Lawwatch : Resources for Learners

The Supreme Court (SC), in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, says that a constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued directives and cease-and-desist notices prohibiting the solicitation of lawyers' services, either directly or indirectly.

The High Court of Kerala (HCK), in Sandeep G v State of Kerala (Vandana Das case), laid down the parameters given below while considering the plea of discharge and framing of charges. The HCK relied upon the Supreme Court (SC) decisions in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) and Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) in arriving at the decisions.

The Supreme Court (SC) says that the High Courts and Trial Courts have forgotten that bail cannot be denied as a punishment, in its judgement in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v The State Of Maharashtra.

The courts shall not entertain application seeking DNA examination of children of victim only after assessing the principle of eminent need and doctrine of proportionality, says Kerala High Court in Suo Motu v State of Kerala [ 2024 (3) KHC 553].

In case of daylight murder, when there is reliable witness and direct ocular evidence, the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is inconsequential in convicting the accused, says Chandan v The State (Delhi Administration) .

The Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) insists that there would be separate trial for separate charges and that every distinct offence a person is accused of shall be charged separately, says the High court of Kerala in Santosh @ Chandu v State [2024 (1) KLD 714] .

The Explanation to Section 162(2) of CrPC deals with omission. It states, “An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub- section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact”.

Non receipt of evidence regarding the use of weapon in the commission of the offence is of no consequences at all when the circumstances in the case established beyond doubt that it was the accused who caused the death of the victim, despite no recovery of weapon, says the High Court of Kerala in Satheesh Babu v State of Kerala [2023:KER:78326].