Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, the Government of India directed the NIA to investigate a FIR filed by West Bengal Police under multiple laws. The State argued that, even without investigation or supporting material, the order itself claimed the FIR allegations fall under Section 15(1)(a) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
“They have been vociferously endorsing, supporting, and promoting the sentiments as well as provoking the people of Kashmir. So much so, in their posts, the accused have called for a boycott of elections and to reject the candidate who comes with the idea of development.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta, formerly the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, took oath of office as Judge of Supreme Court of India on 9-11-2023 and will be retiring on 10-01-2028.
“When bail is sought in prosecutions governed by a special statute, the Court is required to undertake a difficult and sensitive balancing exercise, conscious that neither liberty nor security admits of absolutism”.
The Court further declined to interfere in the bail granted to the persons accused for derailment of Jnaneswari Express on 28-5-2010 stating that the CBI could not bring to notice subsequent development which would justify this interference.
“Prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to infringement of right of an accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In September 2025, a RTI query was filed before the designated CPIO of the Supreme Court, seeking the statistics on pendency and disposal of cases by the Supreme Court.
Karnataka High Court had granted bail to one accused after finding that he was associated with organisations not banned under UAPA; however, the 2nd accused person’s bail was rejected as he was involved with banned terror outfits.
The Court observed that even though weapons are recovered from one of the accused, it is not the prosecution’s case that those weapons were used for any terrorist activity and/or toppling the Government.
The Trial Court has categorically observed that the investigation progressed substantially during the extension of the accused persons’ detention and the investigation had not been stagnant.
“Where there are two views, one giving rise to mere suspicion and the other to grave suspicion, the Judge would be justified in refusing discharge if satisfied that strong suspicion exists. The existence of some essential material giving rise to strong suspicion necessary for drawing a charge and refusing discharge is required.”
“Creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused had been brought to justice gave a misleading sense of resolution. This deceptive closure undermined public trust and falsely reassured society, while in reality, the true threat remained at large.”
“It is for the trial Court to decide it on the basis of the evidence as to what is the material available to prove or otherwise the charges which have been framed.”
“A person cannot be a juvenile for one purpose and an adult for other purpose. The Courts lean strongly against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to a futility.”
Top criminal cases on quashing of proceedings, arrest, bail, acquittal, and more.
Some clear and definite guidelines are required to be issued to the Courts of Magistrates and to the investigating agencies to follow the procedure of giving a remand report sufficiently in advance to the arrested accused before his first remand application is considered by the appropriate Court.
Top criminal cases on quashing of proceedings, arrest, bail, acquittal, and more.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
