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

Union of India vs. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay @ Sonu Singh

Not available · 2024 INSC 404Decided 10 May 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Aravind Kumar

Background

In November 2019, a banned Maoist organization (CPI (Maoist)) ambushed a police patrol in Jharkhand, killing four police personnel and looting arms and ammunition. The case was investigated by the NIA, and the respondent was among 34 persons chargesheeted for offences including murder, waging war-like violence, and various UAPA provisions. The Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, rejected the respondent's bail application, but the High Court of Jharkhand later granted him bail on certain conditions. The Union of India (through the NIA) appealed to the Supreme Court against the grant of bail.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's reasoning for granting bail and found no ground to interfere, holding that the liberty already granted to the respondent by the High Court outweighed the prosecution's apprehensions. However, to address the prosecution's concerns, the Court clarified that it remained open to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail if the respondent violated any of the bail conditions, and that such an application would be considered independently by the trial court on its own merits, uninfluenced by the earlier bail order's observations (which were restricted only to the bail stage and would not affect the trial on merits). Subject to these clarifications, the appeal was dismissed and the bail was allowed to stand.

Lesson Learnt

Being granted bail, even in a serious terrorism-related case, is not necessarily permanent or unconditional: courts can preserve a straightforward path for the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are breached, without needing to relitigate the original bail decision.

Union of India vs. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay @ Sonu Singh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware