Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Prevalent presumption is that a related witness would not testify falsely against an innocent person because they want to see the true culprits punished.”
“The petitioner was the mastermind of the criminal conspiracy, whereas the co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail, are merely middlemen who assisted the petitioner in carrying out the conspiracy.”
“The Court also held that it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must be shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.”
The petitioners were duty bound to supply packaged drinking water of IRCTC’s brand called Rail Neer but instead have been supplying other packaged drinking water, a brand cheaper than Rail Neer, but claiming reimbursement at the rate of Rail Neer causing loss to the Government Exchequer.
Allahabad High Court said that the facts of this case are not only shocking but show the mindset of male persons that when a woman has not conceived for many years, the only fault is of the women and not of men and for that women are subject to occultist rituals. It is a curse for society that such rituals are still prevailing in 21st Century.
Gauhati High Court was faced with a peculiar case where “petitioner” had followed every rule in the book to file a well-planned petition; however, in reality the petitioner did not exist!
The Manipur High Court rejected anticipatory bail to the elected Ward members of the Panchayat who were charged for fraudulently misappropriating huge Government money.
Saket Court, Delhi released an accused charged for conspiracy and murder and the Court held that mere call detail records were not sufficient to proceed against the accused.
Supreme Court observed that the principles of Administration of Justice states that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done and free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.
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)
High Court of the Republic of Singapore | The bench comprising of Belinda Ang Saw Ean*, Woo Bih Li and
Delhi High Court: Stating that the manner in which Court records tampered was insidious and revealed a well-planned and methodical attempt to
Supreme Court: While dealing with a case of abetment and conspiracy for commission of criminal misconduct by public servant, the Division Bench
Madras High Court: While stating that, Jug Suraiya, Bachi Karkaria, E.P.Unny and G.Sampath … if any one of them, or for that
“A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.”
Bombay High Court: While laying down the detailed reasons of bail in the infamous Aryan Khan case, Nitin W. Sambre, J., held
Delhi High Court: Yogesh Khanna, J., remarked that, Once the Parliament steps in and cures the defect pointed out by a Constitutional
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ., granted regular bail to activist Devangana Kalita and
“Terrorist Act” cannot casually apply to conventional offences; Foundations of nation stand on surer footing that to be shaken by tribe of college students