There are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of charged offenses therefore, conditions for bail under Section 37 of Act are not met, and Applicant will not be granted bail.
Reference Courts decision during land acquisition trial demonstrated that opinion formed was based on detailed inquiry, not finding of guilt therefore, court does not need to conduct preliminary inquiry before taking action under Section 340, focusing instead on expediency of justice.
Petitioner has failed to provide documentation establishing ownership of disputed property and has initiated civil suit seeking recognition of ownership via adverse possession, following rejection of his regularization application.
Impugned order 19.03.2024 has been reviewed, quashing January 20, 2024 order that allowed this impleadment therefore, Respondent No.14 is not recognized as party in Special Civil Suit No.8/2019 and any pleadings filed by them will be ignored as suit proceeds to final decree expeditiously.
No material evidence overlooked that could alter cases outcome and thus their findings were deemed reasonable and supported by record hence, second appeal was ultimately dismissed as it did not raise any substantial legal questions as defined under applicable law.
Petitioner did not comply with order, prompting Respondent No. 2 to issue execution directions and Respondent No. 2 acted in accordance with Act and issued memorandum requires no further interference.
Additional Sessions Judge adopted legally permissible view of material and correctly declined to set criminal law in motion hence, impugned Judgment and Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, is confirmed.
Evidence on record contradicts complainants claim of being shot in leg with pistol, highlighting that false accusations can lead to legal repercussions hence, impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside.
Given nature of allegations, lack of prior offenses and lengthy duration of proceedings, modifying appellants sentence would serve justice effectively hence, substantive sentence imposed upon him is reduced to period already undergone.
High Court misdirected its inquiry regarding registration of crime, leading to an incorrect conclusion hence, impugned judgment set aside and petitions under Section 482, Cr. PC shall be heard afresh and decided on its own merits in accordance with, law as expeditiously as possible.
Division Benchs view on PSTM quota and directive to disclose marks for candidates outside consideration zone is upheld.
High Court also incorrectly stated that wall was common property, failing to establish any substantial legal question and misdirecting legal heirs to accept monetary relief without basis in original claim, culminating in miscarriage of justice hence, judgment of High Court set aside.
Almost three decades have passed since incident and considering appellants age (over 60 years now) and prior imprisonment of over one and half years, altering appellants five-year sentence to time served would serve justice, while maintaining conviction.
Appellant-accused is not entitled to default bail due to timely filing of charge sheet on 02.09.2025, which extinguished right to default bail.
Cr.PC outlines specific procedures for trials, detailed in Chapters XV to XXI and Section 311 occurs under Chapter XXIV, which establishes general provisions for inquiries and trials, these provisions do not allow criminal court to bypass established trial procedures or create new methodologies, such as examining sanctioning authority before charges are framed.
2002 Policy, enacted under Constitution, remains in effect despite 2008 Policy, which cannot legally supersede it hence, Appellant is entitled to benefits from 2002 Policy, particularly regarding remission based on lesser time served.
Appellants main request was to challenge Sessions Courts failure to frame charges against two co-accused hence, High Court is instructed to reconsider appellants and second respondents petitions independently.
Trial judges exclusive reliance on RPA for cognizance is challenged, yet state argues that Section 465 CrPC might salvage this and case is remanded for fresh cognizance while clarifying no opinion on merits of case is provided.
While maintaining judgment of High Court, Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by GAD seeking to exclude SPE from applicability of provisions of Act of 2005 is struck down.
In determining motor accident claims, just compensation must holistically account for the deceaseds future professional potential without descending into pure speculation.
You were logged out of this device because this account is also signed in on another device, and that device asked this one to sign out.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer