Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 213

Statute: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

72% 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 →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

72% 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 →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

72% 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 →
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 →
Chandradeo Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 551Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6909 of 2022 ====================================================== Chandradeo Mandal, Son of Dukhi Mandal, resident of Village- Khagor, P.S.- Kiul, District- Lakhisarai. ... ......

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

undefined INSC 551Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

71% 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 →
Chhotu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 274Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act applies in this case. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material available on record, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his a...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Santosh Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 851Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6504 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2023 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Sahu Son of Bilat Sahu @ Bilat Sah R/o vill - Barmattar, P...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Santosh Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 433Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

are only scratch marks over front and sides of the neck, which falsifies the prosecution story about the informant being assaulted by the petitioners. The petitioners have got no criminal history. 05. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 06. Having regard to the fa...

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