Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
9257 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).
The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.
Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.
Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.
Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.
Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.
The appellant was arrested in 2018 in connection with a grenade attack at a religious gathering in Amritsar that killed three people and injured many, and was charged under the IPC, the Arms Act, the Explosives Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). After 90 days in custody without a charge sheet being filed, he applied for "default bail," but a local Magistrate (rather than the Special Court set up under the National Investigation Agency Act) had already extended the investigation period to 180 days. This extension order was later set aside as being passed without jurisdiction, but by the time of the appeal, a charge sheet had since been filed and bail was denied.
The Supreme Court held that for offences under the UAPA, only the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act, not an ordinary Magistrate, has the power to extend the 90-day investigation period to 180 days. Since the Magistrate's extension order was itself invalid, the appellant's right to statutory "default bail" had already crystallized once the 90 days lapsed and he had applied for bail, and this right is not erased merely because a charge sheet was filed afterwards. The Court traced this principle through a long line of its own precedents (including the Constitution Bench ruling in Sanjay Dutt) and held that default bail is part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, not a mere technicality. It accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment and ordered the appellant's release on default bail, while clarifying this does not bar his re-arrest on proper grounds.
An accused person's right to "default bail" when investigators miss their deadline is a fundamental right, and it survives even administrative or jurisdictional errors by the courts below: a technically defective order against the accused cannot be used to deny them a liberty they had already legally earned.
