Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court observed that although bail is the rule and jail the exception, and every accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the present case stood on a different footing as the earlier orders rejecting the respondent’s bail on merits had attained finality and the trial had already commenced.
The Court held that although allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act constitute serious economic offences, arrest cannot be made as a matter of course. Where the investigation is primarily based on documentary evidence already in the custody of the authorities and custodial interrogation is not shown to be indispensable, anticipatory bail deserves to be granted subject to appropriate safeguards.
Police entered a woman’s bedroom without a woman constable, seized her mobile phone without a seizure panchnama, and recorded no grounds in the case diary. Bombay HC holds both the search under Section 185 and the seizure under Section 105 of the BNSS violated mandatory procedure and Article 21 of the Constitution.
After the High Court upheld the grant of bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi on 29 June 2026, the State of Meghalaya approached the Supreme Court on 1 July 2026 challenging the order. The matter was first heard on 3 July 2026 and has been listed for further hearing on 9 July 2026.
The Court directed that the petitioner’s bank account be unfrozen, which had been frozen on suspicion of cyber fraud and that the disputed amount be kept in separate fixed deposits, to be liquidated only upon the decision of the Judicial Magistrate in the matter relating to the alleged cybercrime or cyber fraud.
In the present case, the petitioner was convicted in three separate cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from a single loan transaction and was sentenced to pay substantial fines, with three months’ simple imprisonment in default in each case.
Four FIRs were filed against former MLA Suresh Rathore arising from social media posts projecting complainants as involved in the Ankita Bhandari murder, a case that had already concluded with three convictions and life sentences. Two were lodged by persons who were neither the victim nor the affected party, covering the same allegations as the victim’s own FIR.
The High Court further held that an unduly prolonged investigation without adequate justification entitles the accused to approach the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, reiterating that investigations cannot continue endlessly at the cost of both complainant and accused.
In the present case, an FIR was filed against Ranveer Singh for allegedly mimicking the Daiva possession scene from the film Kantara during an event at IFFI, which was claimed to have hurt religious and cultural sentiments.
In the present case, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with a condition to keep his location on, on his mobile and share the live location with the investigating officer.
The host and owner of the InControversial podcast had filed a petition for quashing of proceedings under a criminal defamation complaint.
The minor victim admitted in her statement that she was engaged in physical relations with the minor boy, which was consensual.
“Possibility of rashness and negligence by a driver cannot be negated on the mere account of low speed, especially when it is alleged that the respondent was driving a heavy vehicle, carrying material over the permissible weight limit, in a zig-zag manner prior to the accident.”
“It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule, and jail is an exception and pre-trial incarceration of the wife should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.”
“Although this Court recognizes that police personnel also have the right of private defense and may use force in appropriate circumstances, it is well settled that where death occurs or grievous injuries are caused to the accused, the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court must be strictly followed.”
by Sandhyashree Karanth*
In the case at hand, criminal proceeding was initiated against the post of ‘Plant Head’ of a company.
“The allegations in the present case are not merely of a single isolated incident but reveal troublesome conduct of the accused spanning over several months, involving physical intimidation and digital harassment.”
“As such alleged statement or remarks were an intrinsic part of a legislative debate on the governance and law & order. Thus, the same is squarely within the sphere of proceedings in the legislature.”
“With anguish and pain, this Court observes here that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional District & Sessions Judge failed to exercise their discretion in right perspective and in a very casual manner, decided the bail applications, placed before them.”