LEARN ABOUT MODERN BAIL JURISPRUDENCE AND TRIAL PROTECTION - The Supreme Court REAFFIRMS that “BAIL IS THE RULE, JAIL IS AN EXCEPTION” in serious offences.

The judgment stresses a nuanced balance between protecting witness integrity and upholding personal liberty, refusing to rely solely on past criminal records for bail revocation.

Statutes :

•⁠ ⁠Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 302, 120-B, 109, 115

•⁠ ⁠Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 173, 439, 401, 482

•⁠ ⁠Arms Act, 1959: Section 27

•⁠ ⁠Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 115(2), 118(1), 35(12), 25

#BailLaw #CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt #CriminalTrial

This Supreme Court's judgment in a high-stakes matrimonial dispute underscores a critical principle under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court quashed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC, citing its malicious timing as a "counterblast" to foreign court orders.

The ruling emphasizes that High Courts should not take a mechanical approach and must consider the surrounding circumstances to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

Statutes:

•⁠ ⁠Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 498-A of IPC

•⁠ ⁠Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) - Section 482 of Cr.P.C

•⁠ ⁠The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980

#CriminalLaw #Section498A #IPC #FIRQuashing

Why did the Supreme Court stress that “re-trials can’t cure prosecution lapses in NDPS cases”? This landmark decision clarified that High Courts cannot order re-trial just because crucial evidence like chemical analyst testimony or electronic records under Section 65B was not presented. The Court restored the appeals for fresh hearing, underlining strict procedural compliance under the NDPS Act and the rights of the accused.

Key Statutes :

1.⁠ ⁠Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): Section 2(iiib), Section 8(c), Section 20(b)(ii)(C), Section 52-A: Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; procedure and evidentiary value of inventory, photographs, and sample list, Section 53

2.⁠ ⁠Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 65B, Section 114(g)

3.⁠ ⁠Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 293, Section 313, Section 391, Section 386, Section 465

Criminal law cannot be misused to settle private scores. The Court quashed a cheating FIR, emphasizing that for Section 420 IPC, actual dishonest intent at the contract’s inception is crucial—not mere non-performance later. Delay in filing, vague allegations, and the misuse of process drove the decision.

Statutes and Sections

1.⁠ ⁠Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 420, Section 120B

2.⁠ ⁠Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): ISection 482

3.⁠ ⁠Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138

#CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt #Cheating #Section420

A KARTA’S RIGHT TO ALIENATE HUF property is well-settled, but what happens when a coparcener challenges the sale years later?

The Supreme Court recently clarified the law on "legal necessity," emphasizing that debts from a daughter's marriage can justify a sale even years after the event.

The Court also highlighted how Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prevents shifting the burden of proof to the purchaser for facts exclusively known to the coparceners.

Legal statutes -

1.⁠ ⁠Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2.⁠ ⁠Hindu law

Case Laws:

(a) Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021) 19 SCC 263

(b) Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54

(c) Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018) 14 SCC 445

(d) Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970) 3 SCC 722

The Court underscored Article 20(1) of the Constitution, holding that an accused cannot be convicted under a penal provision absent on the statute book when the alleged act occurred.

The conviction under Section 195-A IPC was set aside, reflecting the constitutional safeguard against retrospective criminal laws, but the sentence under Section 506-B IPC was rigorously maintained due to robust evidence.

Statutes Involved:

1.⁠ ⁠Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 305, Section 506-B, Section 195-A

2.⁠ ⁠Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC): Section 374(2), Section 394

3.⁠ ⁠Constitution of India: Article 20, Clause (1)

In this judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the rights of landowners over "bachat land" in the case of State of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Ors.

The Court emphasized that lands contributed for consolidation but not earmarked for a specific common purpose do not automatically vest with the Gram Panchayat. The ruling relied on the doctrine of stare decisis and the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution, reaffirming that such land cannot be compulsorily acquired without compensation.

Constitutional Provisions :

1.⁠ ⁠Article 12, Article 14, Article 19, Article 21, Article 31 - A, Article 300 - A

Other Statutes :

1.⁠ ⁠The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

2.⁠ ⁠The Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992

3.⁠ ⁠The East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949

4.⁠ ⁠The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887

#PropertyLaw #SupremeCourt #LandRights #StareDecisis

The Court dismissed the appeal in Komal Krishan Arora & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar & Ors., and decisively UPHELD FATHER’s RIGHT TO INTERIM CUSTODY.

The ruling was heavily influenced by the mother's conduct, which was sharply criticized as a "crude subterfuge" for misleading both Indian and UK courts.

Listen to how the Court applied the 'best interest of the child' standard and its inherent PARENS PATRIAE jurisdiction to resolve a complex cross-country dispute.

Statutes :

•⁠ ⁠Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 9

•⁠ ⁠Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: The Court directed that appropriate proceedings for custody be initiated under this Act. It was also noted that under this Act, the father is the natural guardian of a minor child unless found unfit.

•⁠ ⁠Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

The Court ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED, overturning a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment re-emphasizes the "five golden principles" or "panchsheel" of proving a case with circumstantial evidence.

Can motive alone establish guilt when key witnesses turn hostile? Tune in to understand the critical legal nuances of the "last seen" theory under the Indian Evidence Act, and the burden on the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of events.

Statutes:

(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302, 364, 201.

(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 161, 164.

Discover how the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order releasing ₹50 lakh seized cash, restoring the lower courts' refusal.

The judgment emphasizes that ownership of seized property (muddamal) in multi-victim cheating cases cannot be determined until all claims are adjudicated at trial.

Citing Section 451 CrPC and the pivotal Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai precedent, the Court reiterated that interim release can only happen with thorough verification—protecting the interests of all parties and justice for the victims.

Key Statutes

•⁠ ⁠Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 451

•⁠ ⁠Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406, Section 420, Section 120-B

•⁠ ⁠Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227