Skip to content
Criminal LawyersCriminal Lawyers in Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT · WHY THE REASONING MATTERS

Understand why the Supreme Court decided as it did

Examine the statutory choices and factual distinctions which explain the Supreme Court’s conclusions relevant to Criminal Lawyers in Supreme Court of India. Use those reasons to connect a petition’s ground with the supporting principle while preserving the qualifications that define its reach.

Search all judgments and articles

Explore a judgment: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab

Judgments and articles

29 entries
Why the Court reached its conclusions2024 INSC 414 · [2024] 6 SCR 666

Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) — 2024 INSC 414 · [2024] 6 SCR 666

The Court explains why personal written grounds had to be supplied in time to oppose remand effectively. The special statute and the later charge sheet did not cure the constitutional deficiency.

Illegal Arrest
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of IndiaPrevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Read entry
Why the Court reached its conclusions2024 INSC 434 · [2024] 6 SCR 864

Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office — 2024 INSC 434 · [2024] 6 SCR 864

The Court explains why appearance bonds and cancellation of attendance warrants are not bail. Further custody of named accused after PMLA cognizance required recourse to the Special Court rather than automatic arrest.

Bail Conditions
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of IndiaPrevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002
Read entry
Why the Court reached its conclusions2022 INSC 690 · [2022] 10 SCR 351

Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another — 2022 INSC 690 · [2022] 10 SCR 351

The Court explains why liberty protection must connect arrest necessity with proportionate attendance process. Workable conditions and timely adjudication preserve that protection beyond the initial release decision.

Regular Bail
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of IndiaNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002
Read entry
Why the Court reached its conclusions2023 INSC 683 · [2023] 11 SCR 313

Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others — 2023 INSC 683 · [2023] 11 SCR 313

The Court explains why the robbery and insult allegations had to disclose their particular statutory ingredients. The surrounding circumstances supported quashing despite the separate possibility of an intimidation allegation.

Quashing FIR
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of IndiaIndian Penal Code, 1860
Read entry