LawLoveLegal

In a historic expansion of constitutional protections, the Supreme Court of India has held that every person arrested — regardless of the nature of the offence or the statute under which the arrest is made — must be furnished with written grounds of arrest . The ruling marks a critical evolution in Indian criminal jurisprudence, strengthening Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and preventing arbitrary and unlawful detention by law enforcement agencies. Bench and Background A division bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih delivered the ruling. The case arose during the hearing of a petition filed by Mihir Shah , the accused in the July 2024 Worli BMW hit-and-run case , who contended that he was not supplied with written grounds for his arrest. While the Court clarified that its ruling would not interfere with the Bombay High Court’s order upholding Shah’s arrest, it used the occasion to address a broader constitutional issue — w...

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday granted interim protection from arrest to actor Alok Nath in connection with a fraud case linked to a controversial marketing scheme in Haryana. The case involves allegations of large-scale cheating through a cooperative society that operated under the guise of financial savings schemes. Bench Issues Notice A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notice to the Haryana Police and other respondents after hearing the actor’s plea. The Court directed that no coercive steps should be taken against Alok Nath until the next date of hearing. The bench’s order is similar to an earlier decision where the top court had extended protection from arrest to actor Shreyas Talpade , who is also an accused in the same case. FIR and Allegations The case stems from a complaint filed by Vipul Antil , a 37-year-old resident of Sonepat, Haryana . He alleged that both Alok Nath and Shreyas Talpade promoted the cooperative s...

Clear Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Sex The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasised the need for courts to carefully differentiate between rape and consensual sex , particularly in cases where allegations arise from a promise of marriage . The court held that if an accused never intended to marry and entered into a relationship with mala fide motives, such conduct could amount to cheating or deception .