Sadalaw

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023)

Trending Today Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) REHA BHARGAV Sep 27, 2025 On July 28, 2023, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the claim of adverse possession in Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors.. The Court clarified the strict requirements for proving adverse possession over immovable property, reinforcing the principles of property rights under the Limitation Act. Introduction The case of Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors., decided on July 28, 2023, centered on a dispute over ownership and possession of immovable property. The appellant, Gostho Behari Das, claimed ownership through adverse possession, while the respondents—legal heirs of the original owners—contested this claim. The Court was tasked with examining whether long-term possession amounted to adverse possession under Indian property law, and whether the appellant could extinguish the rights of the true owners. Facts of the Case The dispute involved immovable property allegedly possessed by the appellant for decades. Gostho Behari Das argued that his possession was open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner’s rights. The respondents, led by Dipak Kumar Sanyal, claimed that the appellant was merely a permissive occupier or licensee. Lower courts had ruled against the appellant, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Issue of the Case The central issue before the Court was: Whether the appellant, Gostho Behari Das, had acquired valid ownership of the property through adverse possession, thereby extinguishing the title of the original owners and their legal heirs? Arguments Appellant’s Arguments Continuous, open, and hostile possession for decades amounted to ownership. Improvements and acts of ownership were exercised publicly, putting true owners on notice. Respondents failed to assert ownership or initiate proceedings within the statutory limitation period. Once perfected, adverse possession confers legal title under precedents of Indian property law. Respondents’ Arguments The appellant’s possession was not hostile but permissive. Long-term possession alone does not equal adverse possession without clear hostility. The appellant failed to produce conclusive evidence of hostile occupation. The burden of proof lies with the claimant of adverse possession, which was not met. Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondents. Key observations included: Strict Proof Required: Adverse possession must be actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile for the entire statutory period. No Hostile Intent: The appellant’s possession was ambiguous and lacked the necessary hostility to defeat ownership. Mere Occupation Insufficient: Passive or long-term possession does not extinguish the title of the lawful owner. Burden of Proof: The claimant must establish all ingredients of adverse possession beyond doubt. Thus, the Court reaffirmed that adverse possession cannot be lightly presumed and must be proven with clear, cogent evidence. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. underscores the narrow and cautious application of adverse possession. It highlights that: Ownership rights cannot be defeated by mere inaction of the true owner. Adverse possession requires hostility, exclusivity, and continuous possession. Passive or permissive occupation does not qualify as adverse possession under the Limitation Act. This judgment strengthens the protection of property rights in India and reiterates that courts will strictly scrutinize claims of adverse possession. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA Sep 27, 2025 The Supreme Court of India granted bail to human rights activist Teesta Setalvad on July 19, 2023, overturning the Gujarat High Court’s decision. This landmark ruling strengthens bail jurisprudence, upholds personal liberty, and reaffirms constitutional principles in politically sensitive cases. Introduction The case revolves around Teesta Setalvad, a noted human rights activist, who was arrested following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat (2022). The complaint alleged that she fabricated evidence to implicate senior officials in the 2002 Gujarat riots. When the Gujarat High Court denied her bail, she appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to this significant decision. Facts of the Case In June 2022, the Supreme Court criticized individuals for allegedly misusing judicial processes by submitting false evidence. A day later, an FIR was lodged against Setalvad under various Indian Penal Code sections, including 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218, and 120B. She was arrested on June 25, 2022, and subsequently remanded to police and judicial custody. Both the Sessions Court and High Court refused bail. On September 2, 2022, the Supreme Court granted interim bail, which continued until her appeal was heard. Issue of the Case The central question was: Whether the Gujarat High Court was justified in denying Teesta Setalvad’s bail despite her prolonged interim bail, the documentary nature of the evidence, and no allegations of tampering with the investigation? Judgment 1. Inadequate Justification by the High Court The Gujarat High Court observed that a prima facie case existed under Section 194 IPC (false evidence leading to possible capital punishment). Yet, it held that such findings were inappropriate at the bail stage. The Supreme Court found this reasoning contradictory and legally unsound. 2. No Need for Pre-Bail Quashing The High Court insisted that Setalvad should challenge the FIR under Section 482 CrPC or constitutional provisions before seeking bail. The Supreme Court rejected this, stating it went against established bail jurisprudence. 3. Factors Supporting Bail The alleged offenses occurred between 2002 and 2012. She was already interrogated while in custody. The chargesheet had been filed, and evidence was largely documentary. Since her interim bail in September 2022, she had not influenced witnesses or tampered with evidence. No request for further investigation was pending. 4. Criticism of Immediate Surrender Order The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s sudden directive for immediate surrender despite Setalvad being on bail for nearly ten months. 5. Conditions of Bail Bail to continue under conditions set on September 2, 2022. She cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Passport remains with the Sessions Court. Any violation allows the prosecution to approach the Supreme Court directly. 6. Warning to Subordinate Courts The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the High Court’s earlier remarks or the Supreme Court’s bail order when conducting the trial. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle of personal liberty in India’s democracy. Key takeaways include: The presumption of innocence stands until proven guilty. Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of charges if the accused poses no flight risk. Courts must avoid conducting “mini-trials” at the bail stage. This judgment is a strong reminder of constitutional safeguards against judicial overreach in pre-trial detention and a landmark in Indian bail jurisprudence. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Read More »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS

Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023)

Leave a Comment / Uncategorized / Sadalaw

Trending Today Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) REHA BHARGAV Sep 24, 2025 Read the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2023), where the Court set aside unlawful conditions on passport submission in a dowry harassment case. Explore the case facts, issues, and the final judgment. Introduction On 25 July 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important judgment in the case of Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. The dispute arose out of a matrimonial conflict, where the appellant’s wife (4th respondent) lodged a criminal complaint under Section 498A, Section 403, and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. During the investigation, the police compelled the appellant to submit his passport, which was forwarded to the Regional Passport Office. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court after the Andhra Pradesh High Court imposed conditions on the return of his passport that the appellant challenged. Facts of the Case Parties Involved The appellant, Chennupati Kranthi Kumar, is the husband (Accused No. 1) and employed in the USA. The 4th respondent is his wife, who filed a criminal complaint against him. Criminal Proceedings The wife’s complaint invoked: Sections 498A, 403, and 406 of IPC. Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Passport Seizure Police, under Section 91 of CrPC, directed the appellant to submit his passport. The passport was forwarded to the Regional Passport Office in Hyderabad. On 19 January 2021, the office issued a notice alleging that the appellant was in possession of his wife’s passport. The appellant denied the claim and clarified that his minor son’s passport was lost in July 2021, for which reissue proceedings were already initiated. Request for Passport Return The appellant applied before the Magistrate for the return of his passport to continue his employment in the USA. The Magistrate rejected the request on 14 June 2022. High Court’s Order The appellant approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court allowed the return of his passport but imposed three conditions: Deposit of ₹10 lakhs in Fixed Deposit in the wife’s name. Submission of original passports of wife and minor son. An affidavit undertaking to return to India within six months for trial. Appeal to Supreme Court The appellant challenged the second condition (submission of wife’s and son’s passports). He did not oppose the ₹10 lakh deposit requirement. Issue of the Case Were the conditions imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court—particularly requiring the appellant to submit the passports of his wife and minor son—legally valid for the release of his own passport? Judgment 1. Illegal Retention of Passport The Supreme Court observed that: The appellant’s passport was neither seized under Section 102 CrPC nor impounded under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967. Its continued retention by the Regional Passport Office was therefore unauthorized and illegal. 2. High Court’s Conditions Partially Set Aside The requirement to submit the wife’s and minor son’s passports was declared unlawful and unsustainable. The Court clarified that the appellant was entitled to the return of his passport without such conditions. 3. Deposit Condition Upheld The condition requiring the appellant to deposit ₹10 lakhs in the wife’s name was upheld to ensure his return for trial. 4. Relief to Wife The wife was allowed to apply for a fresh or reissued passport with the Regional Passport Office, based on a police report of loss. The appellant was directed to cooperate by providing necessary documents. 5. Final Direction The appeal was partly allowed. No order as to costs was passed. Conclusion The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in directing the appellant to surrender the passports of his wife and minor son, as such a condition lacked legal basis. However, the requirement to deposit ₹10 lakhs was upheld to secure his presence for trial. This judgment highlights the Court’s stand on personal liberty, due process, and the lawful handling of passports under the Passports Act. It also ensures balance by protecting the wife’s rights while enabling the appellant to continue his overseas employment. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) Read More »

MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) REHA BHARGAV Sep 24, 2025 Explore the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2023), where anticipatory bail was granted after the High Court’s refusal. Learn about the case facts, legal issues, and the Court’s emphasis on personal liberty and bail guidelines. Introduction On 31 July 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. The case revolved around the denial of anticipatory bail by the Jharkhand High Court, despite the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation and the filing of a charge-sheet. The Court, presided over by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Arvind Kumar, overturned the High Court’s decision and reinforced the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts of the Case Marriage and Dispute The appellant married the respondent on 5 November 2020. The appellant alleged that the marriage was troubled due to interference from the wife’s father, which created tension between families. FIR and Allegations On 2 April 2022, an FIR was registered at Gumla Mahila Police Station (Case No. 07/2022) against the appellant and his family. Alleged offences included: Section 498A, Section 323, Section 504, Section 506 of the IPC. Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant argued that the FIR was filed without following the mandatory procedure laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP. Bail Proceedings Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC was first rejected by the Sessions Court (28 June 2022). The appellant then approached the High Court, which initially granted interim protection (8 August 2022). After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the trial court on 1 October 2022. Despite this, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea on 18 January 2023 and directed surrender for regular bail. Issue of the Case The primary issue was:Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail despite charges under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, given that he had cooperated with the investigation, and the charge-sheet had already been filed? Judgment The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order. Key findings included: There were no exceptional circumstances justifying the denial of anticipatory bail. The appellant had fully cooperated with the investigation. A charge-sheet had already been filed, eliminating the risk of tampering or absconding. The Court granted anticipatory bail and reiterated that personal liberty must not be curtailed without compelling reasons. It also reinforced the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to prevent unnecessary arrests in offences punishable up to seven years. Furthermore, the Court directed all High Courts and State Police Authorities to circulate and enforce these guidelines, ensuring compliance within a fixed time frame. Conclusion The ruling in MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. highlights the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring that anticipatory bail is not denied arbitrarily. By overturning the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair investigation, judicial balance, and personal liberty. This judgment serves as a reminder that bail should be the rule and jail the exception, especially when no compelling reason exists for arrest. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Read More »

Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives GST Overhaul from Sept 22: What’s Cheaper, What’s Costlier in Bengaluru Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 REHA BHARGAV Sep 23, 2025 The Supreme Court of India in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana (July 19, 2023) granted bail citing prolonged undertrial detention and violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Introduction The case of Boini Mahipal & Another v. State of Telangana, decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 19, 2023, addressed a crucial issue of granting bail due to prolonged pre-trial detention. The petitioners, accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), had been in judicial custody for over five years without conclusion of trial. They argued that such prolonged incarceration violated their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, balanced the seriousness of the charge with the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, ultimately granting bail. Facts of the Case Petitioners Boini Mahipal and another were accused of murder under Section 302 IPC in Telangana. They were arrested and kept in judicial custody for more than five years as undertrial prisoners. The prosecution alleged a pre-planned murder conspiracy, citing witness testimonies and forensic evidence. Despite this, the trial remained incomplete, with many witnesses yet to be examined. Their bail pleas were repeatedly rejected by the trial court and the High Court. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court, citing a violation of Article 21. Issue Before the Court Whether prolonged pre-trial detention of over five years in a murder case justified the grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution, despite the gravity of charges under Section 302 IPC? Petitioners’ Arguments The petitioners argued: Continued incarceration for over five years violated their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The trial delays were not attributable to them but due to systemic issues. Many witnesses remained unexamined, with no foreseeable conclusion of trial. Repeated bail rejections ignored their prolonged undertrial status. Cited precedents where bail was granted due to long undertrial detention. Emphasized that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” when detention becomes punitive. Respondent’s Arguments The State of Telangana opposed bail, arguing: The accused were involved in a heinous and pre-planned murder. Bail could risk witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or obstruction of justice. The gravity of charges under Section 302 IPC justified their continued detention. Delay in trial does not automatically guarantee bail. Efforts were being made to expedite the trial. Judgment of the Supreme Court On July 19, 2023, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioners. Key findings: Though murder is a grave offence, prolonged detention without trial completion violates Article 21. Inordinate delays not attributable to the accused amount to punishment without conviction. Reiterated the principle: “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”. Ordered release of the petitioners on bail, with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent tampering with evidence. The Court stressed that justice must balance the interests of society and the rights of individuals, and prolonged undertrial detention undermines the fairness of the system. Conclusion The ruling in Boini Mahipal & Anr. v. State of Telangana reinforces that prolonged undertrial detention cannot be justified solely on the seriousness of charges. By granting bail, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and systemic delays must not translate into indefinite punishment before conviction. This case serves as an important precedent for protecting the rights of undertrial prisoners, ensuring that liberty is preserved unless guilt is proven. Official judgement of court Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Read More »

Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives GST Overhaul from Sept 22: What’s Cheaper, What’s Costlier in Bengaluru Zoho’s Sridhar Vembu Urges H-1B Holders to Return to India Amid U.S. Visa Fee Hike Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh REHA BHARGAV Sep 23, 2025 The Supreme Court of India in Yashodhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (July 18, 2023) held that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. Learn about facts, issues, and judgment. Introduction The case of Yashodhan Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 18, 2023, examined the scope of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The appellants, not named in the original chargesheet, were later summoned by the trial court based on witness statements. They challenged this order, arguing that they were denied an opportunity of hearing before being added as accused. The judgment, delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, addressed important questions of fair trial rights, due process, and natural justice in criminal proceedings. Facts of the Case Criminal proceedings began against certain accused persons under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after a violent incident. During trial, prosecution witnesses made statements implicating Yashodhan Singh and others who were not named in the original FIR or chargesheet. The trial court invoked Section 319 CrPC and summoned them as additional accused. The appellants argued that this was done without notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Issue Before the Court Whether a person can be summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC without being given an opportunity of hearing, and whether such omission violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioners’ Arguments The appellants argued: The summoning order violated natural justice since they were not heard before being added as accused. Witness statements against them were vague and insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Being added as accused after the trial began caused serious prejudice to their defense. Section 319 CrPC must be interpreted consistently with due process under Article 21. Judicial discretion under this provision should be exercised cautiously and only after notice and hearing. Respondents’ Arguments The State of Uttar Pradesh argued: Section 319 empowers courts to summon anyone appearing guilty, even if not named in the FIR or chargesheet. The trial court acted on sworn testimonies from prosecution witnesses, which provided sufficient basis. The law does not expressly require pre-summoning notice. Once summoned, accused persons have ample opportunity to defend themselves during trial. The provision ensures that all real culprits are brought to justice and prevents miscarriage of justice. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court, in its July 18, 2023 ruling, sided with the appellants and set aside the trial court’s summoning order. Key observations: Principles of natural justice apply at the summoning stage under Section 319 CrPC. An opportunity of hearing must be given before summoning someone as an accused. Though Section 319 does not expressly require notice, it must be read into the provision to protect due process. Summoning additional accused carries serious legal consequences and must be based on strong, cogent evidence, not vague statements. The Court quashed the summoning order and reinforced that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed. Conclusion The judgment underscores that fair trial and natural justice are non-negotiable rights under Article 21. By ruling that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before summoning under Section 319 CrPC, the Supreme Court set a precedent protecting individuals from arbitrary inclusion as accused during trial. This case reaffirms that judicial power must be exercised cautiously, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done in a fair and lawful manner. Official judgement of court Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Read More »

Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives GST Overhaul from Sept 22: What’s Cheaper, What’s Costlier in Bengaluru Zoho’s Sridhar Vembu Urges H-1B Holders to Return to India Amid U.S. Visa Fee Hike SC Grants Bail to Kerala Priest Edwin Figarez, Suspends Sentence Pending Appeal Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra REHA BHARGAV Sep 23, 2025 The Supreme Court of India acquitted Suresh Thipmppa Shetty on July 26, 2023, citing non-compliance with mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act. Learn about the case, issues, judgment, and its impact on Indian criminal law. Introduction The case of Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra is a landmark criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 26, 2023, presided over by Justice Vikram Nath. The appellant, Suresh Thipmppa Shetty, was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case revolved around allegations of possessing and transporting a commercial quantity of narcotic substances. The judgment is significant because it highlights the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act and stresses the importance of protecting the rights of the accused during search and seizure operations. Facts of the Case The prosecution alleged that acting on a tip-off, the Anti-Narcotics Cell of the Mumbai Police apprehended Shetty and recovered a substantial quantity of charas from his possession. The search was conducted without a warrant, relying on urgency under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Special NDPS Court convicted him, and the Bombay High Court upheld the decision. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, citing non-compliance with procedural safeguards, particularly Section 50 of the Act. Issues Before the Court Whether Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were complied with during the investigation. Whether failure to inform the accused of his right under Section 50 vitiates the search and conviction. Whether the prosecution’s evidence was reliable and free from procedural lapses. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction despite non-compliance. Petitioner’s Arguments The appellant argued: He was not informed of his legal right under Section 50, which mandates that an accused be given the option of being searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The search and seizure lacked proper documentation and independent witnesses. The chain of custody of the contraband was broken. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized substance was indeed a narcotic drug. Respondent’s Arguments The State of Maharashtra contended: The officers acted on credible, urgent information, justifying action without a warrant under Section 42. Section 50 was not applicable since the narcotic was recovered from a bag and not directly from the accused’s body. The recovery was properly documented and corroborated by witness testimonies. The absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the case, as the officers’ testimony was credible. Judgment of the Supreme Court On July 26, 2023, Justice Vikram Nath delivered the judgment: The appeal was allowed, and Suresh Thipmppa Shetty was acquitted. The Court ruled that Section 50 safeguards were violated, as the accused was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The procedural lapse made the search and recovery illegal, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 50 is mandatory, even if the contraband is found in a bag. Conclusion This judgment reinforces that strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act is essential to ensure a fair trial. The Supreme Court highlighted that non-compliance with Section 50 constitutes a fatal flaw in prosecution cases. By acquitting the appellant, the Court reaffirmed that justice must be delivered through lawful procedures and that the rights of the accused cannot be overlooked, even in serious narcotics cases. Official judgement of court Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023)

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS

Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023)

MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023)

Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21

Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF DHRUV TOLIYA

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ASPA LEGAL

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info