Summary: Appreciation of evidenceNarcotic case principles

Summary: Sec. 376 PPC, 53 Child Protection Act, 2010.i. Rape with minor Girl direct charge.ii. Negative medical report.iii. Non-compliance of mandatory provision of 164-B Crpc.iv. Sec. 497(2) Crpc case of further inquiry.Bail allowed.

Summary: In cases of gang rape standard of proof is same as in ordinary criminal cases. Where crime report was delayed, best evidence was withheld and a wider net of implication was thrown, appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

Summary: Perusal of the Section 234 sub-section (5) of the Election Act, 2017, shows that any person aggrieved from order of the nominated officer (i.e., DMO in this case) has remedy of appeal available to him, which phrase 'any person' includes not only the persons against whom fine was imposed but also the person (i.e., a contesting candidate) who was seeking modification of the order to disqualify the rival contesting candidates, therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner that his constitutional petition is maintainable due to non-availability of alternate remedy, is not spelt out from perusal of the afore-referred sub-section (5). Hence, this constitutional petition is not maintainable at this stage due to availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner under the relevant Election Laws, which remedy provided by the said Special Laws on the subject cannot be circumvented in ordinary circumstances especially when no extra ordinary circumstances have been pointed out.

Summary: Bail Cancelled--The High Court's decision rested on the premise that the respondents, who were related as brothers, faced charges in a serious crime intertwined with an existing blood feud. The court acknowledged that while they faced direct charges, two brothers from the same family were accused of committing the murder, with the deceased sustaining both fatal and non-fatal gunshot wounds. The court emphasized that bail decisions should not be isolated but should consider the broader context of the available evidence.The petitioner contested the High Court's findings, asserting that there were valid reasons to hold the respondents accountable for the crime, rendering them ineligible for bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner's representatives argued that the High Court's decision was factually flawed and lacked sound reasoning. The respondents' legal team defended the impugned order, arguing that it fell within the bounds of the High Court's discretion.After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the grant of bail should adhere to established legal principles and statutory boundaries. The court found that the evidence provided by the prosecution, which included statements from the complainant, eyewitnesses, and autopsy reports, constituted reasonable grounds to deny bail. The court also noted discrepancies in the crime report regarding the accused individuals' family relationships, raising doubts about the assumption that all accused parties were siblings. The court held that granting bail based on incorrect premises or without following established legal principles could warrant its revocation. The petitioner's application was converted into an appeal and approved, reversing the bail granted by the High Court's order. The respondents were to be taken into custody to face the charges presented before the trial court.

Summary: Suit for declaration of the Petitioner seeking proprietary rights was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Court by reversing the Judgment of the Trial Court since the Petitioner as sub-tenant could not establish right of original allottee.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeking direction for suspension of impugned letter dated 11.06.2019 regarding termination of the petitioner.