Criminal Law

The appellant got a contract for the supply of radar stations when after eight years it was alleged that there were fraud and cheating and the appellant was booked under sections 406,409,420,465,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Bail was denied by the session

Held that the allegations made in the FIR are vague that the procedure contained in S. 41 CrPC as adumbrated by the judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, has not been followed before arresting the petitioner. Same taken as a factor for directing the release of the petitioner, a stand-up comedian, on ad

It was held that even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, the basic essential ingredients of cheating are missing, as it could not be said that averments in FIR and allegations in the complaint against appellant constituted offenses thereunder, therefore, this case was fit for High Court

The court held that “whereas at the commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a

Principles summarised regarding object and scope of S. 311 and power and duties of court while exercising discretion under S. 311 CrPC. “The aim of every court is to discover the truth. Section 311CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by

The appellant had created a forged general power of Attorney from the respondent in his name with regard to his lands and sold it. The respondent filed an FIR under section 419 or 420 IPC and the appellant was acquitted of the charge. The second FIR was filed under sections 467,468 and 471 IPC. Held,

It is stated that the appellants have been released on temporary bail, furlough and parole on several occasions and there is no report of their having misconducted themselves or indulged in any criminal activities. The appellants were directed to be released on bail subject to the conditions that they shall not enter the state of

The Supreme court granted relief of clubbing together the two suits pending before the trial court. The respondent in his application stated certain facts that were not accurate. The explanation offered by him in his rejoinder seemed reasonable more particularly when he has tendered unconditional apology in his rejoinder. No prima facie case is made

Referring to Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 1 SCC 130, this court observed that it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been

Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act,2005-Ss. 18 and 20, the court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of Domestic Violence– there are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of Appellant 14 (husband) have caused the acts of Domestic Violence- the criminal case of domestic violence against them