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

SK. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation

Criminal AppealDecided 9 Feb 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2022
L. Nageswara Rao · Abhay S. Oka

Background

The appellant sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered at Nandigram police station, West Bengal, after one Debabrata Maity died from injuries sustained in an alleged mob attack. The appellant was not named in the original FIR, and the CBI (which took over investigation) did not name him as an accused in either of the two charge sheets it filed. The Calcutta High Court had denied him anticipatory bail, relying on later-recorded witness statements implicating him, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that although the CBI relied on statements of five witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the appellant was never named as an accused in either charge sheet even after some of these statements were recorded, and two of the witness statements were recorded only belatedly (in January 2022, after the bail plea was filed). Weighing these peculiar facts, the delay and inconsistency in implicating the appellant, the Court held that he deserved pre-arrest bail, while making clear it was not deciding the merits of the underlying allegations. The High Court's order refusing bail was set aside, and bail was granted subject to full cooperation with the investigation and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC, with the bail liable to cancellation if the appellant failed to cooperate.

Lesson Learnt

Courts scrutinise the timing and consistency of witness statements and charge sheets when deciding anticipatory bail: a person not named as an accused in charge sheets filed after key witness statements were recorded has a stronger case for bail, even in a serious offence, provided they commit to cooperating with the investigation.

SK. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware