Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court cancels bail of Accused 3 and 4 in the Satara murder case, holding that repeated threats, prior preparation and carrying petrol indicated a pre-planned attack.
The Court asserted that continued incarceration of the applicants had to be balanced against their fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court acknowledged that delay in trial is a relevant consideration while deciding an application for bail. However, such delay cannot be considered in isolation.
The Court condemned witch-hunting as a “malady” that lets prejudice and superstition override the rule of law and constitutional morality, affirming the murder conviction and stressing that reason must prevail over collective irrationality.
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 while conducting preliminary assessment, Juvenile Justice Board was not bound by any opinion or recommendation and must independently apply its mind to all the material available to it, including Social Background Report, Social Investigation Report, witness statements, interaction with the child and every other relevant circumstance.
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 found that the wife’s statement that she could keep a thousand husbands like him constituted grave and sudden provocation within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, and that the fatal injuries were consistent with a single blow rather than repeated pelting, bringing the case within Section 304 Part II rather than Part I.
On 1-5-2023, the Lok Sabha Secretariat disqualified Afzal Ansari, representing the Ghazipur Parliamentary Constituency of Uttar Pradesh, from membership of Lok Sabha
Allahabad High Court said that the FIR has been lodged by the grandmother of the accused and she is not an eyewitness. The other witnesses are also not the eyewitnesses in the instant matter and only on hearsay basis, the bail of the accused has been rejected.
The Supreme Court asked the Gujarat Government reasons behind its decision to grant remission to the 11 life convicts, who were convicted for raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family members
To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.
Meghalaya High Court said that there is no limitation on the powers of the Governor in conferring a part of the authority pertaining to the Penal Code or some special law, to a particular Court or officer appointed in that behalf.
The Delhi HIgh Court opined that eyewitness running away and hiding at the time of firing and then coming for the rescue of the deceased is not unnatural as self-preservation is the first instinct of a human being.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision of awarding life imprisonment to a man convicted for murdering his wife and assaulting his daughter.
Supreme Court said that the cherished principles or golden threads of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly which was done by the Courts below.
In a case of Cross FIRs relating to murder and attempt to murder, the Supreme Court has granted bail to the main accused in the murder case
In petitions challenging the premature release of 13 life convicts by the State Government, the Madras High Court held that there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.
The Supreme Court was of the view that the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, as well the as the links between all circumstances, beyond reasonable doubt. Such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and the same should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
Based on the weapon used for inflicting injuries to the deceased was a very heavy danda with nodes therein, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, it failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged offence was not committed by pre-meditation.