Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Article 21 being a higher constitutional right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said higher constitutional edict”
“Being a public figure in politics, petitioner is first and foremost in the public service and it is natural that he will always have something or other happening in his constituency. It is for the public figure to find time and appear before the investigating agency, when so required as per the law.”
“While deciding to grant or deny bail, there must be indication of the reasons, which should be understood by the parties”
The Supreme Court noticed that in the case at hand, without giving any reasonable time to the investigating agency to investigate the allegations in the FIR, the Madras High Court has, in haste, quashed the criminal proceedings.
Patiala House Court (New Delhi): In a bail application plea under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case filed by Central Bureau of Investigation questioning the power of investigating agency
Orissa High Court: V Narasingh, J. disposed of the bail application and restrained the Court to not grant any further adjournments and
Delhi High Court: While expressing that a LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., noting
Allahabad High Court: Dr Y.K. Srivastava, J., while examining the ambit and scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Bombay High Court: While laying down the detailed reasons of bail in the infamous Aryan Khan case, Nitin W. Sambre, J., held
“Just like a private party who has been a victim of forgery committed outside the precincts of the Court, the investigative agency should not be left remediless against persons producing false evidence for the purpose of interfering with the investigation process.”
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sanjay Dhar J., while allowing the present bail application, observed that given to the relationship shared between
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., while rejecting the present petition, recorded no error or infirmity in the challenged order warranting
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Manoj Misra and Virendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ. clarified that no protection shall be given and
Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi, J. allowed a petition seeking anticipatory bail subject to certain restrictions. In the pertinent
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mukta Gupta, J. allowed a bail application holding that the petitioner was entitled to