Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 —Abetment of Suicide — The appellant sought anticipatory bail after the High Court rejected her plea — The State of Punjab acknowledged her participation in the investigation and stated no further custodial interrogation was needed — The Supreme Court granted her anticipatory bail, considering the State of Punjab’s submission that she cooperated with the investigation — The decision was based on the recognition that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary and that anticipatory bail would be appropriate — The Supreme Court concluded that appellant should be granted anticipatory bail, subject to any conditions imposed by the Trial Court — The State would retain the right to seek bail cancellation if conditions were violated.
2025 INSC 49 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAMTA KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of…
Valid arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for arbitration proceedings, and that the unilateral appointment of arbitrators and the fraudulent nature of the process rendered the awards null and void
2025 INSC 48 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar and R.…
Railways Act, 1989 — Section 143 — The creation of multiple user IDs is not explicitly criminalized under Section 143, but unauthorized procurement and supply of tickets is — The court stated that penal provisions must be read strictly and narrowly and since the act does not mention multiple IDs, it cannot be penalized — The court found that while an authorized agent who engages in unauthorized actions would not be penalized under this law, an unauthorized person who engages in such actions would be penalized.
2025 INSC 51 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAM Vs. MATHEW K CHERIAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be applied even when a conviction has been upheld — Even though appellant’s conviction under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 of the IPC was affirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Probation Act — The fact that appellant was acquitted of more serious charges (Sections 307, 148, and 149 IPC) and that he had already served a significant portion of his sentence was also taken into consideration. — The age of the accused, the length of the criminal proceedings, and the absence of a prior criminal record can justify the application of the Probation Act — The court took into account appellant’s age (approximately 70 years old), the prolonged nature of the proceedings, and the fact that he had no prior convictions, in deciding to apply the Probation Act to him.
2025 INSC 46 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2025 (@…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 304 Part I — Murder — Appeal against conviction — Appellants were initially convicted of murder but the charge was later modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC — The court upheld this modification, citing the lack of clear motive, premeditation, and definitive intent to kill, despite the fatal injuries inflicted — The judgment considered the credibility of the sole eyewitness, the timing of the FIR, and the overall weight of the evidence, ultimately reducing the sentence to the time already served and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 each.
2025 INSC 47 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERDHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ( Before : B. R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…
A party should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel, and a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC can serve as an application for condonation of delay if it explains the reasons for the delay, so that courts should focus on the merits of a case rather than being hindered by procedural technicalities A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — An application under Order 9 Rule 13 can also serve as an application for condonation of delay — The court cites Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Others, to support its finding that where the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC is explained within the application itself, there is no need for a separate application for condonation of delay — The court emphasizes that the procedure is a handmaid of justice, and hyper-technical interpretations of rules should not stand in the way of achieving a just outcome.
2024 INSC 1030 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. Vs. PRITHVI RAJ SINGH ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil…
Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially in serious offenses like murder, and that courts must consider the severity of the charges, the evidence, and the materials on record, including the charge sheet Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — The Supreme Court overturned the Patna High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to respondents in a murder case — The case originated from an incident where the appellant’s nephew was allegedly set on fire by the respondents — The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted mechanically, particularly in severe offenses like murder, and the High Court had erred in not considering the gravity of the charges and the evidence, including the charge sheet which stated that the case against the accused persons was found to be true — The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender to the trial court and apply for regular bail, to be considered on its merits — The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a thorough review of case details and allegations before granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases of serious crimes.
2024 INSC 1032 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAMBHU DEBNATH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal…
Service Law — Regularization of services for long-term, part-time employees — The court found that the appellants’ continuous service for over a decade, performing essential duties, should not be disregarded simply because their initial appointments were labeled as part-time or contractual — The court noted the indispensable nature of their work, the lack of any performance issues, and that their duties were similar to those of regular employees — The court emphasized that the nature of their work was perennial and fundamental, requiring their classification as regular posts — The court also found that the appellants’ abrupt termination was unjustified and violated principles of natural justice, and the argument against their regularization based on educational qualifications was untenable — The court noted discriminatory practices as other employees with similar or shorter service had been regularized — The court clarified that the Uma Devi judgment was not intended to penalize employees who have served long years in essential roles and that “irregular” appointments should be considered for regularization, especially when they are not “illegal” and the employees have served continuously against sanctioned functions.
2024 INSC 1034 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGGO Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304A — Rash and Negligent Driving — The court found that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the death of one person and injuries to another — The prosecution presented evidence demonstrating that the accused’s vehicle hit the motorcycle from behind — This is corroborated by witness testimony and the fact that the motorcycle was dragged a considerable distance — The court dismissed the defence’s argument that the incident was due to contributory negligence, pointing out that the road was wide enough for the accused to avoid the collision and that there was no evidence of a sudden turn by the victim — The courts also noted the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation when questioned about the incriminating evidence — The fact that the victim suffered 19 wounds also supports the court’s conclusion that the accused’s driving was rash and negligent —The court rejected the petitioner’s plea for leniency due to his family circumstances, emphasizing that the accused’s actions caused a death — Based on the above points, the court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.
2024 INSC 1038 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMES Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2024…