Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 139

Statute: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

73% Match

FACTS: Challenged Aadhaar biometrics scheme as violating privacy. Held: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Ratio: Privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty, subject to proportionality tests for state restrictions....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

73% Match

FACTS: Petition seeking action for police failure to register an FIR for kidnapping. Held: Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognizable offence. Ratio: No preliminary inquiry is permitted if cognizable offence is disclosed; ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 798Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

72% Match

available. It is apt and proper to refer the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2024 (1) BLJ 178 held as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2022 dt.26-11-2024 6/8 “5. This Court would also refer ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Ramji Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 750Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.249 of 2024(3) dt.12-09-2024 2/2 Motihari, East Champaran in con...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

71% Match

FACTS: Petitioner's passport was impounded without giving reasons. Held: Article 21 procedure must be 'just, fair, and reasonable', not arbitrary or oppressive. Ratio: Expanded Article 21 scope, introducing substantive due process principles into Indian jurisprudence....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

71% Match

FACTS: Anticipatory bail application in a Section 498A IPC cruelty case. Held: Arrest should not be the default action in offences carrying punishment of less than 7 years. Ratio: Police must comply with Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) notice guidelines before executing arrest....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

70% Match

FACTS: Challenged Kerala Land Reforms Act. 13-judge bench reviewed parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Held: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Ratio: Basic Structure doctri...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Sharwan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 569Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

that he got secret information that the accused persons including the petitioner along with unknown accused were active members of Maoist movement are planning to commit extortion, recruitment of new Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13733 of 2024(4) dt.10-05-2024 2/2 recruits including carrying out d...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 254Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.148 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Munger ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Mandal @ Mukesh Mandal, Son of Raj Kumar Mandal, Resident of Village- Lal Darwaza, P.S.- Kotwali, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Shahida Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 409Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

have no criminal antecedent. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for Bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3899 of 2024(3) dt.21-03-2024 3/3 circumstances of the case as well as...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →