Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.
On 10.05.2019, a division Bench had observed that the question with regard to the actual stage at which the trial is said to have concluded is required to be authoritatively considered since the power under Section 319 of CrPC is extraordinary in nature.
Madhya Pradesh High Court | While deciding an application filed for cancellation of bail of the accused who booked for
The Supreme Court was disappointed with the standard of investigation and the defence put up in a gruesome case relating to murder of wife and 4 children by the accused. The Court observed that while the accused was provided with a legal aid, the cross-examination of each and every witness was below average.
Gauhati High Court: While deciding the instant appeal preferred by Ranjan Daimari and 9 others regarding their conviction and sentence
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition for quashment of complaint, the Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., held that in the
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while hearing a bail application of a man accused of raping and impregnating a 14-year-old in
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding the instant petition revolving around alleged defamatory tweets concerning the respondent by Bollywood actress Kangna
“Higher the forum and greater the powers, the greater is the need for restraint” Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while adjudicating a bail application which dealt with an unfortunate incident of a girl
Kerala High Court: Stating that, though the Press has a duty to inform the public, the Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran and
“The quashing proceedings must not become an expedition into the merits of factual dispute, so as to conclusively vindicate either the complainant or the defence.”
Central Government designates the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand as a Special Court for the purposes
Delhi High Court: Expressing that, the revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial,
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that merely because a long period has lapsed by
Supreme Court: In a case where it was argued before the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and Surya Kant, JJ that in
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Sunita Yadav, JJ. while hearing a petition under Article 227 against
Allahabad High Court: Dr Y.K. Srivastava, J., while examining the ambit and scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Supreme Court: In a case where, on apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was