Criminal Law

Anticipatory Bail in cases of Financial Fraud- IPC/ CrPC / Companies Act 2013

The Supreme Court emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted to persons accused of serious economic fraud under Section 212(6) read along with Section 447 (Punishment for fraud) of the Companies Act, 2013.  The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to individuals accused by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The SFIO was

Anticipatory Bail in cases of Financial Fraud- IPC/ CrPC / Companies Act 2013 Read More »

Maintenance Despite Restitution of Conjugal Rights-section 125 CrPC

The Supreme Court held that a restitution of conjugal rights decree does not absolve a husband from paying maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if the wife has valid reasons to live separately.  Rina Kumari married Dinesh Kumar Mahto in 2014 but left in 2015, citing cruelty, dowry demands and lack of basic amenities.

Maintenance Despite Restitution of Conjugal Rights-section 125 CrPC Read More »

Transfer of prisoner on grounds of security—valid—administrative decision—Prisoners Act 1900

The Supreme Court held that the transfer of a prisoner from one jail to another is an administrative decision. Therefore, Courts must interfere in the matter sparingly. A decision to transfer a prisoner is not arbitrary if a profound rationale supports it. The respondent, Vikash Tiwary, a gangster, was serving life imprisonment at Lok Nayak

Transfer of prisoner on grounds of security—valid—administrative decision—Prisoners Act 1900 Read More »

Direct Evidence not Necessary to Determine Conspiracy in Terror cases -NDPS, UAPA

The Supreme Court held that physical recovery of contraband is not necessary to determine conspiracy and facilitation of a crime in a narcotics smuggling operation. Harpreet Singh Talwar was accused of facilitating the import of a consignment containing heroin and carrying out a transnational smuggling operation linked to Afghan-based syndicates, with proceeds alleged to have

Direct Evidence not Necessary to Determine Conspiracy in Terror cases -NDPS, UAPA Read More »

Union to form a Committee to increase institutional accountability in POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court set aside the sentence awarded to a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) convict, reasoning that it would cause further injustice to the victim, who was now committed to the convict. The Bench had previously overturned a Calcutta High Court decision which had indulged in “victim-shaming” while acquitting the accused in a POCSO

Union to form a Committee to increase institutional accountability in POCSO Cases Read More »

Enforcement of PUCL Guidelines not Contingent on Direct Victim Participation

The Supreme Court held that the procedural safeguards laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra (2014) for police encounters are binding and must be enforced regardless of whether the victim or their family initiates the complaint. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at the Assam High Court sought an independent investigation into alleged

Enforcement of PUCL Guidelines not Contingent on Direct Victim Participation Read More »

Courts Must Compare Prosecution and Defence Statements in Cases of Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court held that in cases where a court has relied on circumstantial evidence, it must compare the prosecution’s evidence with that of the defence. Where two views exist, the one favouring the accused should be taken. Vaibhav, the accused, claimed that he found Mangesh, the deceased, in a pool of blood along with

Courts Must Compare Prosecution and Defence Statements in Cases of Circumstantial Evidence Read More »

Terms & Conditions

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use.
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising. I AGREE