SUPREME COURT · WHY THE REASONING MATTERS
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
The Court explains why a laundering bail assessment required supported foundational facts. Its reasoning distinguishes statements obtained during existing PMLA custody and limits on using a coaccused's account without independent support.
Regular BailRead entryThe Court explains why alleged shell company arrangements and continuing technical participation required further inquiry. Trading history and an unpaid dues explanation did not resolve those financial allegations at the quashing stage.
Quashing FIRRead entryThe Court addressed why continued custody could not be justified when the trial had scarcely progressed. Its explanation applies constitutional protection of a timely trial while distinguishing a contrary bail decision on its own facts.
Regular BailRead entryThe Court explained why the completed investigation and remote prospect of trial completion supported release. Its reasoning also rejects a restriction of the statutory treatment for women to those described as vulnerable.
Regular BailRead entry