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 investigation had not supplied a sufficiently individual criminal role for the relatives concerned. The distinct domestic violence proceedings required a sensitive assessment and separately confined relief.
Quashing Criminal ProceedingsRead entryThe Court explains why omnibus dowry and instigation allegations could not replace a specific role. Separate residence acquired significance through the absence of particulars connecting the appellants to the alleged conduct.
Quashing Criminal ProceedingsRead entryThe Court explains why a disputed conveyance did not disclose deception of the complainant. Criminal relief could follow without resolving the pending civil suits concerning title.
Quashing FIRRead entryThe Court explains why the demand to withdraw suits contradicted the actual litigation record. That impossible premise and earlier adjudicated accusations exposed the property prosecution as absurd and malicious.
Quashing Charge SheetRead 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 entry