Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Punjab and Haryana High Court perused the affidavit submitted by the Superintendent of Prison, according to which, the petitioner had already undergone custody of more than 2 years and 5 months.
Supreme Court did not deem it safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence and acquitted the appellant.
Supreme Court also considered the fact that the inter-faith couple had jointly approached the High Court seeking police protection.
The Court said that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
Jharkhand High Court commented that the State Police’s lackadaisical attitude to arrest anyone and put him in custody made the petitioner suffer humiliation, who was having a bright career and completed SSC exam.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Lapse whether occasioned: There
The Patna High Court had rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in this matter, while the Supreme Court granted protection to the petitioner against arrest on 16-12-2022.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166, 168 and 173 — Permanent disability: Principles to be adopted by Tribunals/Courts for determination of
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
Referring to the auto driver expressing his liking to the minor girl without any sexual intent, Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail holding that he prima facie deserves protection from arrest.
Cases under Section 153A are on the rise and the onus is on the police/State to ensure that the said provision is not misused by anyone, much less, political parties.
Jharkhand High Court concurred with the Trial Court’s decision and held that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond all shadow of doubt which cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Calcutta High Court | While deciding a revision petition, Tirthankar Ghosh*, J. held that no offence under Ss. 417 and 426 of
Bombay High Court remarked that they have come across at least three such cases in last three weeks wherein the statement of the prosecutrix has been totally disbelieved in the grave and a serious offence under Section 376 IPC by not following the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in its catena of decisions. It is the second case in this week wherein Police did not adhere to the basic principles of investigation.
Allahabad high Court: In a bail application filed by Srikant Tyagi for offences under Sections 2 and 3 of U.P. Gangsters and
Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by politician Srikant Tyagi for offences under Sections 366, 376 of
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: In a case wherein it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under
Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 120-B,
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the decision of the Trial Court whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
by Dr Sanjith S.† and Dr S. Balachandran†