Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“In the notice issued by the SDM under Section 111 CrPC, he did not specify the substance of the information, the amount of the bond, the number of sureties or the period for which the bond was to remain in force.”
“The accused’s plea that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him, appeared to be correct and was supported by the memo of arrest, with no contrary document filed by the State.”
“Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities.”
“Section 78 BNS punished a person who followed a woman and contacted her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by her or monitored her internet use, email or other form of electronic communication.”
“The Board shall conduct the preliminary assessment regarding the mental and physical capacity of the child to commit the crime, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which the crime was allegedly committed.”
“In the present case, Additional Advocate General contended that the police had taken the blood samples of the petitioner and the co-accused and had sent them to FSL for analysis, the result of which was still awaited.”
“The accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care which he had failed to do.”
“The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years would make it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry.”
In the present case, the FIR refers to the notice dated 25-04-2022, which reads that the petitioner conveyed the first communication of Talaq by pronouncing the word ‘Talaq’. It nowhere mentions that the Talaq had become irrevocable, or it had the effect of instantaneous divorce.
The physical contact made by the accused with the girls coupled with the words uttered by him could only lead to one inference that the touch was with sexual intent.
“There is no proof that the CCTV Camera is directed towards the house of Respondent 2, and it is merely a suspicion. Further, there is no proof that the petitioners/accused had contacted Respondent 2 to foster a personal relationship.”