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

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sadique and Ors.

Diary No.Decided 15 Mar 2022
Diary No. 1930 of 2022

Background

In the underlying criminal appeal, the accused (respondents) had been granted default/statutory bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after the Supreme Court held, relying on its earlier decision in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, that only "the Court", not a Magistrate, is competent to grant an extension of the investigation period under the proviso to Section 43-D(b) of UAPA, and since no such extension had validly been granted, the accused were entitled to default bail. The State of Madhya Pradesh sought review of that order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition but rejected the State's request for an open-court hearing on it. Examining the review on its merits (on the papers), the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record that would justify interfering with its earlier order, and accordingly dismissed the review petition, leaving the grant of default bail undisturbed.

Lesson Learnt

Under UAPA, only a designated "Court", not a Magistrate, can extend the investigation period to defeat an accused's right to default bail; and a review petition succeeds only on a clear, apparent error, not by re-arguing the original case.

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sadique and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware