The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any ...

Section 41 of CrPC empowers police officers to arrest individuals without a warrant under specific circumstances. The provision covers various scenarios including when a person commits a cognizable ...

One of the most noteworthy aspects of this new legislation is how Parliament has systematically incorporated key directions and principles established by the Supreme Court, particularly those outlined ...

The Appellant assails the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (High Court) whereby his prayer for regular bail in connection with FIR No. RC-26/2021/NIA/DLI dated ...

Inordinate delays in trial and long periods of incarceration without conviction violate Article 21 While legislative intent must initially be adhered to, prolonged detention without trial mandates ...

The Hon'ble High Court held that in Category A cases under Para 3 of Satender Kumar Antil, where cognizance is taken and summons issued, “bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided ...

BNS introduces terrorism as a distinct offense under Section 113, which closely mirrors UAPA's definition. The provision covers acts intended to threaten India's unity, integrity, sovereignty, ...

On the other hand, there is Rajasthan High Court, which in Sunil Bhatt v. State 14, held that the accused can seek a narco-analysis test at a relevant stage in view of the statutory right to lead ...

It is obvious that Section 14 is aimed at removing restrictions or limitations on the right of a female Hindu to enjoy, as a full owner, property possessed by her so long as her possession is ...

Section 66 of the BNS represents one of the most stringent provisions in Indian criminal law, addressing cases where sexual offenses under Section 64 result in either death or persistent vegetative ...

13. Additionally, the High Court in repeatedly allowing the adjournment requests has only allowed the Accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial and have failed to ensure that the ...

Adoption Deed was registered, the presumption under Section 16 of the Act of 1956 attached to it and it was for Defendant No.1 to rebut that presumption. We find that he did so more than sufficiently.