Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Granted

Bail Granted

“Consequently, insofar as “Extension of time to complete investigation” is concerned, the Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D(b) of the UAPA. In view of the law laid down by this Court, we accept the plea raised by the appellants and hold them entitled to the relief of default bail as prayed for.”

Mar 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. SADIQUE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.Ravindrabhat and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

Bail Granted

HELD respondent-CBI is relying upon statements of 5 witnesses recorded under Section 164 of CrPC – Statements of the first two witnesses were recorded on 7th September 2021 and 11th November 2021 respectively. But the appellant was not named in both the charge sheets filed thereafter – Bail granted with conditions.

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK. SUPIYAN @ SUFFIYAN @ SUPISAN — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Abhay…

Bail Granted

NDPS BAIL – In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act – Bail granted.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHARAT CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Petition…

Bail Granted

(IPC) – Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 – Arms Act 1959 – Section 25(1A) – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 5 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 18, 20 and 40(1)(b)(c) – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Sections 13, 14 and 19 – Grant of post ­arrest bail –

Dec 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY — Respondent ( Before…

Bail Granted

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 20, 38, 39 and 43D(5) – Bail – Association with terrorist organisation – – The proviso imposes embargo on grant of bail to the accused against whom any of the offences under Chapter IV and VI have been alleged. The embargo will apply when after perusing charge sheet, the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Thus, if after perusing the charge sheet, if the Court is unable to draw such a prima facie conclusion, the embargo created by the proviso will not apply.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THWAHA FASAL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Bail Granted

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 -Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. Not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization. Not agree with the prosecution that the amount is terror fund. At this stage, it cannot be said that the amount seized from the Appellant is proceeds from terrorist activity. There is no allegation that Appellant was receiving any money. On the other hand, the Appellant is accused of providing money to the members of organisation

Apr 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDESH KEDIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw