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.
7878 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.
Manish Sisodia, then Delhi's Deputy Chief Minister, sought bail in two related prosecutions arising from Delhi's now-scrapped 2021 excise (liquor) policy: a CBI case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, and an Enforcement Directorate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The agencies alleged that the new policy was engineered, at Sisodia's direction, to raise wholesale distributors' commission from 5% to 12% and otherwise favour a cartel of large liquor distributors in exchange for roughly Rs. 100 crore in kickbacks, part of which was allegedly routed to fund the Aam Aadmi Party's Goa election campaign. Sisodia argued the policy was a legitimate, transparently-adopted Cabinet decision, that the allegations rested on unreliable hearsay from co-accused and approvers, and that with 294-plus witnesses and tens of thousands of pages of evidence the trial would take years, making his prolonged custody (since February-March 2023) unjust.
The Court carefully weighed both sides' evidence under the stringent bail standard applicable to money-laundering cases (Section 45 PMLA), noting several weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including unclear legal theory on whether merely "generating" proceeds of crime amounts to "possession" or "use" under the PMLA, and a lack of clarity on Sisodia's direct or indirect involvement in the specific Rs. 45 crore said to have funded the Goa election. Despite this, the Court found one line of allegation - that the policy change from a 5% to a 12% wholesaler margin, without adequate justification, generated roughly Rs. 338 crore in extra profit for distributors linked to alleged kickbacks - was tentatively supported by evidence and sufficient, at the bail stage, to decline bail for now. However, recognising the fundamental right to a speedy trial and the lengthy incarceration already undergone, the Court dismissed the appeals but gave Sisodia liberty to apply for bail again if the trial (which the prosecution assured would conclude in six to eight months) failed to progress, or if a medical emergency arose regarding his wife's health.
Even where a bail court finds a prima facie, evidence-backed case against an accused in a serious economic offence, prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in the trial can itself become a ground for bail later, since the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is a live consideration that grows stronger the longer a case drags on.
