Court holds that anticipatory bail can be confirmed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, even in NDPS Act cases, where the accused was not present at the scene, has no prior criminal record, and is only implicated by a disclosure statement. The judgment upholds previous precedent, specifically referencing Ashu v. State of Punjab and Jugraj Singh […]
The Court affirmed that when a writ petition does not warrant substantive orders due to developments after filing (here, acquittal and service reinstatement issues), the petitioner may be granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies through a fresh application. This position upholds existing precedent regarding writ discretion in service matters, and provides binding guidance within the […]
The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirms that when parties explicitly undertake before the court to vacate premises and pay rent by a stipulated date, failure to comply attracts liability not only under contempt jurisdiction but also for mesne profits for unauthorized occupation beyond the deadline. This judgment upholds prior directions and is binding precedent […]
The court affirms that when a petitioner withdraws a revision petition against an interim maintenance order, liberty to raise all available pleas before the Family Court may be granted. This decision upholds established procedural flexibility in family law matters and functions as binding authority for subordinate courts in the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction. Summary […]
The court reaffirmed that mere implication on the basis of a disclosure statement, absent recovery or prior criminal history, is insufficient for denying anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act if the accused cooperates with the investigation. The decision follows Supreme Court and High Court precedents and serves as binding authority for similar bail matters relating […]
The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirms that an acquitted government employee, dismissed from service, is entitled to move an appropriate application for relief regarding reinstatement or related service matters. The judgment upholds the liberty of the individual to seek further remedies and clarifies procedural recourse post-acquittal. This stands as binding precedent within the jurisdiction […]
The Calcutta High Court held that when there are serious disputed questions of fact regarding the alleged unauthorized disclosure of bank statements, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked; such matters must be pursued before the appropriate forum. The judgment upholds existing precedent on the limited scope of writ jurisdiction and is binding on all subordinate […]
Dismissal for default in appearance does not decide any substantive question of law or set precedent, reaffirming the settled rule that such orders lack precedential effect and cannot be cited as authority on the legal issues raised in the petition. This judgment merely applies existing principles and is of purely procedural significance for future proceedings. […]
Where multiple co-sharers exist and the nature of rights over property is in dispute, criminal charges of theft under Section 379 IPC should not be pursued unless absolute ownership is established; the judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent, sets out clear guidance on quashing such complaints, and serves as binding authority for West Bengal courts. […]
The High Court of Delhi reiterates that even where civil proceedings are possible, bail will not be granted if there is prima facie evidence of fraudulent intent and grave economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies. The judgment upholds existing Supreme Court precedents, maintaining a high threshold for bail in financial fraud cases, and stands as binding […]
The High Court reaffirms its discretionary power to recall or modify bail/surety bond forfeiture orders where the absence was due to a genuine error and the petitioner surrenders promptly; such orders may be set aside upon compliance with court-imposed conditions, providing practical guidance for future bail cancellation and restoration applications in criminal trials. The decision […]
The Calcutta High Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to decide claims regarding the unauthorized disclosure of bank account statements or related indemnity/criminal directions when there exist disputed facts that require further evidence. The judgment reaffirms existing precedent limiting the writ court’s role in factually complex disputes and is binding authority within West […]