Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court released the petitioner-accused on bail, observing that the case substantially rested upon the statutory presumption under Section 35, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and such presumption is rebuttable. The Court specified that, in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the twin test contained in Section 37 remains mandatory.
The Supreme Court has issued detailed directions to tackle delays in dowry and cruelty cases. From framing charges within 60–90 days and
The latest set of directives issued by the Supreme Court in pursuance of its December 2025 directions intends to address the systemic delay and ineffective implementation attending prosecutions under Sections 304-B, Section 498-A, Penal Code, 1860 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Supreme Court held that Section 12, Gangsters Act does not require other criminal trials to be kept in abeyance, but only gives priority to Gangsters Act proceedings where there is a clash of dates.
The High Court held that constitutional guarantees under Article 21 cannot be defeated by the gravity of allegations under the UAPA, and that the mandate of day-to-day trial under Section 19 of the NIA Act reflects a legislative intent that serious prosecutions cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely.
Court cites violation of speedy trial rights under Article 21, hostile witnesses, and prolonged delay in concluding prosecution evidence as reasons for granting bail
“Prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to infringement of right of an accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
“Such practice not only delays the conclusion of the trial but also adversely affects the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under the Constitution.”
The Court cautioned respondent 4 (Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department) to remain “alive to his duty” to file a proper and complete affidavit.
The accused has spent more than six years in custody, despite which, the matter is still at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses and only 11 out of 100 witnesses are examined till now.
The Court noted that although courts generally refrain from interfering in government policy, they are constitutionally obligated to intervene when such decisions infringe upon rights like access to justice or fair trial.
“Bleak hope of any speedy trial in the matter.”
While this court does not fault the Trial Court for attempting to proceed with the trial expeditiously, but, denying to the petitioner (‘accused’) the right to cross-examine the Head Constable on an issue which is critical to his defence appears to have been a disproportionate sense of expedition.
“Delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society, and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently.”
“Religious terrorism is a tragic and dangerous phenomenon that distorts the true teachings of faith and causes immense harm to individuals and societies. While the roots of religious terrorism are deep and complex, it is crucial to understand that no religion inherently supports violence or terror.”
On 15-04-2024, 2 Benches of the High Court passed the respective orders in the Belagavi disrobing incident of December 2023 which shook the conscience of the Court and Nation at large.
This is one of the cases where the youth in this country are spoiling their lives due to lure of free relationship with the member of the opposite sex aping western culture and not finding any real soulmate in the end.
The Right of speedy trial is a fundamental right, and its violation causes prejudice even to the accused person
“Laws like sedition, need narrower and stricter interpretation and acts charged of should reflect something more than expressing discontent against State.”
Central Government designates the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand as a Special Court for the purposes