Digest Of Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court held that timelines imposed by High Courts to conclude investigations are the exception rather than the norm. It held that Courts must respect the practical realities of investigations and should only impose deadlines in situations where inaction would lead to adverse consequences. In this case, three individuals approached the Allahabad High Court […]

The Supreme Court held that persons against whom criminal proceedings are pending are not absolutely disentitled to a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, the appellant, sought renewal of his ordinary passport after its expiry while proceedings were pending before the NIA Court, Ranchi, and a criminal appeal against conviction

The Supreme Court held that leading questions are permissible in cross-examinations and that answers elicited in response do not, for that reason alone,  lose probative value. The Court further noted that omissions in examination-in-chief can be fixed at the time of cross-examination. In 1998, the appellant executed a will bequeathing his properties to eight of

The Supreme Court held that in cases of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, the evidence of minor victims must be appreciated with sensitivity and realism. It held that the credible testimony of a minor victim can, by itself, sustain a conviction and cannot be rejected on the basis of minor inconsistencies. K.P. Kirankumar and

The Supreme Court held that the right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be the sole ground of consideration for granting bail in cases where security or integrity of the nation is called into question.  The case concerned the 2010 derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express which killed 148 people. The accused were charged for murder

The Supreme Court held that an arrest cannot be declared illegal if the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the arrestee immediately. A written copy of the grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time and not less than two hours before the arrestee’s appearance before a magistrate.  The accused was arrested for a

Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v State of Karnataka 4 November 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 1282 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(2)[12] The Supreme Court held that when allegations in a private complaint disclose the commission of a cognisable offence, the Magistrate may order the registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).