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

Mohammad Azam Khan vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Writ Petition (Criminal)Decided 19 May 2022
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022
L. Nageswara Rao · B.R. Gavai · A.S. Bopanna

Background

The petitioner, a politician facing 87 criminal FIRs, had earlier approached the Supreme Court and was granted liberty to seek expeditious disposal of pending bail applications. He was subsequently granted bail in almost all cases, but one FIR (registered in 2020 for cheating/forgery-type offences, in which he was not originally named as an accused) was suddenly used to implicate and arrest him just as he was expected to be granted bail in his last pending matter. He sought interim bail in this new FIR and quashing of proceedings against him.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that although it would not ordinarily entertain a writ petition bypassing the regular bail process, the facts here were "very peculiar": the petitioner had been implicated in the 2020 FIR only after a delay of about 1 year and 7 months, on the very day the Court had adjourned his pending bail matter in a different case, and shortly before the Allahabad High Court in fact granted him bail in that other matter. Observing that the timing appeared to be more than coincidental (including a threat allegation against the Investigating Officer registered suspiciously on the date of the hearing), and invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court granted the petitioner interim bail in the new FIR, directing him to apply for regular bail within two weeks, with the interim bail continuing until that application is decided.

Lesson Learnt

While the Supreme Court will not normally bypass the ordinary bail process, it can and will use its extraordinary Article 142 powers to protect personal liberty where the surrounding facts and timing of a new criminal implication suggest it may be a device to keep a person incarcerated rather than a genuine, timely prosecution.

Mohammad Azam Khan vs The State of Uttar Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware