The High Court meaningfully stated the existence of prima facie evidence against the accused is to no avail if there is no justification for the arrest based on the doctrine of clear and present danger to the society.
The Court stated that the objections raised by respondent that if petitioner was released on bail then he may abscond to evade criminal justice, are untenable because the petitioner is a Secretary for SDPI political party.
The Court also observed that fundamentalism pertaining to a Muslim is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and the same cannot have a negative bearing.
“A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention. To our great dismay, we are forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of influential persons.”
The Court was deliberating over an appeal challenging the rejection of bail to the accused charged under IPC and UAPA for being actively involved with the ‘KG Halli Riots’ in Bengaluru.
SCOTUS unanimously held that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the social media sites had intentionally provided any substantial aid or systemically assisted ISIS, which directly led to the Reina Nightclub terror attack.
Village Defence Guard Scheme- 2022 insofar as it denudes the petitioners of their status as SPOs and consequently reduces their remuneration/honorarium is an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.
Supreme Court said that the object and purpose of the enactment of UAPA is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. To punish such a person who is continued as a member of such unlawful association which is declared unlawful due to unlawful activities can be said to be in furtherance of providing for effective prevention of the unlawful activities.
Supreme Court’s full bench declared the judgments in Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das and Raneef to be bad in law. Also, the High Courts Judgments which followed these precedents were overruled
The Mumbai blasts which are the subject matter of the reports, were one of the worst terror attacks on India, leading to hundreds of deaths and hundreds of injured persons. Thus, reports/dossiers on such investigations can have a major bearing on India’s security, sovereignty and integrity.
The Supreme Court also held that the dictum as laid by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272 is the correct exposition of law and does not require any relook.
The Govt. of India had imposed a ban of PFI declaring it an unlawful organisation under the UAPA. The Notification banning the organisation was given ‘immediate effect’, which was then challenged before the High Court
Delhi High Court: In an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) read with Section 43-D(5)
The Court has asked the Union of India to consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation so as to tackle the situations like the one on hand.
Gauhati High Court: While deciding the instant appeal preferred by Ranjan Daimari and 9 others regarding their conviction and sentence
Gauhati High Court: The single Bench of Ajit Borthakur, J., has under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, granted bail
Supreme Court: In a big development, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh, JJ has directed that the infamous gangster/terrorist
“Higher the forum and greater the powers, the greater is the need for restraint” Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant appeal directed against the decision of the Single Judge Bench in
Supreme Court: In an insurance repudiation case the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., held that where the insurance policy expressly