LawLoveLegal

1. Introduction The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Vadodara car crash case brings into sharp focus the evolving contours of bail jurisprudence , criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , and the judicial approach toward acts committed under intoxication . By dismissing the Gujarat government’s plea against bail, the Court reaffirmed foundational principles governing pre-trial liberty , while carefully distinguishing between culpable conduct and deliberate criminal intent . 2. Factual Matrix The case arose from a tragic incident dated March 14, 2025 , in Vadodara, Gujarat. A 23-year-old law student, Rakshit Ravish Chorasiya, allegedly drove a car under the influence of drugs and caused multiple collisions near Muktanand crossroads, Karelibaug . One woman, Hemali Patel, lost her life. Nine others sustained injuries. Eyewitness and video evidence suggested erratic behaviour, including the accused shouting “another round” post-collision. The accuse...

I. Introduction Nearly five years after a fatal stabbing at Dadar railway station in Mumbai, a Sessions Court held that the offence committed by vegetable vendor Sonilal Sukhadev Mahanto amounted not to murder, but to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The decision turned on the application of the “sudden fight” exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), significantly altering the legal character of the crime and the punishment imposed. II. Factual Background The incident occurred on June 24, 2019, near Platform No. 1 of Dadar railway station on Senapati Bapat Marg. According to the prosecution: Mohammad Hanif purchased a pumpkin from Mahanto. Hanif tendered a ₹10 note which was torn. The vendor refused to accept the damaged note. A verbal altercation followed when Hanif said he had no alternative currency. During the quarrel, Mahanto stabbed Hanif with a knife. Hanif was taken to Sion Hospital and was declared dead on arrival. Medical evidence showed two stab injuries — one ...

I. Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently delivered strong observations while quashing an FIR registered by the Rajasthan Police against Ashish Dave, former regional head of Zee Rajasthan. The Court criticised the state police for acting like “James Bond” and adopting a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the FIR “as bogus an FIR as it can get” and held that allowing such a complaint to survive would send a disturbing message about unequal access to justice. The ruling revisits fundamental questions about the legality of FIR registration, the limits of criminal law, and judicial safeguards against abuse of process. II. Factual Background In September 2023, an FIR was registered at Ashok Nagar Police Station, Jaipur, based on a complaint filed by Zee Media Corporation Limited through its representative Sanju Raju. The complaint alleged that Ashish Dave misused his position as regional head to: Demand money fro...

Background of the Case Actor Rajpal Yadav surrendered at Tihar Jail, Delhi , after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him any further relief in long-pending cheque bounce cases. The surrender took place on Thursday at around 4 PM , in compliance with the court’s direction. The cases stem from a complaint filed by M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd against Rajpal Yadav and his wife, alleging repeated dishonour of cheques and failure to repay outstanding dues. A magisterial court convicted the actor in 2018 , sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment . This conviction was affirmed by a sessions court in 2019 . Despite multiple opportunities, the High Court noted that Yadav had repeatedly breached undertakings given to the court to settle the dues. Delhi High Court’s Refusal to Extend Surrender Deadline On February 2, the Delhi High Court had directed Rajpal Yadav to surrender by 4 PM , after observing prolonged non-compliance. The actor’s counsel sought one more week , claiming that ₹50 ...

Background of the Pune Porsche Crash Case (2024) The Pune Porsche crash case arose out of a tragic road accident that occurred in the early hours of 19 May 2024 near Kalyani Nagar, Pune . According to the prosecution, a 17-year-old boy , allegedly under the influence of alcohol, was driving a high-end Porsche car after attending a late-night party with two friends. At around 2:00 AM , the car rammed into a two-wheeler, resulting in the death of two young IT professionals, Anis Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta . The incident sparked nationwide outrage, not only due to the loss of innocent lives but also because of the subsequent allegations that influential individuals attempted to manipulate the criminal justice process . Allegations of Evidence Tampering and Role of the Accused The present Supreme Court proceedings concerned three accused persons alleged to have tampered with evidence after the accident: The father of one of the juveniles present in the car , Ashish Satish Mittal , and A...

Introduction The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a 62-year-old man accused of transporting cow meat, holding that his claim of being misled into believing it was buffalo meat was a “clever ploy and an afterthought”. The judgment reinforces the strict approach adopted by courts in offences involving cow slaughter laws, anticipatory bail jurisprudence, and public order concerns linked to religious sentiment. Factual Background of the Case The case pertains to Noor Mohammad , a resident of Burail, Chandigarh. On July 19, 2025 , the police recovered 50 kilograms of meat from a two-wheeler allegedly being transported by the accused in Sector 45C, Burail. The recovery followed a complaint by members of a Gau Raksha Dal , after which the police intercepted the vehicle and seized the meat. At the time of interception, the accused claimed that the meat was buffalo meat (buff) and produced two purchase bills issued by sellers based in Malerkotla (Punjab) and Sah...

 Introduction The recent grant of parole to Priya Seth , a life-term convict in the infamous Jaipur “Tinder suitcase murder” case , to solemnise her marriage has reignited a nationwide debate on criminal justice, victims’ rights, prison reforms, and the limits of parole jurisprudence. The case presents a disturbing intersection of digital-era crime , heinous murder , and constitutional protections afforded even to convicted prisoners . This article examines the incident through the lens of relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and judicial precedents , while situating the controversy within India’s evolving prison and parole framework. Factual Background of the Crime In early 2018, Dushyant Sharma , a 27-year-old aspiring businessman, matched with Priya Seth on the dating application Tinder. Their online interactions spanned weeks, fostering trust and emotional familiarity. Unbeknownst to Sharma, Priya was cohabiting with Dikshant Kamra , burdened by debts exceeding ₹21 la...

Case Background — Arrest Under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita The case concerns Abhishek Bhardwaj , a 20-year-old college dropout , who was arrested in May 2025 from Sukahar village in Dehra sub-division of Kangra district, Himachal Pradesh . The arrest followed allegations by the police that sensitive and objectionable content was found on his mobile phone, leading to suspicions of spying and anti-national activity. Based on these allegations, Bhardwaj was booked under Section 152 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) , which criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India . Prosecution Allegations — Social Media Activity and Espionage Claims According to the police, Bhardwaj had: Uploaded photos and videos on Facebook displaying prohibited or illegal weapons Followed anti-national persons on social media Uploaded images of the Pakistan flag along with arms Shared information about Operation Sindoor with alleged Pakistani contacts Expressed opposition to Op...

Case Background — UAPA Charges and Alleged Larger Conspiracy The case arises from the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the 2020 Delhi riots, investigated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The prosecution alleged that the riots were the outcome of a coordinated conspiracy involving planning, mobilisation, and execution through protest networks. Multiple FIRs, supplementary charge sheets, and protected witnesses formed part of the case record. The Delhi High Court earlier referred to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as “intellectual architects” of the alleged conspiracy. Several accused challenged continued incarceration on grounds of prolonged custody and delay in trial. Supreme Court Grants Bail to Five Co-Accused — With Eleven Stringent Conditions The Supreme Court granted bail to five accused: • Gulfisha Fatima • Meeran Haider • Shifa-ur-Rehman • Mohd. Saleem Khan • Shadab Ahmed The Court imposed eleven strict bail conditions, including: • Personal bond of ₹2 lakh...

The Supreme Court has reiterated that suppression of criminal history while seeking bail amounts to an abuse of the legal process and is, by itself, sufficient ground for dismissal of a petition — irrespective of the merits of the case. The ruling reinforces the duty of candour expected from litigants invoking the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. Case Background — Bail Plea Rejected for Concealment of Criminal Cases The ruling arose in Firoz @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan , where the accused sought bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe found that: The petitioner falsely declared that he had “no antecedents”. However, the State’s counter-affidavit revealed: One earlier criminal case registered in June 2023. Another case registered in August 2024. The Special Leave Petition was filed in August 2025 despite the petitioner’s knowledge of these cases. The Court held that the concealment was deliberate ...

Case Title / Label Delhi High Court — Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs CBI Order Date — 24 December 2025 Bench — Justice Neena Bansal Krishna Issue — Whether compelling an accused to provide a voice sample violates Article 20(3) (Right Against Self-Incrimination) or Right to Privacy Background of the Case The case arose from a petition filed by businessman Moin Akhtar Qureshi , who challenged a trial court’s order directing him to provide a voice sample to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The background facts include: The Income Tax Department intercepted several calls allegedly linked to Qureshi between October 2013 and December 2013 The calls reportedly suggested he was acting as a middleman for public servants The CBI registered a case in 2017 under: Indian Penal Code Prevention of Corruption Act During investigation, the trial court ordered Qureshi to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted conversations. Qureshi challenged the order before the Delhi High Court. Gr...

Heading: Background of the Case The Supreme Court has clarified that the long-standing principle of presumption of innocence applies only until the conclusion of the criminal trial. Once a conviction is recorded, the presumption no longer survives, and appellate courts must exercise extreme caution while suspending sentences and granting bail pending appeal. The ruling came while setting aside orders of the Patna High Court that had suspended the life sentences of two convicts — a father-son duo — involved in the murder of a village priest inside a temple in Bihar’s Rohtas district. The Court directed both convicts to surrender within ten days. Heading: Facts of the Crime and Trial Court Findings The incident occurred on 11 December 2021 inside the Mahavir Temple. The prosecution case was that the deceased, Krishna Behari Upadhyay, a village priest, had gone to the temple with his son to perform evening rituals when a group of armed men entered the premises, accused him of political i...