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 NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely

Not available · 2024 INSC 11Decided 3 Jan 2024
Not available

Background

The respondent was arrested in June 2020 in an FIR alleging offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Arms Act, over an alleged plan to travel to Pakistan for weapons training with Pakistan-linked contacts. When the initial 90-day investigation period was extended, the Delhi High Court later held the extension invalid and granted the respondent default bail. The State of NCT of Delhi appealed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the extension application had, in fact, properly explained the reasons for delay (some sanctions under UAPA had already been obtained while others, along with an FSL report, were still awaited) meeting the requirements of Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA. It held the High Court erred in finding no valid basis for the extension, and further noted the police had already filed its chargesheet before the extended period expired. The Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's order granting default bail, and directed the respondent be taken back into custody.

Lesson Learnt

In serious terrorism-related (UAPA) cases, default bail cannot be claimed if the investigating agency validly sought and justified an extension of the investigation period and filed its chargesheet within that extended time. Courts must scrutinize such extension requests carefully rather than reading them narrowly.

State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware