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

Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 202Decided 14 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice C.T. Ravikumar · Justice Sanjay Kumar

Background

The appellants were accused in an FIR involving allegations under the IPC and the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. While their anticipatory bail application was pending before the trial court without any interim protection, they repeatedly failed to appear despite summons and bailable warrants, eventually leading the trial court to issue a non-bailable warrant and initiate proclamation proceedings against them as absconders under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The Patna High Court dismissed their anticipatory bail plea, and they appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a pending anticipatory bail application should still be considered on its merits despite the proclamation proceedings.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once a person is declared an absconder or proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., they forfeit the right to seek anticipatory bail, reaffirming its earlier rulings in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, and Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar. The Court clarified that even while an anticipatory bail application is pending without interim protection, courts are not barred from proceeding with proclamation steps against a non-appearing accused. On facts, it found the appellants had consistently defied trial court orders (failing to appear even after bailable and non-bailable warrants, and withdrawing their own surrender application out of fear of arrest) showing a clear pattern of evasion that disentitled them to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, not a routine entitlement, and a person who is declared an absconder for repeatedly evading court summons and warrants loses the right to claim it, cooperating with court proceedings is essential to remain eligible for pre-arrest protection.

Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware