Bombay High Court Reinforces Limits on Police Search Powers regarding residential Home and seizure of mobile of accused

 The right to privacy has now been recognised as an

inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberty

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Entry

into the residential premises of a citizen, more particularly into

the bedroom occupied by a woman, without adherence to the

statutory safeguards and the forcible seizure of her mobile

phone without following the procedure prescribed under the

BNSS, constitute a serious invasion of the petitioner's privacy

and dignity. The explanation offered by the respondents that

the search was undertaken in connection with the investigation

of Crime No.26/2026 cannot justify a departure from the

mandatory safeguards enacted by the legislature. The

investigating agency is expected to act strictly within the

bounds of law, and the object of investigation cannot legitimise

an otherwise illegal search or seizure. {Para 22}.

Key Legal Takeaways:

• Section 185 BNSS is mandatory, not directory. Before conducting a warrantless search, the Investigating Officer must record reasons in writing, specify the articles sought, and comply with statutory safeguards. Audio-video recording of the search is also an important statutory requirement.

• Section 105 BNSS governs lawful seizure. A mobile phone or any property cannot be seized casually. A lawful seizure requires a contemporaneous seizure memo, independent witnesses, acknowledgment to the person concerned, proper documentation, and procedural transparency.

• A mobile phone is not merely a device it is a repository of a person’s private life. Arbitrary seizure without following due process directly impacts the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 128/2026

 Khushbu W/o. Iddrish Khan VS. State of Maharashtra,

CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND

NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

JUDGMENT (PER : Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) :

Dated: 03.07.2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: Unstamped Agreement Cannot Be Basis For Granting Temporary Injunction Even If Its Execution Is Accepted By Defendant

 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in MANU/SC/8502/2008 : 2009 AIR SCW 97, observed that where possession of property has been transferred under any instrument, in absence of payment of stamp duty, such instrument cannot be admitted even for collateral purpose or to corroborate oral evidence. There is total and absolute bar as to admission of unstamped instrument, unless there is compliance with requirements of provisos to Section 35. {Para 17}

18. In this background, if unstamped instrument is admitted even for collateral purpose, it would amount to receiving such document in evidence for a purpose which is prohibited under Section 35 of Stamp Act. The bar against admissibility of instrument which is chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped is of course absolute whatever be the nature of purpose, be it for main or collateral purpose, unless requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with.

19. The similar issue was considered by High Court of Karnataka in case of Smt. Dyavamma Alias Sanna Mukkamma Vs. Smt. Balamma and Others reported in MANU/KA/0842/2010 : ILR 2010 KAR 3280, that instruments which are not duly stamped are not only inadmissible in evidence, but the Court cannot act upon it, or consider the same for any relief like temporary injunction till such time both duty and penalty are paid. In case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Others reported in MANU/SC/1141/2015 : 2015:INSC:755 : (2015) 16 SCC 787, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if party wanted to rely upon document for collateral purpose, it was upon for him to pay stamp duty together with penalty and get document impounded.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 13409 of 2023

Decided On: 29.07.2025

Salim Baig Vs. Sayyad Nawid

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:19926, MANU/MH/4610/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation if motor accident is done by driver who is minor child?

Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits driving of a vehicle by any person under the age of eighteen years in any public place. Section 5 of the Act imposes a statutory responsibility upon the owners of the motor vehicles not to cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 to drive the vehicle. {Para 15}

16. The vehicle in question admittedly was being driven by Karan Arora who was aged about fifteen years. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, in our opinion, rightly held that Karan Arora did not hold any valid licence on the date of accident, namely 5.2.1997.

17. The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court did not put unto themselves a correct question of law. They proceeded on a wrong premise that it was for the Insurance Company to prove breach of conditions of the contract of insurance.

18. The High Court did not advert to itself the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus misdirected itself in law.

19. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj   MANU/SC/0685/2008 : AIR2008SC1408 wherein upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions, it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008 

Decided On: 24.09.2008

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Citation: 2008 INSC 1087,MANU/SC/8090/2008,2009 AIR SC 24.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions not constitute sufficient ground to deny benefit of coverage of insurance to third parties

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0021/2004 : AIR2004SC1531 this Court held:

88. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description.

89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (2) of the said section. {Para 21}

22. It was furthermore observed:

90. We have construed and determined the scope of Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008 

Decided On: 24.09.2008

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Citation: 2008 INSC 1087,MANU/SC/8090/2008,2009 AIR SC 24.

Print Page