Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
Bombay High Court remarked that they have come across at least three such cases in last three weeks wherein the statement of the prosecutrix has been totally disbelieved in the grave and a serious offence under Section 376 IPC by not following the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in its catena of decisions. It is the second case in this week wherein Police did not adhere to the basic principles of investigation.
In this case, the Delhi High Court held that the right to investigation cannot be taken away from the investigating officer only because the conduct of Test Identification Parade (TIP) was ordered after the release of articles to the person who was in lawful custody of the articles.
by Shubham Pandey* and Uday Shankar**
Delhi High Court: In a case where revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Trial Court by
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While granting bail to the accused booked under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Suneet Kumar and Syed Waiz Mian, JJ. held a Police Officer guilty of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a petition which was filed aggrieved by the order where after deciding a criminal
Telangana High Court: Lalitha Kanneganti, J., disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. The instant writ
Supreme Court: Appalled with the arrest of Anuj Jain, the Interim Resolution Professional of the company managing the Yamuna Expressway, in connection
The National Human Rights Commission, India has taken suo-motu cognizance of a media report that after 5 years in jail in Agra
Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., while addressing a matter with regard to the Order issued by Delhi Police on 8-07-2020
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J., while terming the doctors as “frontline warriors”, directed the Investigating officer to conduct Test identification parade
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam, JJ., while addressing the matter of Custodial Death of “Jayaraj &
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J. allowed this application of bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Allahabad High Court: Applicant filed an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code which was contemplated by Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Uttarakhand High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J. has asked the State of Uttarakhand whether an Investigating Officer, by conducting DNA tests, has the
Kerela High Court: The Bench of N. Anil Kumar, J., allowed the bail application of a seventy years old man, filed under
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ has clarified that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, (2018)