Skip to content
Criminal LawyersCriminal Lawyers in Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT · WHY THE REASONING MATTERS

Regular Bail Lawyers in Supreme Court of India

The Regular Bail judgments explain why the Supreme Court accepted, limited or rejected propositions relevant to Regular Bail Lawyers in Supreme Court of India. Trace the reasoning to identify the premise supporting a petition ground and the factual distinction or qualification that affects the relief sought.

Searching only Regular Bail

Try a judgment in this category: Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Regular Bail

7 entries
Why the Court reached its conclusions2011 INSC 819 · [2011] 13 (Additional) SCR 309

Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation — 2011 INSC 819 · [2011] 13 (Additional) SCR 309

The Court explains why economic seriousness alone did not establish a continuing need for custody. Its assessment connected punishment, likely trial length and supported risks with enforceable conditions of release.

Regular Bail
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of IndiaIndian Penal Code, 1860Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Read entry
Why the Court reached its conclusions2023 INSC 866

Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others — 2023 INSC 866

The Court explains why written arrest grounds were needed to make the personal accusation usable. Bona fide exercise of power and independent remand scrutiny remained essential despite the special PMLA framework.

Illegal Arrest
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 conclusions2025 INSC 645

Sarla Gupta and Another v. Directorate of Enforcement — 2025 INSC 645

The Court explains why documentary access depends on the prosecution stage and the purpose of the request. Seized records, complaint material and unused document lists therefore receive distinct treatment.

Evidence
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of IndiaIndian Evidence Act, 1872Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002
Read entry
Why the Court reached its conclusions2022 INSC 756 · [2022] 6 SCR 382

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others — 2022 INSC 756 · [2022] 6 SCR 382

The Court explains why the PMLA framework could be upheld only with its statutory foundations and safeguards. Criminally derived proceeds, regulated powers and unresolved individual remedies retain their separate significance.

Trial
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Constitution of IndiaIndian Evidence Act, 1872Indian Penal Code, 1860Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002
Read entry

Regular Bail Lawyers in Supreme Court of India

Browse source-based research concerning Regular Bail, with explanations of the Court’s reasoning and the qualifications governing its conclusions. For enquiries to SimranLaw lawyers and advocates in Chandigarh, use the Contact page.