Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

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.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal 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 ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

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.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

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.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

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.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

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.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

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.

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Dhananjay Nivrutti Lokhande vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:7679-DBDecided 7 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(CRL) 2725/2026CNR: DLHC010418542026
Justice Navin Chawla · Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Background

The petitioner was arrested by the CBI in Maharashtra in a corruption case. He challenged his continued detention as illegal, alleging he was never properly given the arrest memo or the written grounds of arrest, and pointed to discrepancies in the arrest memo (missing signatures, a wrong father's name, and an implausible arrest time). He had raised similar objections before the Special Judge, who rejected them, and he now sought a habeas corpus writ from the High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court found that the case file, the Special Judge's own order, and the record from the transit remand hearing in Maharashtra all showed the grounds of arrest had in fact been furnished to the petitioner and communicated to his father. The CBI even produced a copy of the grounds of arrest bearing the petitioner's own acknowledgment signature dated the day of arrest. The Bench held the petitioner's objections had never even been raised before the Special Judge until much later, and that questions about which documents were "relied upon" versus "un-relied upon" documents were matters for the trial court to decide, not this writ petition. Finding the petition to be a bid to multiply proceedings, the Court dismissed it and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner.

Lesson Learnt

A habeas corpus petition challenging an arrest's legality will fail where the record, including the arrestee's own acknowledged signature, shows the mandatory grounds of arrest were in fact supplied; courts are alert to such petitions being used merely to prolong or complicate ongoing criminal proceedings.

Dhananjay Nivrutti Lokhande vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware