Marriage Was With Approval Of Families, State Can't Object' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Jailed Over Inter-Faith Marriage

We observe that the respondent - State cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes to their respective parents and families. In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted to the appellant herein.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. Of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (crl.) No. 4600/2025)

Date of Order: 19.05.2025

Aman Siddiqui Alias Aman Chaudhary Alias Raja Vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SCOR/45653/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Filing Of Fresh Bail Application After Rejection Of Earlier Bail Plea Or Cancellation Of Bail Is A Matter Of Right

 The earlier bail application of the appellant was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 03.10.2023. However, the said order was set aside by this Court. Thereafter, the appellant applied afresh for bail before the High Court and the said application was rejected solely on the ground that Supreme Court of India while canceling the bail granted by the High Court, had not given any liberty to the appellant to file a fresh bail application.

{Para 3}

4. There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. This Court in canceling the bail application has not taken away the right of the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if the circumstances permit.

5. Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter cancelled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2025

Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and S.V. Bhatti, JJ.

Date of Order: 13.02.2025

Citation:  MANU/SCOR/19612/2025

Print Page

No Motor Accident Claim Should Be Dismissed As Time-Barred : Supreme Court's Interim Order In Plea Challenging S.166(3) MV Act

 It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) or Section 16(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. {Para 5}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal C No. 8412/2023, Special Leave to Appeal C No. 8413/2023

Date of Order: 04.11.2025

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ayiti Navaneetha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Dated: 04.11.2025 

Citation:  MANU/SCOR/84313/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Grant Of Bail Must Be Subject To Embargo In Special Enactments : Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Of MCOCA Accused

As per Section 21(4) of the MCOCA, bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“..it is a fact that the impugned order did not reflect such consideration as has been required in respect of matter involving offences under MCOCA in terms of the provisions thereunder as also the decisions rendered by this Court in respect of grant of bail. When there is an embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, the power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in such specific provision. In the case on hand, such a specific provision is contained under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA.”, the court observed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2025

Decided On: 02.01.2025

Jayshree Kanabar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 13,MANU/SC/0018/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Bail Should Be Normally Granted For Offences Under S 132 CGST Act Unless Extraordinary Circumstances Exists

The offences alleged against the appellant are

under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum

sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has

been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of

almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a

Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any

case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence.

There are no antecedents. 

We are surprised to note that in a case like this,

 the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all

levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was

forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where

in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused

should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary

circumstances.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2269 OF 2025

VINEET JAIN  VS. UNION OF INDIA 

Dated: April 28, 2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court should not grant bail to accused only on the ground of parity Without Assessing Accused's Specific Role

 Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage when the bail application of a co-Accused is allowed. The Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the Accused persons, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. Court cannot proceed on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment, which again cannot pass muster under the law. {Para 30}

14. What flows from the above judgments, which have been referred to, only to the limited extent indicated above, is that the High Courts speak in one voice that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct position in law. The word 'parity' is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "equality, especially of pay or position."3 When weighing an application on parity, it is 'position' that is the clincher. The requirement of 'position' is not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position means what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his role etc. There can be different roles played - someone part of a large group, intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who throws hands at the other side, instigated by such words spoken by another, someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete - parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts, and not with someone who was part of the group to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the gathering, with another who attempted to hack away at the opposer's limbs with a weapon.

15. In this case, the Respondent-Accused was the instigator of the moment, asking Accused Aditya to shoot Sonveer. Suresh Pal, was a member of the mob yielding a weapon, as per the FIR. He had been the original conveyor of the threat at the time of the original altercation/ verbal spat. The roles of these two people at the time of the shooting of the deceased cannot be said to be the same, even though they may be holding a common intention of causing harm to the other side. In that view of the matter, consideration of bail, on parity, is misplaced. That apart, there remains no parity to be weighed since Suresh Pal, too, we assume, as a consequence of our order, is behind bars.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 5074 of 2025

Decided On: 28.11.2025

Sagar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: Sagar vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (28.11.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1597/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court:'Bail Is The Rule' Even When Higher Court Orders Arrest Of Accused U/ S.390 CrPC While Considering Challenge To Acquittal/Discharge

 SECTION 390 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 As we have held earlier, in view of Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional Court can exercise power Under Section 390 in a given case. As can be seen from Section 390, when an appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal, the High Court is empowered to issue a warrant directing that the Accused be arrested and brought before it or any sub-ordinate Court. The Court, before which the Accused is brought, may commit him to prison pending disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail. Once an appeal against acquittal is admitted, the status of the person acquitted as an Accused can be said to be restored. That is what is held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu and Ors.   MANU/SC/0191/1976 : 1976:INSC:94 : (1976) 3 SCC 1. The object of Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that if ultimately the order of acquittal is converted into the order of conviction, the Accused must be available for undergoing sentence. The second object of Section 390 is that when an appeal against acquittal is finally heard, the Accused's presence at the hearing can be secured. Therefore, there is a power vested in the High Court to arrest an acquitted Accused and bring him before it or the Trial Court. The object is that the Accused remains under the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of an Accused. Therefore, as a normal rule, where an order Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is passed, the Accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. This Rule must be applied while exercising power Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the position of the acquitted Accused is on a higher pedestal than an Accused facing trial. When an Accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted Accused, as stated earlier, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of exception can an order committing an acquitted Accused to prison be passed Under Section 390. {Para 18}

19. When a revision application challenging the order of discharge is admitted for hearing, the High Court may exercise power Under Section 390 by directing the person discharged to appear before the Trial Court and by directing the Trial Court to admit him to bail on appropriate terms and conditions. If such an order is passed after the admission of the revision application against the order of discharge, it is a sufficient safeguard for ensuring the presence of the discharged Accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial, if the order of discharge is set aside. If the discharge order is eventually set aside, such an order Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed in an admitted revision application against the discharge order will be in the aid of final relief. As held earlier, while exercising power Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the normal Rule is that the acquitted Accused should not be committed to custody, and a direction should be issued to admit him to bail. This normal Rule should apply all the more to cases where the challenge is to the order of discharge, as the order of discharge is on a higher pedestal than an order of acquittal.

20. Passing an order Under Section 390 directing the discharged Accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged Accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 536-537 of 2025

Decided On: 28.02.2025

Sudershan Singh Wazir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 281,MANU/SC/0293/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if FIR is lodged against unknown persons for the offence of robbery or dacoity?

 In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made Accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the Accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the Accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the Accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the Accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted Article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the Accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.{Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 of 2020 and 202 of 2020

Decided On: 04.02.2025

Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  and Manoj Misra, , JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 145 : AIR 2025 SC 1087 : (2025) 3 SCC 341,MANU/SC/0145/2025.

Print Page

Supreme court: What parameters the court should keep in mind while deciding bail application in Dowry death case?

 In dowry-death cases, courts must be mindful of the broader societal impact, given that the offence strikes at the very root of social justice and equality. Allowing alleged prime perpetrators of such heinous acts to remain on bail, where the evidence indicates they actively inflicted physical, as well as mental, torment, could undermine not only the fairness of the trial but also public confidence in the criminal justice system.

13. In light of these concerns, we find that Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 do not deserve the continued protection of bail. The gravity of the allegations, ranging from demands for costly gifts to the infliction of brutal injuries, demonstrates a strong prima facie case against them. Moreover, Section 304B Indian Penal Code (dowry death) prescribes a stringent standard because of the grave nature of the offence and the systemic harm it perpetuates. Where the facts clearly indicate direct involvement in the fatal events, courts must act with an abundance of caution. Thus, permitting the father-in-law and mother-in-law to remain at large would run counter to the ends of justice, especially when the evidence reflects a probable nexus between their persistent dowry demands, physical cruelty, and the deceased's death. Consequently, their bail warrants cancellation so that a fair and unimpeded trial may take place, in keeping with the legislative intent behind anti- dowry laws.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2025

Decided On: 03.03.2025

Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation: AIR 2025 SC 1404,MANU / SC / 0301 / 2025,[ 2025 ] 3 SCR 367,( 2025 ) 4 SCC 172.

Print Page

Supreme Court : When the court should not release an accused on medical bail?

What had all the same been argued by Mr. Khurshid was that the medical condition of the Petitioner called for immediate surgery for which purpose he had placed reliance upon a certificate issued by Dr. Maheep Singh Gaur. It was argued that the Petitioner would like to be evaluated at Kumud Chawla Gamma Knife Centre, Goodwill Hospital and Research Centre, NOIDA. We had in view of this submission made at the Bar directed constitution of a Medical Board by the Director of AI-IMS to review the medical papers relevant to the Petitioner's present condition and to submit a report as to whether there was any need for surgery as suggested by the Petitioner's doctor. We had left it open to the Medical Board to call the Petitioner for a clinical examination should if it considered necessary to do so.

3. A Board comprising as many as 8 Doctors from different specialities was accordingly constituted by the AIIMS before whom the Petitioner was produced in person for a clinical examination, apart from evaluation of his medical papers. The Board has based on their clinical examination and investigations submitted a report dated 02.01.2015 in which it has opined:

"On basis of above examination and investigations by the Medical Board, he was diagnosed to be suffering from Trigeminal Neuralgia with degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with Hypothyroidism and Benign Hyperplasia of Prostate. Radiological and blood investigation reports are enclosed in original.

At present, none of the above mentioned disease require surgical management but requires appropriate routine medical management on OPD basis.

The medical board concluded at 6.00 p.m."

4. It is evident from that above that the Petitioner does not require any surgical intervention at this stage and that the diseases which he is found to be suffering from like Trigeminal Neuralgia, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, Hypothyroidism and Benign Hyperplasia of Prostate can be handled in the OPD. We have no reason to doubt or reject the opinion given by the experts from the premier medical institute of the country. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel all the same argued that some of the diseases namely degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with Hypothyroidism and Benign Hyperplasia of Prostate was developed by the Petitioner during incarnation. There is nothing before us to support even that submission of Learned Counsel. Be that as it may since the Board has suggested only medical management on OPD basis, there is no compelling reason for us to enlarge the Petitioner on bail at this stage when the Petitioner is facing serious charges some of which are punishable by imprisonment for life.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3852, 4916 and 4918-4919 of 2014

Decided On: 20.01.2015

Asharam Bapu Vs. State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0370/2015.

Print Page

Supreme court: What are pre-requisite for grant of medical bail to accused prosecuted for heinous offence?

11.1. Insofar as the grant of bail to Respondent (A2) on medical grounds is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel made the following submissions:

(i) The medical opinion dated 24.10.2024 did not disclose the type of surgery, the prospective date of the surgery, its nature, or the post-operative care required. Despite the vagueness and absence of any indication of urgency, the High Court proceeded to enlarge the first Respondent on medical bail for a period of six weeks, without even constituting a medical board to assess the genuineness of the claim. This is contrary to the law laid down in Sant Shri Asaram Bapu v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0370/2015 wherein it was held that expert medical opinion is essential before grant of medical bail.

(ii) Subsequently, it was brought to the attention of the High Court that Respondent No. 1 had not undergone any surgery or substantial treatment even at the end of the six-week period. The Court failed to consider this fact and instead observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the Accused. The contradictory conduct of the Respondent is apparent from the fact that although he claimed surgery was scheduled on 11.12.2024, it was not undertaken on the specious ground that his blood pressure was not stable - a condition that can ordinarily be managed with medication if the surgery were truly urgent.

(iii) The conduct of Respondent No. 1 clearly indicates the lack of any immediate medical necessity. The continued delay and vague justifications point to the falsity of the medical claim. This Respondent approached the court with unclean hands, having misrepresented facts regarding the urgency of surgery in order to obtain bail. However, the High Court failed to take into consideration the same.

(iv) Such approach of the High Court is contrary to the settled principle of law that any party who misleads the court is disentitled to discretionary relief, such as bail. Therefore, the High Court ought to have rejected his criminal petition, instead of granting regular bail to the Respondent/A2.

(c) Bail obtained on misrepresentation of medical grounds

22.3. The bail order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court, was granted primarily on the basis of the alleged urgent medical condition of the 1st Respondent/A2. However, a bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of the Accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated.

22.3.1. This Court has consistently held that bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific, and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions. [Refer: State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi and Dinesh M.N. v. State of Gujarat, (supra)].

22.3.2. The discharge summary dated 28.11.2024 issued by the hospital, mentions that A2 is a patient with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and prior cardiac issues, and that he may require a CABG surgery in the future. However, the report does not indicate: any current emergency or need for immediate medical intervention; any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release; and any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for grant of bail.

