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

Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Another

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 628Decided 4 Jun 2026
Crl.A. No.-003048-003048 - 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 18022/2025)
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant's father died an unnatural death in 2014, leading to an FIR and chargesheet against respondent no. 2 under Sections 120-B and 306 read with 34 IPC (abetment of suicide/criminal conspiracy). Over the following decade, respondent no. 2 filed a series of petitions before the High Court seeking to quash the case, obtained interim protections (including suspension of a Look Out Circular), left the country, and repeatedly withdrew his petitions before final adjudication after securing interim relief. After his eventual arrest and release on return to India, he applied for return of his passport to travel to the USA citing medical treatment; the Magistrate's order on this was set aside by the Sessions Judge but then restored by the High Court, which allowed him to travel abroad, prompting the complainant-appellant's challenge before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while Article 21 guarantees personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad, this must be balanced against the equally fundamental right to a speedy trial and the wider public interest in effective criminal justice administration: no right is absolute. Noting respondent no. 2's decade-long pattern of filing and strategically withdrawing petitions to obtain and misuse interim protections (including leaving the country previously), and that comparable medical facilities exist in India, the Court found the High Court had been unduly indulgent rather than exercising judicial restraint. It set aside both the High Court's and the Sessions Judge's orders and restored the Magistrate's original order, while clarifying that respondent no. 2 need not deposit his passport but also may not fly abroad except with the Sessions Court's express permission (to be sought after committal), with police and airport authorities directed to coordinate to prevent unauthorized departure.

Lesson Learnt

The right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute for an accused facing trial. Courts must weigh it against the complainant's and society's right to a speedy, unobstructed trial, especially where the accused's own conduct shows a pattern of using litigation to delay proceedings.

Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Another – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware