MONTHLY MAGAZINE FEBRUARY

Lexpedia News · 1 March 2026 · 42 min read

The Court relied on Bhajan Lal principles to assess whether the case warranted interference.
It reiterated that courts must prevent abuse of process of law at the threshold.
Strict interpretation of Section 354B IPC upheld the principle that penal statutes must be narrowly construed.
The judgment reinforces the duty of courts to curb mala fide prosecution arising from private or neighbourhood disputes.
Proper invocation of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC was necessary to prevent injustice.

✅Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2026

The Court clearly distinguished judicial bias vs judicial error, noting that errors are correctable through appellate remedies.
It emphasized that judicial officers function under pressure and occasional errors do not imply prejudice.
The judgment strongly condemns forum shopping and unsubstantiated allegations against judges.
Statutory safeguards under Sections 407 & 408 CrPC and BNSS, 2023 were highlighted to prevent misuse of transfer powers.
The ruling reinforces institutional integrity and the sanctity of judicial process.
Imposition of exemplary costs serves as a deterrent against abuse of process of law.

✅Mohd. Ashraf Dar v. Union Territory of J&K, 2026

The Court reaffirmed the stringent nature of Section 37 NDPS Act, emphasizing that bail is an exception in cases involving commercial quantity.
It clearly separated alleged misconduct of the Investigating Officer from the evidentiary value of material already collected.
The judgment reinforces that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because allegations are made against the investigating machinery.
By relying on case diary material, disclosure statements, and financial links, the Court underscored the importance of prima facie satisfaction.
The ruling prevents dilution of NDPS prosecutions through collateral challenges and protects the legislative intent behind strict narcotics laws.
It distinguishes precedents relating to regular bail or absence of incriminating material.

✅Rampyare & Anr v. Ramkishun, 2026

The Court reaffirmed the principle that Wills require strict proof, distinguishing them from other documents eligible for presumption under Section 90 IEA.
It clarified that registration alone does not validate a Will, highlighting the statutory safeguards of Sections 63, 68 & 69.
Emphasized that a Will’s revocability during lifetime of testator prevents reliance on mere antiquity.
Reinforced the importance of attesting witnesses as the cornerstone of proving Wills.
The ruling ensures that property rights based on Wills cannot bypass procedural safeguards even for very old Wills.

✅Asish Bera & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2026

Reiterates that criminal law cannot be weaponized to initiate repetitive litigation or personal vendettas.
Highlights importance of cumulative assessment of facts, corroborative evidence, and specific allegations.
Upholds principle that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC exists to prevent malicious prosecutions and protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Emphasizes that matrimonial disputes require cautious judicial scrutiny due to potential mechanical implication of entire families.
Confirms that mere registration of a complaint does not automatically warrant trial when the allegations are duplicative, inconsistent, or unsupported.

✅Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya v. The State of Maharashtra, 2026

Reiterates Supreme Court’s principle of speedy trial under Article 21, even in serious NDPS cases.
Emphasizes judicial discretion in granting bail when trial delays exceed reasonable time, preventing unnecessary violation of liberty.
Critiques multiplication of witnesses by prosecution as a potential cause for delayed justice.
Balances rights of accused with interest of prosecution, allowing conditions for monitoring.
Reinforces that undertrial custody should not be punitive, particularly when trial inefficiencies are not attributable to the accused.

✅Seelam Nagamuni Naidu and Ors v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026

The judgment reinforces the Court’s proactive role in criminal trials to ensure discovery of truth.
Highlights judicial powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act as tools for just decisions, even post-closure of evidence.
Clarifies that fair trial principles are not violated when the Court supplements gaps in evidence in the interest of justice.
Emphasizes the importance of accurate and complete medical evidence in murder trials.
Sets precedent for judicial oversight of procedural lapses by prosecution and law enforcement officers in serious criminal cases.

✅Mrs. Ajit Inder Singh v. Mr. Simranjit Singh Grewal & Ors, 2026

Reinforces principle that Hindu law recognizes continuing familial obligations which can affect property rights.
Establishes that moral obligations of relatives may convert into enforceable legal rights.
Clarifies that statutory provisions like Section 14(1), HSA 1956 cannot be circumvented by restrictive instruments.
Upholds judicial discretion to protect vulnerable heirs while respecting formalities of gift deeds and succession.
Aligns with Supreme Court precedent in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy, strengthening women’s property rights.

✅Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026

Reaffirms that advocates are officers of the Court and misconduct by them can seriously affect the judicial system.
Highlights that prima facie evidence and gravity of allegations are key in bail considerations for corruption cases.
Clarifies that Section 7A PCA extends to any person influencing public servants, not limited to public servants themselves.
Emphasizes societal and institutional implications of offences, beyond individual interests.
Aligns with Supreme Court precedent (Amarmani Tripathi) that corruption in judiciary undermines rule of law and public trust.

✅Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee, 2026

Clarifies the limits of arbitrability under Indian law.
Confirms that arbitral jurisdiction depends on valid consent, and fraud affecting agreement strikes at its root.
Emphasizes importance of original documents or certified copies for arbitration referral.
Aligns with precedents (A. Ayyasamy, Avitel, Bihar State Food Corp) that serious allegations of fraud can take a matter out of arbitration.
Protects parties from being forced into arbitration where underlying agreement is disputed and potentially forged.

✅Shobha Namdev Sonavane versus Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Ors., 2026

The Court relied on principles of preventive justice and protection of vulnerable communities under the SC/ST Act.
Emphasized that collective liability under Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC negates the need for exact identification of each assailant’s actions.
Highlighted the seriousness of caste-based violence and the public nature of the assault to deny bail despite procedural technicalities.
The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s stance on restricting bail in cases involving serious bodily harm and caste atrocities.
It clarifies judicial reasoning on eyewitness evidence and corroboration, stressing that absence of recovery or precise attribution does not weaken the prosecution’s case.
Sets a precedent for future cases involving group assaults and scheduled caste protections, discouraging premature bail grants in similar circumstances.

✅C. Velusamy versus K. Indhera, 2026

The Court clarified that Section 29A(4) termination is not absolute and is expressly subject to the court’s discretionary power to extend the mandate before or after expiry.
It reinforced the principle that technical non-compliance by the arbitrator should not defeat justice or render arbitration process ineffective.
The judgment provides flexibility to revive arbitration proceedings, ensuring that awards can be completed despite delays, preserving party autonomy and efficiency of arbitration.
By distinguishing between ineffectiveness and nullity, the Court limited frivolous challenges under Section 34 against awards rendered beyond the mandate.
The decision sets a precedent to uphold the intent of timely arbitration while allowing courts to prevent miscarriages of justice caused by procedural delays.

✅Anil Daima Etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2026

The Supreme Court adopted a purposive and restrictive interpretation of Section 17-A, ensuring that the provision is not misused to stall genuine corruption investigations.
The judgment clearly demarcates the boundary between legitimate official functions and corrupt acts such as bribery.
By excluding illegal gratification from the ambit of “official duty,” the Court strengthened the effectiveness of anti-corruption laws.
The ruling also reinforces the principle of cooperative federalism, affirming the authority of State agencies to act against corruption within their jurisdiction.
Overall, the judgment strikes a balance between protecting honest decision-making and ensuring accountability of public servants.

✅Y v. X, 2026

The Court reaffirmed the principle that maintenance is a right of the spouse and cannot be denied on superficial grounds.
It highlighted the importance of dignified post-divorce living standards, irrespective of the wife’s personal financial resources or parental support.
Reinforced that the court must mould maintenance based on factual circumstances, including income, standard of living, and societal changes like inflation.
Demonstrates judicial sensitivity to gender justice and equitable financial support in matrimonial matters.
Strengthens precedent for maintenance claims, ensuring that nominal or outdated awards are not accepted in the face of changed circumstances.

✅Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026

The Court reinforced the principle of judicial oversight in criminal investigations, ensuring that investigative agencies cannot bypass courts once a case is closed.
Highlights the importance of rule of law and procedural safeguards for accused persons.
Strengthens the interpretation of Section 173(8) CrPC as requiring judicial approval, even if the statutory text does not expressly mandate it.
Prevents executive overreach in sensitive or concluded criminal cases, maintaining fairness and balance between investigation and legal rights.
Upholds precedent from Vinay Tyagi and Peethambaran emphasizing long-standing legal practice and necessity of judicial leave.

✅Bechan Prasad v. State of U.P. & Another, 2026

Reaffirms the principle of victim protection under Article 21.
Highlights the role of courts in ensuring ethical advocacy, discouraging attempts to intimidate or browbeat the court.
Reinforces that irrelevant character attacks have no place in criminal proceedings, especially in sensitive cases like rape.
Clarifies that delay in FIR or victim’s alleged behavior cannot discredit her case at the initial stage of cognizance.
Serves as a warning to legal practitioners regarding professional conduct and respect for procedural and substantive rights of survivors.

✅Amardeep Sharma v. CBI, 2026

Reaffirms the principle that cybercrime and telecom frauds are serious offences requiring strict scrutiny.
Highlights that technical evidence, fabrication of data, and large-scale SIM misuse are sufficient to deny anticipatory bail at an initial stage.
Illustrates judicial caution in granting bail where potential for financial loss and public harm exists.
Establishes that investigation cannot be hindered at nascent stages, especially in cases impacting digital infrastructure and cyber safety.

✅Varun Kumar Singh v. State, 2026

Clarifies that POCSO bail considerations include age, maturity, and nature of relationship, not just legal technicalities.
Reinforces that consent of a minor has no legal value, but surrounding circumstances (romantic involvement, voluntary movement) can influence bail.
Highlights judicial approach in balancing protection of minors and rights of accused when evidence shows absence of violence or coercion.
Encourages prompt examination of witnesses and procedural compliance to avoid undue custodial detention.

✅Pabitra Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2026

Reinforces that abetment of suicide requires positive, intentional act or instigation, not mere verbal harassment or suspicion.
Confirms that reasonable doubt and inconsistencies in evidence favor the accused.
Highlights the need for proper, thorough investigation, including examination of independent witnesses and collection of material evidence.
Aligns with Supreme Court precedent (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) that suspicion or conjecture cannot substitute proof for abetment offences.

✅Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026

Court’s reasoning: The Court emphasized that arrest is a discretionary tool to facilitate investigation, while notice under Section 35(3) protects the accused from unnecessary detention.
Mandatory issuance of notice for offences punishable up to 7 years.
Arrest is only permissible if conditions under Section 35(1)(b) exist and is not routine.
Recording reasons in writing ensures accountability and transparency.
Strengthens procedural safeguards for accused persons.
Limits arbitrary arrests for minor offences.
Clarifies discretionary versus mandatory actions under BNSS.

✅Mohtashem Billah Malik v. Sana Aftab, 2026

The Court reasoned that while the welfare of the child is a central consideration, other factors materially affect the child’s overall well-being and must guide custody decisions.
The paramountcy of child welfare remains a guiding principle, but it cannot be treated as the sole factor in determining custody.
The Court emphasized a multi-factorial assessment, requiring consideration of additional aspects such as parental conduct, financial capacity, standard of living, and the comfort and education of the child.
Judicial discretion is essential in evaluating each relevant factor, ensuring that the custody decision is tailored to the specific circumstances of the child and the parents.
The judgment clarifies that custody decisions cannot rely solely on the welfare of the child without examining other materially relevant factors.
It reinforces the importance of considering parental conduct, finances, standard of living, and educational and comfort needs when determining custody.
The Court encourages a holistic assessment in custody disputes, ensuring that all relevant elements impacting the child’s best interests are appropriately weighed.

✅Aryan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2026

The Court reasoned that while POCSO is intended to protect children, rigid application without considering adolescent maturity and consent transforms the law into a tool of social control rather than protection.
The Court highlighted the psychological and social harm caused by labeling young adults as “aggravated sexual offenders” when no evidence exists of predatory behavior.
Judicial discretion is necessary to differentiate between predatory sexual conduct and age-proximate consensual relationships.
The judgment emphasizes the need to balance the state’s interest in child protection with constitutional rights to privacy and individual choice.
Courts must exercise scrutiny and vigilance to prevent abuse of stringent penal provisions like POCSO.
The Court encouraged legislative reforms to introduce exceptions for consensual relationships among adolescents of nearly the same age, preserving the protective purpose of the Act while avoiding unnecessary criminalization.

✅A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, 2026

The judgment reinforces reproductive autonomy as a core component of Article 21.
The Court prioritised the bodily integrity and decisional autonomy of the pregnant minor over abstract considerations.
The Bench consciously avoided entering into debates on consent or sexual assault, focusing instead on the present and continuing impact on the minor.
The decision reflects a rights-based approach rather than a purely statutory interpretation of the MTP Act.
By permitting termination at 30 weeks, the Court expanded the jurisprudence allowing exceptions beyond statutory limits.
The ruling underscores the principle that the best interests of the minor are paramount in reproductive rights cases.
The judgment strengthens constitutional protection for women and minors facing unwanted pregnancies.

✅Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) through LRs & Ors., 2026

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that ancestral nucleus capable of yielding income triggers a presumption in favour of joint family ownership.
Reliance was placed on Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango (1954) to reiterate the shifting burden of proof.
The judgment clarifies that partition requires intention, not merely physical or financial separation.
Descriptions of interests as undivided shares in conveyance deeds weighed heavily against the appellant.
Absence of mutation entries and separate liability for borrowings indicated continued joint family status.
The decision strengthens doctrinal clarity in partition suits involving multiple acquisitions.
The Court balanced equity by upholding exclusions for properties conclusively proved as self-acquired.

✅P. N. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2026

The Court reaffirmed settled jurisprudence distinguishing false promise of marriage from a mere breach of promise.
Emphasis was placed on mens rea at inception as the determinative factor in rape cases based on promise of marriage.
The complainant’s subsisting marriage made performance of any promise of marriage legally impossible, negating deception.
The judgment cautions against over-criminalisation of failed relationships.
The Court reiterated concerns expressed in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra.
The ruling strengthens safeguards against misuse of Section 376 IPC while preserving protection for genuine victims.
It reinforces the need for judicial caution before allowing prosecution in such sensitive cases.

✅Shibu Barman @ Kubal vs State of West Bengal, 2026

The Court reinforced the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt.
It reiterated that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence unless corroborated and properly recorded.
“Last seen together” is inherently weak evidence without supporting facts.
Lack of forensic support and investigative omissions critically undermined the prosecution’s case.
The judgment strengthens safeguards for accused individuals and highlights the need for robust, corroborated evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases of serious offenses like murder.

✅Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026

The Supreme Court emphasized speedy disposal of appeals in high-profile criminal cases.
Out-of-turn hearings are permissible to prevent unreasonable delay in justice delivery.
The Court balanced Sengar’s long incarceration with his ongoing life sentence and public interest in accountability for custodial death.
Media interference in ongoing cases is discouraged to preserve fair trial principles.
The case highlights interplay of sentence suspension, appeal timelines, and enhancement of sentence in high-stakes criminal matters.

✅Tharamel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another, 2026

The court clarified the two-step process for admitting secondary evidence:
1. Establish legal entitlement to lead secondary evidence.
2. Prove the contents of the document through secondary evidence. Both steps are conjunctive.
The decision reinforces the principle that mere notarisation or admission as exhibit does not validate a document.
It underlines the strict application of Section 65 of the Evidence Act in preventing reliance on unverified copies.
The judgment corrects the misapplication of secondary evidence in property disputes and sets a precedent for proving PoAs.
It strengthens the probative standard required for documents used to transfer property rights.

✅Prantik Kumar & Anr v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2026

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that bail is a right linked to the legal merits of the application, not contingent on payment to the complainant.
By referencing Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Court underscored that High Courts must follow established Supreme Court precedent when granting bail.
The judgment is significant for reinforcing that monetary conditions for bail are ultra vires and emphasizes judicial consistency in bail matters.
It reflects a broader concern about High Courts disregarding binding Supreme Court decisions, stressing judicial discipline and adherence to legal principles.

✅X vs. Y, 2026

The High Court reinforced gender equality under Muslim personal law by confirming the wife’s right to khula.
The decision clarifies that khula is analogous to talaq, giving the wife an independent right to terminate marriage.
By appointing amicus curiae, the Supreme Court recognizes the sensitivity and complexity of personal law appeals.
The judgment limits the influence of religious authorities in legal adjudication, emphasizing statutory and Quranic authority.

✅State of J&K v/s Dhanwanter Singh and Ors., 2026

The ruling reinforces limits on prosecution powers after investigation is complete.
Protects accused from unnecessary custodial interrogation when charge-sheet is filed.
Clarifies that the right to remand does not arise merely due to abscondence.
Emphasizes judicial efficiency, noting the decade-long delay in prosecution pursuing revision.
Strengthens the principle that acquittal merges prior interim orders, ending further challenges unless independently contested.

✅Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026

Reinforces that SC/ST Act protections extend to cases where fraudulent civil suits are filed.
Clarifies that entities like kuri companies dealing with subscribers cannot claim ignorance of caste.
Establishes the importance of expert verification in forgery cases under SC/ST Act.
Balances the need for proper investigation with limits on court monitoring.

✅X vs. Y, 2026

Reaffirms legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
Prevents unnecessary stigmatization of the child and mother through routine DNA tests.
Balances husband’s suspicion against child’s welfare and marital rights.
High Court emphasized that DNA tests in paternity disputes are an exceptional remedy, not a standard procedure.
Provides guidance for family courts and High Courts when dealing with DNA/paternity applications in maintenance cases.

✅Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, 2026

Affirms the strictness of POCSO Act and IPC provisions in protecting minors.
Demonstrates judicial balancing between punishment for heinous offences and rehabilitative prospects of the convict.
Reinforces that minor victims’ testimony is reliable, even when accused claims tutoring.
Application of Section 428 CrPC ensures fairness in sentence calculation for time already served.
Highlights the importance of certificates/rehabilitation in custody as mitigating factors, without undermining gravity of offence.

✅XXXX v. XXX, 2026

The High Court carefully distinguished between statutory obligations under POCSO and the practical realities of adolescent offenders.
Delay in FIR and appellate backlog provided a procedural rationale for suspension.
Court upheld principle that statutory rape occurs regardless of consent but allowed rehabilitative considerations to inform temporary relief.
Rejected parity argument, emphasizing individualized assessment of offense gravity and circumstances.
The case underscores judicial discretion in balancing child protection statutes with the developmental and educational needs of minor offenders.

✅Niranjankumar Chhaganlal Mehta v. State of Gujarat, 2026

The Court adopted a strict interpretation of Section 498A IPC.
It reinforced that abetment requires instigation, intentional aid, or active participation.
The judgment clarifies that ordinary marital discord does not automatically amount to criminal cruelty.
It emphasizes the importance of evidentiary consistency and rejects convictions based on improved testimonies.
The ruling strengthens the principle that criminal liability must be established through clear, cogent, and reliable evidence.
The observation regarding parental responsibility introduces a broader dimension in analyzing causation in suicide cases.

✅Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others, 2026

The Court expanded the scope of writ jurisdiction by emphasising enforcement of public duty over the technical classification of “State.”
It reinforced that protection of women from sexual harassment is a constitutional obligation.
The judgment underscores that workplace harassment cases cannot be trivialised as mere internal disputes.
It highlights the judiciary’s intolerance toward institutional victimisation of complainants.
By awarding partial back wages, the Court balanced equitable relief with the circumstances of prolonged litigation.
The decision strengthens accountability of even Co-operative Societies in matters involving fundamental rights and dignity of women employees.

✅Feroz Ahmad v. State, 2026

The judgment reinforces the centrality of identity and identification in criminal jurisprudence.
It underscores the evidentiary importance of a properly conducted Test Identification Parade.
The Court clarified that dock identification, without a credible TIP, is inherently weak when the accused is not previously known.
The ruling strengthens the principle that investigative lapses cannot be cured by afterthought or supplementary statements.
It reaffirms the doctrine that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.
The judgment reflects judicial commitment to protecting individuals from wrongful conviction based on uncertain identification evidence.

✅R. Savithri Naidu v. M/s The Cotton Corporation of India Limited and Another, 2026

The judgment reinforces the strict application of the doctrine of lis pendens to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings.
It clarifies that execution proceedings cannot be undermined by post-award transfers.
The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of Order XXI CPC, preventing abuse of process.
The ruling strengthens the enforceability of arbitral awards, aligning with pro-enforcement principles.
It discourages collusive and fraudulent transfers intended to defeat decree-holders.
The decision upholds procedural discipline in execution jurisprudence and prevents multiplicity of litigation.

✅Sandeep and Others v. State of Karnataka, 2026

The decision reiterates the evidentiary value of an injured eye-witness, whose testimony carries great weight.
It emphasises the importance of effective cross-examination; failure to put specific suggestions weakens the defence.
The Court clarified that mere media reporting does not automatically vitiate a Test Identification Parade.
The ruling underscores that TIP objections must be substantiated through clear and specific questioning.
The judgment reinforces principles relating to common intention and criminal conspiracy in coordinated attacks.
It reflects judicial caution against speculative challenges to identification evidence without concrete proof.

✅Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, 2026

The Court reinforced the principle of judicial discipline and responsibility of accused to cooperate with trial.
Established that parity argument cannot override public interest and trial integrity.
Clarified discretionary powers for anticipatory bail in the context of absconding accused.
Emphasized safeguarding witnesses and law-abiding co-accused as critical considerations.
Highlighted that High Court misapplied the law by ignoring absconder status.
The judgment strengthens deterrence against evasion of judicial process.
Provides a clear precedent for handling anticipatory bail applications by absconding accused, aligning with principles of justice and equity.

✅Lokesh B.H and others v. State of Karnataka, 2026

The Supreme Court recognized a novel legal issue regarding live-in relationships and cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
The case emphasizes substance over form, i.e., the practical reality of cohabitation versus formal legality of marriage.
Highlights the Court’s intent to protect women from cruelty, even where legal technicalities could be used to evade liability.
Appointment of amicus curiae and Union participation shows the importance of policy and statutory interpretation in modern contexts.
Interim stay balances right to trial with protection of parties and ensures careful legal examination before final judgment.

✅Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026

The judgment strengthens protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
It prevents misuse of criminal law machinery to circumvent judicial bail orders.
Reaffirms the expansive scope of Article 32 as a fundamental right itself.
Sends a strong message against forum manipulation and procedural harassment by prosecution authorities.
Ensures that constitutional courts remain vigilant against executive overreach.
Clarifies that alternative remedies do not automatically bar constitutional jurisdiction where fundamental rights are at stake.

✅State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026

The judgment reinforces strict adherence to limitation periods.
Signals a clear departure from overly liberal condonation in State litigation.
Upholds the principle that government departments must act with diligence.
Strengthens procedural discipline and discourages habitual delay tactics.
Reaffirms that bureaucratic inefficiency cannot override statutory mandates.
Aligns with modern judicial trends demanding accountability from State litigants.

✅Sonu And 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

Reinforces judicial accountability in criminal procedure.
Clarifies confusion regarding functus officio doctrine and Section 362 CrPC.
Strengthens procedural safeguards for accused persons.
Aligns with Supreme Court precedents that supplementary reports are integral to primary reports.
Ensures that courts assess the cumulative effect of all investigation materials before framing charges.
Prevents mechanical continuation of prosecution without considering updated investigative findings.

✅Sahil Garg v. State of Punjab, 2026

The Court reinforced the equitable nature of anticipatory bail, which cannot be misused for concealment of facts.
Legal reasoning emphasized that filing multiple petitions on the same cause of action with false affidavits constitutes fraud on the court.
The judgment relied on Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, highlighting that judicial processes must remain unsullied.
Custodial interrogation is justified in economic offences involving substantial dishonesty and patterns of financial fraud.
The Court underscored the professional responsibility of Advocates to uphold judicial integrity.
Imposing costs reflects the Court’s intent to deter vexatious litigation and preserve public trust in the justice system.

✅S Muneeswaran and Another v. State, 2026

The Court reaffirmed that life and bodily integrity of a child cannot be compromised, even if born with disability.
Circumstantial evidence, including Accident Register entries and doctor’s clinical testimony, can outweigh absence of poison in viscera report when medical treatment is prolonged.
Legal responsibility of parents is non-delegable, and failure to care for a child resulting in death constitutes a serious offence.
Minor procedural lapses or hostile witnesses cannot derail justice when overall evidence proves guilt.
The Court stressed the ethical and social principle that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands.

✅Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

Reinforces that Section 125 CrPC ensures maintenance to enable the wife to live with dignity, not just prevent destitution.
Court relies on overall disparity in earning capacity, not absolute earnings of the wife.
Husband’s claimed financial difficulties without evidence are insufficient to deny statutory maintenance.
Emphasizes the Family Court’s discretion in determining just and reasonable maintenance.
Provides guidance that income of the spouse alone cannot override statutory obligations under Section 125.

✅MRS. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v. Nil, 2026

Reaffirms the statutory scheme of intestate succession under Indian Succession Act for Christians.
Clarifies that lineal descendants and spouse have priority over mother in inheritance.
Emphasizes that succession certificate is necessary for transfer of shares and assets of intestate.
Corrects trial court’s misapplication of Sections 32 and 33, ensuring legal entitlement of direct heirs.
Promotes certainty and uniformity in intestate succession of Christian estates.

✅Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v State C.B.I., 2026

The Court relied heavily on ocular and medical evidence to determine the cause of death as poisoning.
It emphasized that unexamined or unprofessional postmortem reports cannot override established evidence.
The decision reinforces the legal principle that surviving partners in a mutual suicide pact are liable for abetment under Indian law.
The judgment clarifies that belated allegations of rape or murder without supporting evidence will not be entertained.
The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of postmortem reports and cautioned against premature publication.
The ruling contributes to the jurisprudence on mutual suicide, abetment liability, and evidence evaluation in criminal trials.

✅Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police, 2026

The Court relied on victim testimony and circumstantial evidence, establishing the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Delay in lodging the complaint was contextualized within societal stigma and psychological barriers, highlighting realistic challenges in reporting sexual offences.
The judgment reinforces the principle that mental disability alone suffices to invoke protections under POCSO and Disability laws.
Minor procedural lapses or lack of independent witnesses do not automatically vitiate evidence in sexual assault cases, especially involving vulnerable victims.
The decision strengthens legal safeguards for disabled children against sexual offences and affirms strict accountability of guardians/caregivers committing such acts.

✅State of J&K v Daleep Singh, 2026

Reinforces the principle that only confessions before a Magistrate are admissible for convicting co-accused.
Emphasizes that exculpatory or uncorroborated statements cannot substitute for independent evidence.
Confirms that contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence undermine the prosecution case.
Highlights that minor witness testimony requires special scrutiny, especially when delay and possible tutoring are present.
Upholds the presumption of innocence and limited scope of appellate interference in acquittals.
Strengthens jurisprudence on evidentiary standards for criminal conspiracy and murder cases.

✅Aashish Verma v Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, 2026

Reinforces the principle that NDPS Act’s Section 37 imposes strict restrictions on bail for commercial quantity offences.
Emphasizes that organised diversion of regulated pharmaceuticals cannot be masked by licences or corporate structures.
Highlights judicial caution in evaluating bail petitions in complex narcotics offences involving layered arrangements or intermediaries.
Confirms that prima facie evidence of organised diversion suffices to deny bail, even if direct recovery from petitioners is not made.
Strengthens accountability of pharmaceutical companies and their directors in cases of narcotic substance diversion.
Affirms that discretionary power of bail is narrower where commercial quantity and organised crime are involved.

✅Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan, 2026

Reinforces the principle that public safety under Article 21 includes safe movement on highways.
Establishes that ROW, building line, and control line norms must be strictly observed.
Permissions or licenses granted without inter-department coordination cannot prevent removal of illegal structures.
Clarifies that religious structures do not enjoy immunity from removal under highway safety laws.
Lays down practical enforcement measures, including task forces, demarcation, audits, and police protection.
Strengthens accountability of State and local authorities in preventing hazardous encroachments.

✅Santosh Maroti Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026

The Court clarified the conceptual distinction between Enhancement of Sentence and Correction of Sentence.
It reinforced that courts can impose only punishments authorised by law, especially where Mandatory Punishment is prescribed.
The judgment strengthens the mandatory nature of Statutory Minimum Sentence under special statutes like POCSO.
It upholds the legislative intent of stricter punishment for sexual offences against children.
The ruling ensures uniformity in sentencing and prevents Sentencing Illegality.
It strengthens victim’s rights by permitting exercise of Appellate Powers to impose lawful punishment.

✅Sri Bappi Sarkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam, 2026

The judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards during arrest under BNSS.
Digital communication (like WhatsApp) must meet evidentiary standards of service.
Protects personal liberty and ensures compliance with natural justice.
Even in serious offences under NDPS Act, procedural safeguards cannot be diluted.
Legally improper arrest is a ground for bail.
Upholds strict adherence to Section 47 & 48 BNSS for lawful custody.

✅Anirban Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2026

Reinforces the principle that consent is central to sexual offence cases, and mere breakdown of relationships cannot create criminal liability.
Protects adults in long-term consensual relationships from harassment by frivolous allegations.
Aligns with Supreme Court jurisprudence on misconception of fact and false promises to marry.
Upholds Bhajan Lal principles for preventing misuse of judicial process.
Balances rights of complainants with protection against abuse of criminal process.
Encourages courts to examine context, duration, and voluntariness in cases involving intimate relationships.

✅Smt. Kanta Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2026

Reinforces the exemption of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Confirms that spousal relationship alone does not create a right to access employment-related information.
Aligns with Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing protection of employee privacy.
Clarifies the distinction between transparency in governance and private employment matters.
Prevents misuse of RTI for seeking personal or sensitive information of third parties.

✅National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandhya Keora & Ors., 2026

Reinforces the protective and beneficial nature of third-party motor insurance.
Emphasises pragmatic approach: delay in FIR or formalities does not defeat substantive rights of claimants.
Upholds procedural fairness: insurer must follow due process before denying liability.
Clarifies correct methodology for loss of dependency calculation in death cases.
Enhances claimants’ rights under Section 166 MVA and ensures timely compensation.
Promotes social justice by preventing misuse of technicalities by insurers.

✅Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others, 2026

Strengthens the principle of strict liability of the State in custodial death cases.
Affirms that fundamental rights cannot be denied to undertrials or illegally detained prisoners.
Provides clear procedural guidelines for immediate notification, post mortem, judicial inquest, and compensation.
Ensures that monetary compensation is just, reasonable, and timely, enhancing victim-family protection.
Encourages States to frame standardized compensation policies, similar to multiplier method in MVA claims, creating predictability and fairness.
Upholds Supreme Court precedents emphasizing remedy for deprivation of life or liberty as a constitutional obligation.

✅Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya, 2026

Modernizes the approach to transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes.
Balances convenience of parties with judicial efficiency and avoidance of unnecessary transfers.
Encourages the use of technology (video conferencing) to reduce physical travel and litigation costs.
Provides a practical framework for courts to handle personal inconvenience without disrupting ongoing proceedings.
Upholds Supreme Court principles that transfer of cases should not be automatic based on distance or inconvenience alone.
Ensures equitable treatment: petitioner’s convenience is accommodated through compensation, not transfer.

✅Hemlata Eknath Pise v. Shubham Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors., 2026

Reinforces the principle that judicial decisions must be comprehensive and address all issues.
Emphasizes the importance of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Protects the rights of employees in service law cases, ensuring fair opportunity to defend themselves.
Provides a framework for remand with specific directions including consideration of superannuation, back wages, and retirement benefits.
Encourages courts to consider mediated settlements to resolve disputes efficiently.
Highlights the duty of appellate courts to review errors in judicial reasoning and ensure justice is fully delivered.

✅Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2026

The Court reaffirmed the long-standing Indian position rejecting the strict “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine followed in certain jurisdictions like the United States.
By relying on Pooran Mal, the Court reinforced that Indian law prioritizes relevancy over the manner of procurement unless explicitly prohibited by statute.
The judgment strengthens prosecutorial authority in regulatory statutes such as the PCPNDT Act.
It balances procedural irregularities with substantive justice, ensuring that technical defects do not automatically defeat prosecution.
The ruling clarifies that procedural illegality in investigation does not per se vitiate trial proceedings.
It underscores judicial discretion in assessing admissibility and reliability of evidence.
The decision may have significant implications in criminal jurisprudence concerning search and seizure operations.

✅Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026

The ruling reinforces the scope of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, protecting individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
It clarifies the limits of investigative powers in NDPS cases, which are otherwise stringent.
The judgment balances the strict regime under the NDPS Act with fundamental rights protections.
It distinguishes between legitimate cooperation and compelled self-incrimination.
The decision strengthens constitutional safeguards in the context of digital evidence such as mobile phones.
It underscores that custodial interrogation must be justified by necessity, not merely by investigative convenience.

✅Babu Singh (D) Thr. LRs & Anr. v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr., 2026

The Court reinforced the principle of limitation for execution of decrees under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Legal reasoning: When a decree for a mandatory injunction does not fix a performance date, the limitation period cannot extend beyond three years from the decree.
Principle applied: The Limitation Act provides certainty and prevents indefinite delay in enforcement of decrees.
Impact: Clarifies the computation of limitation periods for mandatory injunctions and prevents parties from filing execution applications after a prolonged delay.
The judgment upholds judicial efficiency and discourages litigation delays.

✅Sri Bir Manik Jamatia v. State of Tripura, 2026

The Court distinguished between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder based on intention and knowledge.
The absence of premeditation significantly influenced the outcome.
The principle relating to a single blow in a sudden fight was considered.
The Court emphasized the central role of mens rea in determining criminal liability.
Sudden quarrel and heat of passion were treated as mitigating circumstances.
The decision reinforces the doctrine of proportional sentencing.
The judgment ensures that criminal liability corresponds with the actual degree of intention and culpability.

✅Noor Mohammad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 108 BNS, aligning it with the jurisprudence under Section 306 IPC.
The Court reaffirmed that emotional distress arising from a breakup, by itself, does not satisfy the legal threshold of instigation.
The decision emphasizes the necessity of proving intentional provocation rather than mere relationship disputes.
The requirement that instigation must leave the deceased with “no option” reinforces the principle of proximate cause in abetment cases.
The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegation with bail jurisprudence principles, particularly presumption of innocence and completion of investigation.
The ruling prevents criminal law from being used to penalize ordinary relationship breakdowns unless accompanied by clear evidence of criminal intent.

✅Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026

The ruling strengthens the evidentiary value of Section 108 Customs Act statements, aligning with established precedent.
It clarifies that Customs officers are not considered “police officers” for the limited purpose of confessional admissibility under the Evidence Act.
The judgment reinforces the principle that voluntariness is the key test for admissibility.
By placing the burden on the accused to prove coercion, the Court maintains investigative authority while safeguarding procedural fairness.
The decision balances strict enforcement of economic offences with humanitarian considerations in sentencing.
The reduction of sentence reflects judicial sensitivity toward delay, age, and long lapse of time, without disturbing the conviction.

✅Ghanshyam Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar, 2026

The Court’s reasoning reinforces the principle that quality of evidence prevails over quantity.
It applied the legal principle that recovery of weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction.
The judgment strengthens reliance on credible eyewitness testimony supported by medical evidence.
It prevents accused persons from exploiting procedural lapses in investigation.
The ruling upholds consistency in criminal jurisprudence by aligning with earlier Supreme Court precedents.
The decision promotes substantive justice over technical acquittals.

✅The General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla and Others, 2026

The Court’s reasoning was grounded in the principle that documentary interpretation must be based primarily on the text and context of the instrument rather than on later conduct of the parties.
The Court applied the legal test distinguishing lease and licence, namely whether the document creates an interest in the property or merely grants permission to use it.
By rejecting reliance on ex-post facto conduct, the Court reinforced certainty in contractual relations, especially in property transactions.
The judgment strengthens the rule that exclusive possession and long-term duration strongly indicate a lease.
The decision prevents misuse of cross-examination statements to defeat clear written instruments, thereby protecting stability of registered conveyances.
The ruling clarifies that courts must exercise restraint in inferring intention from events occurring after execution of a document.

✅Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2026

The Court’s reasoning was based on the doctrine that similarly placed accused should not be treated differently when the prosecution case has failed entirely.

The Court applied the principle of parity to prevent unnecessary trials where evidence has already been disbelieved.
By invoking inherent powers, the Court ensured judicial economy and avoided wastage of court resources.
The judgment reinforces that criminal law should not be used mechanically when chances of conviction are nil.
The ruling balances the rule that absconders should face trial with the practical reality of a collapsed prosecution case.

✅Vidya Devi v. Union of India & Others, 2026

The Court applied personal law principles to determine entitlement under service pension rules.
It reinforced that a void marriage cannot become valid due to later events such as death of the first spouse.
The decision ensures that family pension is restricted to legally recognised spouses.
The judgment maintains harmony between family law and service law.
It prevents misuse of pensionary benefits through equitable arguments.

✅Manoj Kumar Chakraborty @ Kajal Chakraborty (Since Deceased) Represented by His Legal Heirs Smt. Pratima Chakraborty & Anr. v. Ayakar Griha Nirman Samabay Samity Ltd. & Anr., 2026

The Court applied a liberal interpretation to the concept of sufficient cause to prevent miscarriage of justice.
It reaffirmed the principle that procedural law must serve as a handmaid of justice, not its mistress.
By recognising advocate negligence as a valid ground, the Court protected litigants from suffering due to professional lapses.
The judgment balances strict limitation rules with the need for substantive justice.
It reinforces that refusal to condone delay results in foreclosure of remedies, which should be avoided where explanation is plausible.

✅Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Others, 2026

The Court reinforced the principle that custody matters require detailed evidence, which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings.
It maintained the distinction between illegal detention and parental custody disputes.
By directing the petitioner to the Guardian Court, the Court ensured that the issue of child welfare would be decided comprehensively.
The judgment prevents misuse of habeas corpus in private family disputes.
It promotes jurisdictional discipline by requiring parties to approach the court within whose territorial limits the child resides.

✅Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab, 2026

The Court reaffirmed that in bail matters, gravity of offence and societal impact are key considerations.
It applied the principles laid down in Amarmani Tripathi regarding factors such as prima facie case, seriousness of offence and likelihood of witness tampering.
The decision underscores judicial intolerance towards honour killing and crimes arising out of perceived family honour.
By directing expeditious trial, the Court balanced the rights of the accused with the need for speedy justice.
The judgment clarifies that bail cannot be granted merely on the ground of delay in trial in cases of heinous crime.

✅State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr., 2026

The Court relied on Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, which recognises delayed discovery of offenders in regulatory offences.
It reinforced the object of limitation law — to prevent stale cases, not to defeat genuine prosecutions.
The judgment strengthens prosecution in economic and regulatory offences where identification takes time.
It clarifies procedural law regarding Section 202 CrPC and public servant complaints.
The ruling prevents accused persons from escaping liability due to technical limitation errors.

✅NS v. State, 2026

The Court applied the principle of estoppel, preventing a party from benefiting from a settlement while simultaneously pursuing criminal remedies.
Reinforced the principle against abuse of legal process, emphasizing judicial efficiency and finality of foreign matrimonial settlements.
Highlighted the requirement for specificity in FIR allegations, reinforcing that generalized complaints cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution under Sections 498A/406 IPC.
Demonstrates the Court’s respect for international judicial decisions and cross-border recognition of settlements in matrimonial disputes.
Sets a precedent limiting parallel litigation, providing clarity for Indian citizens with foreign divorce settlements.
Impacts family law jurisprudence by ensuring that settlements abroad are respected domestically, reducing frivolous or duplicative criminal complaints.

✅Aviation Services LLC v. State, 2026

The Court emphasized judicial restraint, discouraging litigants from re-litigating merits after bail has been granted.
Reinforced the principle that bail is a right, not a discretionary favor, and can only be revoked on concrete grounds.
Distinction between recall vs. cancellation of bail protects accused from arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Reaffirms that mere developments in co-accused cases or parity considerations cannot override prior judicial assessment.
Strengthens rule of law and procedural fairness in white-collar economic offence cases.
The decision provides clarity for anticipatory bail jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving multiple accused.

Monthly Magazine

MONTHLY MAGAZINE FEBRUARY

✅Riya Ray @ Roy & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2026

✅Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2026

✅Mohd. Ashraf Dar v. Union Territory of J&K, 2026

✅Rampyare & Anr v. Ramkishun, 2026

✅Asish Bera & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2026

✅Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya v. The State of Maharashtra, 2026

✅Seelam Nagamuni Naidu and Ors v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026

✅Mrs. Ajit Inder Singh v. Mr. Simranjit Singh Grewal & Ors, 2026

✅Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026

✅Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee, 2026

✅Shobha Namdev Sonavane versus Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane and Ors., 2026

✅C. Velusamy versus K. Indhera, 2026

✅Anil Daima Etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2026

✅Y v. X, 2026

✅Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026

✅Bechan Prasad v. State of U.P. & Another, 2026

✅Amardeep Sharma v. CBI, 2026

✅Varun Kumar Singh v. State, 2026

✅Pabitra Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2026

✅Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026

✅Mohtashem Billah Malik v. Sana Aftab, 2026

✅Aryan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2026

✅A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, 2026

✅Dorairaj v. Doraisamy (Dead) through LRs & Ors., 2026

✅P. N. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2026

✅Shibu Barman @ Kubal vs State of West Bengal, 2026

✅Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026

✅Tharamel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another, 2026

✅Prantik Kumar & Anr v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2026

✅X vs. Y, 2026

✅State of J&K v/s Dhanwanter Singh and Ors., 2026

✅Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026

✅X vs. Y, 2026

✅Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, 2026

✅XXXX v. XXX, 2026

✅Niranjankumar Chhaganlal Mehta v. State of Gujarat, 2026

✅Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others, 2026

✅Feroz Ahmad v. State, 2026

✅R. Savithri Naidu v. M/s The Cotton Corporation of India Limited and Another, 2026

✅Sandeep and Others v. State of Karnataka, 2026

✅Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, 2026

✅Lokesh B.H and others v. State of Karnataka, 2026

✅Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026

✅State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026

✅Sonu And 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

✅Sahil Garg v. State of Punjab, 2026

✅S Muneeswaran and Another v. State, 2026

✅Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

✅MRS. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v. Nil, 2026

✅Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v State C.B.I., 2026

✅Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police, 2026

✅State of J&K v Daleep Singh, 2026

✅Aashish Verma v Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, 2026

✅Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan, 2026

✅Santosh Maroti Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026

✅Sri Bappi Sarkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam, 2026

✅Anirban Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2026

✅Smt. Kanta Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2026

✅National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandhya Keora & Ors., 2026

✅Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others, 2026

✅Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya, 2026

✅Hemlata Eknath Pise v. Shubham Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors., 2026

✅Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2026

✅Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026

✅Babu Singh (D) Thr. LRs & Anr. v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr., 2026

✅Sri Bir Manik Jamatia v. State of Tripura, 2026

✅Noor Mohammad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026

✅Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026

✅Ghanshyam Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar, 2026

✅The General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla and Others, 2026

✅Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2026

✅Vidya Devi v. Union of India & Others, 2026

✅Manoj Kumar Chakraborty @ Kajal Chakraborty (Since Deceased) Represented by His Legal Heirs Smt. Pratima Chakraborty & Anr. v. Ayakar Griha Nirman Samabay Samity Ltd. & Anr., 2026

✅Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Others, 2026

✅Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab, 2026

✅State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr., 2026

✅NS v. State, 2026

✅Aviation Services LLC v. State, 2026

Related Articles