22.3.3. In Puran v. Rambilas (supra), this Court held that "if it is shown that a party obtained bail by misrepresentation or fraud, or by suppressing material facts, such bail is liable to be cancelled on that ground alone". Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Narendra Nath Sinha (2019) 10 SCC 528, it was observed that "bail obtained by concealing facts or misleading the court vitiates the order, as it defeats the interest of justice".

22.3.4. Contrary to the impression created before the High Court, A2 has made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post-release. This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise.

22.3.5. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court cautioned that "bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where the medical condition is serious, cannot be treated in custody, and necessary facilities are not available in jail". The burden to prove such necessity lies on the Accused.

22.3.6. In the present case, A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the High Court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. This results in a perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled as per the principles laid down in Puran and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal   MANU/SC/0687/2004 : (2004) 11 SCC 165.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025

Decided On: 14.08.2025

State of Karnataka Vs. Darshan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: Citation: 2025 INSC 979, MANU/SC/1098/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Public Prosecutor should not examine multiple witnesses to prove one particular fact to ensure speedy trial to accused

11. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe as to why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 100 witnesses. Who are these 100 witnesses? We are aware that it is the public prosecutor who could be said to be in-charge of the trial and he has to decide who is to be examined and who is to be dropped. But at the same time, no useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined to establish one particular fact. {Para 11}

12. The aforesaid results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial. It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025

Decided On: 14.02.2025

Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

 Citation: 2025 INSC 222, MANU/SC/0216/2025.

Print Page

Video article: No Mens Rea Required: How Mayer Hans George Defined Public Welfare Offenses

 Dive into the shocking 1962 case of Mayer Hans George—a German caught with 34kg of gold in a secret jacket during a Mumbai stopover. Learn how a 4-day-old law established India's strict liability doctrine for economic crimes, making intent irrelevant under FERA and modern PMLA. Featuring Justice Subba Rao's epic dissent on "effective publication."

Print Page

State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722: Strict Liability's Birth in India's Economic offences Jurisprudence

 

How a German Smuggler, 34kg of Gold, and a 4-Day-Old Law Shaped India's Financial Future

Imagine boarding an international flight, confident you are following every known rule. But while you are in the air, a law in your transit country changes. By the time your plane’s wheels touch the tarmac, you have, without any knowledge or intent, become a criminal.

Print Page

Video article: The legacy of Basdev vs State of PEPSU is clear and enduring: voluntary intoxication is not an excuse.

 

Print Page

"I Was Drunk": Why Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu AIR 1956 SUPREME COURT 488 Means that This Defense Almost Never Works in India

 

Introduction: A Party, a Pistol, and a Landmark Judgment

Imagine a wedding celebration—the sounds of celebratory drums and loud music, dancing, and plentiful alcohol. Suddenly, a minor argument shatters the festive mood. A gunshot rings out, and in an instant, celebration turns into mourning. This tragic scene raises a difficult question: What happens when a serious crime is committed by someone so intoxicated they might not even be aware of their actions? Does the law see it as a tragic mistake or a calculated crime?

Print Page

The End of 'Business as Usual': 4 Supreme Court Rulings Rewriting the Rules of Criminal Justice

 1.0 Introduction: The End of the "Routine"

For decades, a certain complacency has been a hallmark of the Indian criminal justice system. A "chalta hai" (anything goes) attitude often characterized routine procedures, from the moment of arrest to the final verdict. This approach, while familiar, frequently came at the cost of individual liberties and true accountability. However, the ground is shifting. A series of forceful Supreme Court judgments is challenging this mindset head-on, signaling a new era where procedure is not just a formality but a fundamental pillar of justice.

Print Page

Safeguarding Liberty: Landmark Supreme Court Criminal Law Judgments 2025

 

Print Page

Supreme Court: How time stamped Email can protect you from police Atrocities and false implication in Criminal case?

In support of such argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the e-mail sent by his brother at 11:24 AM on the same day as also to the concerned Superintendent of Police, where it is alleged that the police had arrested his brother. Learned counsel further reiterated that there was physical abuse at the Police Station, only because an e-mail was sent to the higher officials, as a knee jerk reaction, a First Information Report was lodged against him two hours later at 01:30PM, at which time the petitioner is said to have been taken into custody.

7. However, the concerned police officers are cautioned and warned to be careful in future. The Director General is also directed to ensure that such type of occurrences do not recur and there should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s). 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20330/2023

Vijay Pal Yadav Vs MAMTA SINGH AND ORS. & ORS.

Author: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; J., PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA; J.

Dated: 26-03-2025.

Print Page

Grandmothers Behind Bars: Is "Care of Grandchildren" a Valid Bail Ticket in Dowry Death Cases?

 In the chaotic aftermath of a Dowry Death (Section 304B IPC or Section 80 BNSS) case, the entire matrimonial family often finds themselves behind bars. A common desperation plea arises from the incarcerated mother-in-law: "Release me, for there is no one to look after my cattle or my deceased daughter-in-law’s children."

While emotionally compelling, does this argument hold water in a court of law? Let’s decode the current legal position of the Supreme Court and High Courts on these specific bail grounds.

1. The Legal Framework: The "Woman" Privilege

Before diving into specific pleas, it is crucial to understand the statutory advantage women possess.

Under Section 437(1) of the CrPC (retained as Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), a court may grant bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offence—even one punishable with life imprisonment—if that person is a woman, sick, or infirm.

Print Page

When Justice Takes Pause: The Shifting Landscape of Bail for Women, the Pregnant, and the Infirm Under India’s Criminal Laws

 Introduction: Beyond the General Rule

In most cases, bail is a contested battlefield. An accused charged with a serious offence—especially one punishable with death or life imprisonment—faces a formidable obstacle: the presumption against bail. Yet the Indian legal system has always harbored an exception to this rule. It acknowledges that certain categories of offenders present unique circumstances that justice must accommodate. This article examines how courts navigate the intersection of criminal procedure, constitutional protections, and human dignity when women, pregnant individuals, and the medically infirm come before them seeking release on bail.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Provisions of CRPC does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise

  Mr. Kharat, relied on the case of Biman Chatterjee (supra) to submit that now fulfillment of the terms of compromise cannot be basis of granting or cancelling the bail. He places reliance on the paragraph No. 7 of the said decision. Case in Biman Chatterjee (supra) was a proposed settlement between a couple having matrimonial discord. Bail granted to the Accused in the said crime was cancelled on the ground that the Accused was not adhering to the settlement terms. It is in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-7 has made the observations as under:

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the Appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the Appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the Appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law. {Para 20}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3219/2025

Decided On: 28.07.2025

Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1004/2025,2025 INSC 913.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court : If an accused obtains anticipatory bail by suppressing material facts (e.g., prior rejections or hidden criminal antecedents), the Court will not hesitate to cancel it.

 In the present case, the allegations against the Accused Respondents, including Accused-Vishwajeet, are grave in nature. There is a clear observation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the bail rejection order dated 7th September 2023 that the Accused Respondents tried to mislead the Court by concealing the fact that the ex parte injunction order dated 27th June, 2023 had been set aside in appeal. The High Court seems to have glossed over this important aspect of the case and granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the Accused Respondents without considering the nature and gravity of allegations attributed to them and the fact that there was an imminent need for custodial investigation of the Accused Respondents. {Para 19}

20. Additionally, the High Court failed to notice the criminal antecedents of the Accused persons, which are highlighted in the counter affidavit filed by the State. Apparently, the incident recorded in the FIR was a clear-cut attempt by the estranged husband (Accused-Vishwajeet) to dispossess his own wife (Appellant-complainant) from her lawfully inherited property i.e., the subject-hotel, by use of force and by employing henchmen to do the dirty work. Hence, considering the gravity of allegations, it is not a case warranting indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the Accused. In our view, the High Court clearly erred in granting such liberty to the Accused Respondents. Furthermore, by threatening the witnesses, the Accused-Vishwajeet has flouted the conditions of anticipatory bail order. For this reason, also he cannot be allowed to continue on anticipatory bail.

Ratio: Anticipatory bail is an "extraordinary remedy." If an accused obtains it by suppressing material facts (e.g., prior rejections or hidden criminal antecedents), the Court will not hesitate to cancel it.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3088 of 2025 

Decided On: 21.07.2025

Nikita Jagganath Shetty Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 878, MANU/SC/0957/2025

Print Page

CCTV in Muddemal Doesn't Mean 'No Copies': Supreme Court's Clear Mandate

 Subtitle: When police misuse “material object” status to avoid furnishing electronic evidence contents under Section 207 CrPC 

OPENING: THE SYSTEMATIC ABUSE IN YOUR COURT

It happens in hundreds of courts across India every week.

