Clarification on Criteria for Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Financial Disputes and the Role of Settlement and Conduct of the Accused — Judgment Upheld as Binding Authority by the Jharkhand High Court

Where the accused demonstrates substantial repayment, regular payments towards the debt, and cooperates with investigation, anticipatory bail can be granted even in FIRs alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating arising from personal loan transactions. This judgment affirms and clarifies the precedent for grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances, and is binding for subordinate […]

Does an Insurer’s Liability Extend to Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicles Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act? Reaffirmation of Right to Recovery from Owner—Jharkhand High Court Clarifies Binding Precedent

The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed the established legal principle that, while an insurance company may be held liable to compensate victims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for deaths of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles, it retains the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner. The judgment relies on the […]

Can High Courts Interfere with the Quantum of Punishment in Departmental Proceedings Merely on Grounds of Disproportionality? – Existing Law Clarified as Binding Authority

The Court reaffirmed that interference with disciplinary punishment is permissible where the punishment shocks the conscience due to disproportionality, provided reasons are expressly recorded. The judgment upholds long-standing Supreme Court precedent and clarifies the limits of judicial review in service law across all public employment sectors within Jharkhand, serving as binding precedent for all subordinate […]

Can a Railway Accident Compensation Claim Be Denied Solely Due to Absence of Eyewitnesses and Failure to Produce Train Ticket?

The Jharkhand High Court holds that documentary evidence such as inquest and postmortem reports can suffice to establish an accidental railway death even if the claimant cannot produce a ticket or witness the incident. This judgment affirms and clarifies the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 […]

What Are the Principles Governing Appellate Interference With Acquittal Judgments? — Reaffirmation of Limits on Revisional Oversight Over Trial Court Findings

The Patna High Court, in this decision, reaffirmed that appellate interference with acquittals is justified only in cases of clear perversity or unreasonableness in the trial court’s findings, following established Supreme Court precedents. This judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority within its territorial jurisdiction, solidifying key standards for criminal appeals against acquittal. […]

Does Repayment of Substantial Loan Amounts and Ongoing Payments Weigh in Favor of Granting Anticipatory Bail in Offences Under Sections 406/420 IPC?

The High Court affirms that in cases involving alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating, where the accused demonstrates substantial repayment, ongoing instalments, and cooperation with investigation, anticipatory bail may be granted subject to statutory conditions; this judgment clarifies and strengthens existing bail principles, and stands as binding precedent within Jharkhand.   Category Data Case […]

Does an Insurance Company Have Liability to Pay Compensation for Gratuitous Passengers in a Goods Vehicle Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act? High Court Reaffirms Right of Recovery

The High Court upheld the principle—following Supreme Court precedent—that the insurer must pay awarded compensation to the claimants even where the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods-carrying vehicle, while retaining the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner. This decision follows and applies existing Supreme Court authority, and serves as binding […]

Can a Second Anticipatory Bail Application Be Entertained in the Absence of New Circumstances When the First Was Withdrawn? — Affirmation of Existing Precedent

The Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed that a second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable unless the applicant demonstrates a change in circumstances since the prior application was withdrawn. This judgment upholds existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in the State of Jharkhand, providing clear guidance for anticipatory bail jurisprudence.   Summary Category Data […]

Can the Grant of Anticipory Bail Be Justified When Significant Repayment of Loan Is Made and Civil Nature of Dispute Is Evident?

Court upholds the practice of granting anticipatory bail when repayments are made and the facts mainly reveal a civil monetary dispute. Affirms existing precedent and provides sector-wide guidance for bail in cases alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating under the Indian Penal Code. Practical binding authority for subordinate courts in the State.   Summary […]

Can an Insurer Be Directed to Pay Compensation for Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicles with the Right to Recover from the Owner?

The Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed that, despite a fundamental policy breach where a gratuitous passenger travels in a goods-carrying vehicle, the insurer can be directed to pay compensation to claimants with a right of recovery against the vehicle’s owner, applying Supreme Court precedent in Swaran Singh. This ruling upholds existing precedent and serves as binding […]

Can a High Court Interfere with the Quantum of Punishment in Departmental Proceedings on Grounds of Proportionality? — Jharkhand High Court Upholds “Shock the Conscience” Principle as Binding Authority

A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court affirms that courts may interfere with departmental punishment only when it is “shockingly disproportionate” to the charges, and reiterates that remittal for reconsideration (rather than substitution of punishment) is the correct course; precedent value reaffirmed for all public service and disciplinary proceedings within the State.   Summary […]

Can a Railway Compensation Claim Be Dismissed Solely for Lack of Eye Witness and Production of Ticket When Documentary Evidence Clearly Suggests Accidental Death?

The Jharkhand High Court reaffirms that, in the context of claims under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, documentary evidence (such as inquest and postmortem reports) may suffice to prove accidental death due to a railway incident, even where no eye witness is produced and the journey ticket is not filed. The judgment […]