Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cr P C

Cr P C

Bail—Re-Arrest—Addition of Offences—In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail

Aug 23, 2019 sclaw

2019(3) Law Herald (SC) 1765 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1217 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Criminal Appeal Nos. 816-817…

Cr P C

Examination of Witness—Video Conferencing—In a criminal trial, where the witness was found residing/situate outside India and whose evidence was essential for the case set up by the prosecution then evidence of witness can be recorded through video conferencing Examination of Witness—Mere long pendency of trial by itself cannot be a ground for declining an application for examination of material witness

Jul 14, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1716 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1030 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Criminal Appeal No.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 360 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 3 and 4 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 325 and 34 – Release on probation for good conduct – If the offender is less than 21 years of age or a woman not convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life; such offender can be granted benefit of probation on satisfaction of the court on the basis of parameters contained in Section 360 of the Code.

Jul 4, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1531 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1005 (2019) 2 RCR(Criminal) 1012 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw