Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 05/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Bail Granted

Bail Granted Cr P C

HELD there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted – Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed – Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation the accused has not be heard.

May 3, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. HEMENDHRA REDDY AND ANOTHER. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala,…

Bail Granted Constitution Cr P C

Right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India – During the pendency of the investigation, supplementary chargesheets were filed by the Investigation Agency just before the expiry of 60 days – Interim order of bail is upheld.

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITU CHHABARIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and C. T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Writ…

Bail Granted

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Section 3, 45 and 46 – Bail – Complaint filed by the E D gives a valid argument that the second condition found in Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PMLA is satisfied qua the appellant – Apprehension of the Enforcement Directorate that the appellant is a flight-risk and may go out of the country if released on bail, has to be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions – Bail granted – Appeal allowed.

Apr 24, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWAL — Appellant @ HASH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Granted

(IPC) – Ss 120B, 124A, 153A and 153B – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Ss 18 and 39 – Bail – (i) the investigation is over and (ii) the petitioner is not yet a convicted criminal – Not think that any purpose will be served in allowing the Special Court to remand him to custody and then enabling him to move an application for bail – Bail granted.

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AKHIL GOGOI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Bail Granted Narcotics

(CrPC) – Ss 436A and 439 – NDPS S 20, 25, 29 and 37 – Bail – Possession of 180 kilograms of ganja – Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too – Where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…

Bail Granted

Anticipatory Bail in CBI case HELD When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, court fail to understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested – CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 till 31.12.2021 Bail granted

Mar 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHDOOM BAVA — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……..…

Bail Granted G S T

C G and S T Act, 2017 – Ss 132(1)(a), (h), (k) and (l) read with Section 132(5) – Bail – Evasion of tax – in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic – Ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing – Bail granted.

Dec 10, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNAMBAR KAUSHIK — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Petition For SLP (Crl.)…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw