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

Sunita Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Haryana

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 1244Decided 2 Dec 2022
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2155-2156 of 2022
Aniruddha Bose · Sudhanshu Dhulia

Background

The appellants, accused primarily of cheating in connection with certain land-related transactions in Haryana, had been refused pre-arrest bail by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which also declined to recall its order dismissing their anticipatory bail plea. They approached the Supreme Court against these refusals. During the hearing, it was undisputed that both appellants had already joined and cooperated with the police investigation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since the appellants had already joined the investigation and there was no allegation of them obstructing it, custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage. It set aside the High Court's orders refusing pre-arrest bail and directed that the appellants be released on bail in the event of arrest, on terms to be fixed by the trial court. The Court clarified this order was granted specifically because of their cooperation, and if they later refused to cooperate with the investigation, the State would remain free to apply to the trial court for cancellation of bail.

Lesson Learnt

Demonstrated cooperation with an ongoing police investigation is a significant factor courts weigh in granting anticipatory bail: custodial interrogation is generally seen as unnecessary once an accused has shown they are participating, though that protection remains conditional on continued cooperation.

Sunita Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Haryana – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware