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 LawSupreme Court of India

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra

Not available · 2024 INSC 645Decided 3 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

The appellant was arrested in February 2020 at Mumbai airport after 1,193 counterfeit Rs. 2,000 currency notes were allegedly recovered from his bag, said to have been smuggled from Pakistan via Dubai. The case was taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and he was charged under the IPC's counterfeit-currency provisions along with UAPA. He had already spent over four years in jail as an undertrial when the Bombay High Court declined to grant him bail, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court granted bail, holding that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without the trial even meaningfully commencing violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial and personal liberty, regardless of how stringent the bail conditions under a special statute like UAPA are. The Court noted the trial had not progressed despite four years in custody, and reiterated that statutory bail restrictions cannot be used to indefinitely deny bail when there is no realistic prospect of a timely trial. It emphasized the injustice and harm caused by prison overcrowding and prolonged undertrial detention. Bail was granted subject to conditions including staying within Mumbai city limits and periodic reporting to the NIA/police.

Lesson Learnt

Even under strict anti-terror laws like UAPA, courts can and will grant bail once pre-trial detention becomes disproportionately long compared to the likely sentence, because the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial outweighs statutory bail bars when trials stall indefinitely.

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware