Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If a preliminary inquiry could be conducted, there may not be any reason as to why formal departmental inquiry could not have been initiated against the delinquent.”
Delhi High Court: While upholding the decision of Trial Court, Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., reiterated that dying
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has held that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is
Supreme Court: In a case where a man was convicted for killing his wife on the suspicion of her infidelity and was
Supreme Court: The bench of KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has reiterated the factors to be considered while deciding the
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., while noting the mitigating factors and circumstances in which
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. reversed concurrent judgments of the trial court and the Madhya
Supreme Court: A Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. reversed the conviction of the accussed−appellant who was convicted
Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. granted bail to a young mother of two minor children, who was booked in connection with
by Tushar Agarwal†
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh, JJ., upheld the capital punishment of a man who murdered
Supreme Court: The Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJ and A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., reversed the order of the Rajasthan High
Patna High Court: Birendra Kumar Cav, J., reversed the Trial Court’s conviction order, whereby, the accused was awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Prasanna B. Varale and S.M. Modak, JJ., held that in a matter of circumstantial evidence,
Gauhati High Court: The Division Bench of Suman Shyam and Mir Alfaz Ali, JJ., heard the instant petition against the judgment and
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi*, JJ., dismissed the instant appeal filed against the order of
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and N.J. Jamadar, JJ., while addressing the present matter, expressed that: Where
The National Human Rights Commission, India has taken suo-motu cognizance of a media report that after 5 years in jail in Agra
An article published by India Today claimed that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in an unusual judgment had recently observed that
“To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate, to our mind, is a preposterous statement, coming from the police.”