J&K HC | Bail cannot be granted on the ground of delay unless the matter was pending for 5 years or more
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Puneet Gupta, JJ., dismissed the application seeking suspension of
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Puneet Gupta, JJ., dismissed the application seeking suspension of
Madras High Court: S.M. Subramaniam, J., held that Protraction and prolongation of litigations affecting women can never be encouraged by the Courts.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah*, JJ., recently held in an interesting case that evaluation
“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.”
Jharkhand High Court: Shree Chandrashekhar J., upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. The case at hand
by Jeet J Bhatt*
Bombay High Court: A Full Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and R.K. Deshpande and Sunil B. Shukre, JJ., answered the question referred
Supreme Court: Answering a reference the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that if a
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J., while addressing a bail application made the following observation: There cannot be a straight jacket formula as
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma , J., allowed the bail petition stating that object of the bail is to secure the attendance
Supreme Court: In a significant ruling, a 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat, JJ has
Supreme Court: Noticing that where death sentence could be one of the alternative punishments, the courts must be completely vigilant and see
Bombay High Court: K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he had acquitted the
Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. while disposing of this petition gave liberty to the petitioner to move an application for
Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a writ petition to quash criminal proceedings after parties compromise over a non-compoundable offence.
Uttaranchal High Court: Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. contemplated a criminal revision petition where the issue discussed was related to Section 311 CrPC,
Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J. allowed a batch of petitions filed against the trial court’s order whereby the petitioners including Group President
Jharkhand High Court: Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. heard an interlocutory application filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Bombay High Court: S.S. Shinde, J. denied to quash the charges under Sections 376 and 420 IPC as prayed by the petitioner
Karnataka High Court: Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. granted regular bail on the ground that the case of the commission of offence with