of Appeal and Limited Notice — The Supreme Court held that even if a limited notice is issued at the initial stage of an appeal, the Court is not precluded from expanding the scope of the appeal during the final hearing — The Court has the discretion to consider all points raised by the appellant, especially when substantial justice demands it — This is in l
India Law Library Docid # 2421843

(938) VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 201 and 300 — Applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC — The court examined whether the appellant's actions fell under Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC, which reduces the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the offender was deprived of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation — The court held that for Exception 1 to apply, the provocation must be both grave and sudden, and the accused must have acted in the heat
India Law Library Docid # 2421844

(939) THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. MAHENDRA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 366 and 376(g) — The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a trial court judgment that convicted the respondents — The main issue was whether the trial court's decision to rely solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix (the victim) was correct, given that there were material contradictions in her statement —The respondents argued that the trial court should not have relied solely on the prosecutrix's evidence,
India Law Library Docid # 2422211

(940) OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 156(3) — The Court clarified that Section 156(3) empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation if a cognizable offence is alleged but not registered by the police — However, the Magistrate must apply his mind and ensure that the allegations constitute a cognizable offence before issuing such an order
India Law Library Docid # 2422212