Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
‘Unless an order of remand under Section 187of the BNSS is passed, the initial arrest of the arrestee beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest will become illegal.’
The NHRC noted that the allegations against Professor Mahmudabad disclosed, prima facie, that his human rights and liberty were violated.
“Once the panchnama was found to be of doubtful evidentiary worth, the correct course would have been to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds, and not to relegate the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification.”
The NCDRC noted that Reliance General Insurance did not take the issue of territorial jurisdiction before SCDRC; therefore, SCDRC basing its decision on the same, was bad in law.
Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to assign the hearing of the petition under Section 34 to a Judge other than the Judge who heard and passed the impugned order.
The Court stayed the order dated 02-07-2024 passed by the Exclusive Magistrate, CBI, Patna, whereby CBI’s application for remand of the 13 accused was rejected.
The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions
There are substantive differences between review and appeal. A decision’s cryptic nature alone does not warrant a review.
“A decision-maker is insisted on recording reason in support of his decision to ensure transparency in decision-making process. When any order is subject to appeal or amenable to judicial review, then such order must be reasoned and speaking order.”
On 14-12-2023, the Court had remanded them for a period of 7 days.
The prosecution failed to establish the misbranding of the “Red Label Natural Care Tea” beyond a reasonable doubt as the report of the public analyst, was not adequately proven.
The petition under Section 43D(2)(b) First proviso of UAPA Act seeking extension of remand order was filed by the respondents a day before the elapse of the 90- days period.
The Manipur High Court held that where a person is taken into custody by an order of Magistrate, then such order cannot be challenged by Writ of Habeas Corpus as the detention cannot be termed as illegal.
It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.
Supreme Court observed that the Patna High Court ought to have called upon the Bihar State Pharmacy Council to file the status report on the allegations of fake pharmacist and/or on how many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals in the State are running without registered pharmacist.
Any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a statutorily sanctioned reason for grant of default bail
Madras High Court: In a criminal appeal filed challenging the extension of the remand period from 90 days to 180
Bombay High Court: In a case filed by a wife (‘appellant') challenging the Family Court order that granted decree of
Supreme Court: In furtherance of Criminal Justice, the bench of Abhay S. Oka* and MM Sundresh, JJ has held that an appeal
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. allowed a writ appeal filed by