The Supreme Court clarified that 90-day default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only to offences with a minimum punishment of 10 years. The Delhi High Court granted default bail to Rajeev Sharma after 60 days under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) as the investigation was incomplete. Sharma was charged with an […]
Default Bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC Read More »
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 »
The Supreme Court held that excess payments made to an employee, without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part, cannot be recovered by an employer. The Court also quashed recovery orders directing the employees to deposit the excess arrears. Excess payments had been made to stenographers in Cuttack’s district judiciary. Recovery orders were issued six
Recovery of Excess Payments – employer /employee Read More »
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 »
The Supreme Court held that a consensual relationship, even if followed by a breach of a promise to marry, does not amount to rape under under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning. The appellant, Jaspal Singh Kaural, was accused of engaging in sexual
Breach of Promise to Marry is Not Always Rape-sec 376 IPC-Sec 227 CrPC Read More »
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
The Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases, while desirable, is not mandatory under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court was hearing appeals against a Karnataka High Court decision which had quashed an FIR against Sri Channakeshava H.D., a public servant accused of corruption. The High Court noted that the Superintendent
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 »
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 »
The Supreme Court held that it is not bound to limit its scope while hearing an appeal. It may expand the merits of the case if required, under its power to do “complete justice” under Article 142. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India,
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:
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