A pen drive containing CCTV footage of a crime arrives at the police station. The investigating officer seizes it, documents it, and files a chargesheet saying the video shows the accused committing the crime. The pen drive then goes into the muddemal (evidence room) of the court.

Print Page

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE & CHAIN OF CUSTODY : Why Your Court’s Computer Room Must Never Touch Electronic Evidence?

 

A Judicial Guide to Protecting Digital Evidence in the Age of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

OPENING: THE OPERATIONAL TRAP MOST COURTS FALL INTO

Your muddemal room receives a pen drive containing critical CCTV footage. The prosecutor and defence counsel walk into your chambers and ask the same simple question: “Your Honour, can your court’s computer room just copy this for us?”

Your administrative officer is standing by, computer room staff are available, and it seems like a five-minute fix.

Print Page

J & K HC: Whether a person accused of the offence of rape can be released on bail subsequently on the ground of change of circumstances if the main prosecution witnesses who are examined do not support the prosecution's case?

It is pertinent to mention here that after the dismissal of second bail application of the petitioner, statements of four more prosecution witnesses have been recorded. Therefore, there is a change in circumstances since the dismissal of second bail application of the petitioner. {Para 6}

7) The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that from the statements recorded during trial of the case, the prosecution version against him is not proved. It has been further contended that only on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence his bail application cannot be rejected, particularly when, prima facie, the offence for which he has been charged is not made out against him. It has been contended that the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the trial court while rejecting the bail applications of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been in custody for the last about two years and all the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined and, therefore, there is no apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

13) After having gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly statement of the prosecutrix, her mother and grandfather, there appears to be prima facie merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Although at the stage of considering the plea of bail, a meticulous analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution is to be avoided, yet, for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application, it does appear that the sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed by the petitioner upon the prosecutrix, who was major at the relevant time, appears to be consensual in nature. Therefore, a case for grant of bail in favour of the petitioner is made out. The learned trial court, while rejecting earlier bail applications of the petitioner, has not considered the evidence led by the prosecution even for the limited purpose of deciding the bail applications and has mechanically rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

Bail App No.91/2025

BASHARAT AHMAD BHAT  Vs.  UT OF J&K 

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

Pronounced on:19.12.2025.

Print Page

Allahabad HC: Under which circumstances, the court should release accused in second bail application?

This is a second bail application. First bail application, of the

applicant, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43350 of

2024, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024. {Para 1}.

6. Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of

accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction

and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of

tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without

commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6085 of 2025

Applicant :- Shriram Sahu

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47880.

Print Page

Patna HC: Whether an offence under the NDPS Act is bailable if it involves the seizure of a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs?

 As such, this Court unequivocally holds that the offence under Section 21(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one years, is to be classified as a 'bailable offence'. Accordingly, where the contravention under the N.D.P.S. Act involves a 'small quantity' of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as per the relevant notification, such offences shall be treated as "bailable" in nature. In the case of bailable offence, the right of bail is a matter of statutory right and in such circumstance, there is no any discretion available either to the police or the Court itself. The accused is entitled to be released on bail automatically upon arrest, subject only to the execution and furnishing of the requisite bail bonds or sureties, as may be directed. {Para 26}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 15800 of 2025 and 18113 of 2025

Decided On: 10.04.2025

Raju Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

and

Roshan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.

Citation:  MANU/BH/1283/2025.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Whether accused is entitled to get default bail if chargesheet is filed without obtaining Sanction U/S 39 of Arms Act

 The maximum period of 180 days which is being granted to the investigating agency to complete the investigation in the case wherein the prosecution is for the offence under UAPA is not something in the form of a package that everything has to be completed including obtaining of sanction within this period of 180 days. As observed above, the investigating agency has nothing to do with sanction. Sanction is altogether a different process. Sanction is accorded, based on the materials collected by the investigating agency which forms the part of the final report under Section 173CrPC. The investigating agency gets full 180 days to complete the investigation. To say that obtaining of sanction and placing the same along with the charge-sheet should be done within the period of 180 days is something which is not only contrary to the provisions of law discussed above, but is inconceivable." {Para 53}

37. In view of the above judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the filing of the chargesheet against the Applicant in the present case, without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, does not render the said chargesheet incomplete under Section 193(3) of the BNSS. Consequently, the case of the Applicant that it is entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, is without any merit as obtaining sanction is not contemplated under the said provision.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bail Appln. 1713/2025

Decided On: 25.06.2025

Suraj Kanojia Vs. State Govt of Nct of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejas Karia, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/4621/2025.

Print Page

Delhi HC : Whether the court can reject default bail application of accused if further investigation is going on?

 So far as the submission that provision of 'further investigation' as contained in Section 193(9) is camouflage to defeat the right of the accused person to seek 'default bail' under Section 187(3) of BNSS 2023, we may only observe that the provision contained in Section 193(9) and those of Section 187(3), operate in different fields and further that Section 193(9) does not in any manner acts as a camouflage to such right. 

{Para 14}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (Crl) 3101/2024

Decided On: 27.08.2025

Yash Mishra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.K. Upadhyaya, C.J. and Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

Author: D.K. Upadhyaya, C.J.

Citation:  MANU/DE/7613/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court may grant Anticipatory Bail Where Proclamation Is Issued in a Mechanical or Casual Manner?

When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, on the condition that the appellant shall cooperate with the further investigation. However, liberty is also given to the respondents to seek cancellation of bail that has been granted, in the event of a violation of the conditions which are to be imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any perceived threats against the witnesses. {Para 9}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ.)

Asha Dubey Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 

Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 13123/2024

Decided on November 12, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633.

Print Page

P & H HC: Under which circumstances, the court can set aside dismissal of anticipatory bail application?

Although the general rule is that a Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction to recall its own orders, it cannot be ignored that the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application of the respondents'-accused's occurred in circumstances that warranted reconsideration. The private respondents cannot be made to suffer due to an error committed by a police official, nor can they be penalized for the administrative exigency resulting from the unexpected declaration of a holiday. The decision of the Trial Court to entertain the recall application in the circumstances cannot be said to be an arbitrary or capricious exercise of jurisdiction but a necessary step to prevent a miscarriage of justice. {Para 13}

14. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents. The facts of the case present an exceptional situation where the recall of the earlier order was warranted to ensure that justice was not compromised due to an inadvertent error. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any compelling reason justifying the cancellation of bail, as the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional overreach. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

(Before Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.)

CRM-M-58257-2024

Pritpal Singh Vs  State of Punjab and Others 

Decided on February 13, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 1014

Print Page

P & H HC: Even when the regular bail petition is pending before the High Court, the Sessions Court or Magistrate court are competent to grant default bail

Resultantly, a pendency of bail petition either in the High Court or the Sessions Court would not disentitle the Magistrate or even the Sessions Court, as the case may be, from their statutory powers under Section 187(2) BNSS, 2023 or Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973. On the contrary, if the Magistrate or the Sessions Court does not grant default bail, in such circumstances, then there might be a possibility of such Court(s) violating the fundamental right or contravening the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. {Para 16}

17. Given the above and in the light of the binding judicial precedents, the answer to the proposition is that even when the regular bail petition was pending before the High Court, the Sessions Court is competent to grant default bail, also known as compulsive bail or statutory bail, and similarly the Magistrate is competent to grant default bail even when the regular bail petition was pending before the Sessions Court or the High Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-21371-2025

Decided On: 05.08.2025

Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anoop Chitkara, J.

Citation: 2025:PHHC:100608, MANU/PH/1919/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Vague and omnibus allegations in a Section 498A FIR fail to constitute cruelty without specific instances or evidence

Merely stating that the Accused-Appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-Respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings. {Para 24}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Diary No. 47072 of 2023))

Decided On: 19.12.2025

Belide Swagath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1722/2025,2025 INSC 1471.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Revenue authority can do mutation entry on the basis of will by clarifying that such entry would remain subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings on title

The full bench decision makes it clear that there is no bar for seeking mutation based on a will. However, in a case of serious dispute regarding the validity/ genuineness of the will including competence of testator's capacity to execute it, or where there are two rival wills set up, it would be a dispute beyond the competence of the Tahsildar to decide, and in such a case the appropriate course for the parties would be to approach the Civil Court to get the dispute adjudicated.

19. But what is important is that mutation does not confer any right, title or interest on a person. Mutation in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes   MANU/SC/0684/2021, therefore, where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir, if any, of the tenure holder, in absence of any legal bar, mutation based on a will should not be denied as it would defeat the interest of Revenue.

20. In Jitendra Singh (supra) this Court observed that if there is any dispute with respect to the title, more particularly when the mutation entry is sought on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right will have to approach the appropriate Civil Court/ Revenue Court and get his rights adjudicated. However, in our view, this cannot be taken as a law proscribing mutation based on a will particularly where the legal heirs of the tenure holder raise no dispute.

21. In the present case, none of the legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder raised a dispute regarding the will. The will is a registered document. The objection, if any, is from the first Respondent who claims himself to be in occupation of a particular piece of land held by the deceased tenure holder. Moreover, the claim of first Respondent is based on an agreement for sale, and possession thereunder. Admittedly, the same is not a registered document and there appears to be no decree of specific performance in his favour thus far. In such circumstances, if the Tehsildar and other revenue authorities had allowed mutation on the basis of the will by making it subject to regular civil proceedings, we do not find any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the mutation order as may warrant interference in exercise of powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 

Decided On: 19.12.2025

 Tarachandra Vs. Bhawarlal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1485,MANU/SC/1720/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Criminal Revision Filed By Informant Doesn't Abate On His Death; Other Victims Can Continue It

 Since strict rule of locus does not apply to a revision proceeding, on death of a revisionist, the law of abatement that applies to an appeal does not apply to a revision proceeding, more particularly when revision is not at the instance of an Accused. However, where the revision is at the instance of an Accused/convict, the revisional court may refuse to continue the proceedings on his death, inter alia, where (a) the revisional proceeding emanates from an order passed during trial; or (b) the revisional proceeding is against an order of conviction, or affirmance of conviction. In situation (a) (supra), on death of Accused the trial would abate and so would ancillary proceedings emanating therefrom. In situation (b) (supra), the sentence or fine cannot be executed against a dead person, therefore, in absence of any application from a person seeking leave to pursue the revision, the court may terminate the proceedings as having abated. However, where the revision is at the instance of an informant or a complainant, on his death, the proceedings will not abate and, therefore, revisional court may exercise its discretion and proceed to test the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the court subordinate to it. {Para 17}

18. In so far as substitution in place of the deceased revisionist is concerned, there is no specific provision in the Code for substitution. Therefore, no one can claim substitution as of right. However, what is important is that there is no provision for abatement as well, as is there for an appeal (see Section 394). Hence, once a revision is entertained, in our view, the Court exercising revisional power has discretion to proceed with the revision and test the correctness, legality or propriety of the order under challenge before it, regardless of the death of the person who had invoked the revisional jurisdiction. However, while doing so, the Court may, in its discretion, allow a person to assist it in discharge of its statutory functions provided that person has no conflict of interest. In that context, a victim of the crime would ordinarily be the most suitable person to provide assistance because of his interest in overturning a decision that went against him. Therefore, when revisional powers are invoked by a victim of the crime, and he dies during pendency of the revision, other victims of that crime, who fall within the scope of its definition, as provided in Section 2 (wa) of Code of Criminal Procedure, may be allowed to assist the Court in effectively discharging its statutory function. In that regard, the Court would be well within its jurisdiction in granting leave to such a person to pursue the revision. However, in absence of a provision for substitution, though a person may not have a legal right to claim substitution as a revisionist, there is no legal restriction on revisional court's power in allowing a person to assist the Court in furthering the cause of justice, more particularly, when strict rule of locus does not apply to a criminal revision.

19. In light of the discussion above, the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the revision as having abated on death of the revisionist is held unsustainable in law. More so, because the trial against the Accused-Respondents is pending.

20. As far as rejection of the application of the Appellant to assist the Court as a substitute for the deceased revisionist is concerned, suffice it to say that the original revisionist (i.e., the informant) had alleged that the Accused had set up a fabricated sale deed to stake a false claim to his property. Challenge in the revision was to an order of discharge of the Accused from offences other than cheating. Since on revisionist's death, his son (i.e., the Appellant herein) would inherit an interest in the property, in our view, the Appellant is a victim of the crime and, therefore, has vital interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Hence, in our view, the revisional court could have allowed him to assist the court in the capacity of a victim of the crime.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589-5590 of 2025 

Decided On: 19.12.2025

Syed Shahnawaz Ali Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1484, MANU/SC/1719/2025.

Print Page