Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 158

Statute: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)

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 →
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

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

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

71% 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 →
Sharda Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 693Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

ORAL ORDER 213-05-2024 Heard the parties. 2. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that he will be approaching the appropriate authority for the redressal of their grievance. 3. Granting the said liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Sahabuddin Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 451Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1759 of 2024 ====================================================== Sahabuddin Ansari @ Shahabuddin Ansari Son of Yakuf Ansari, Resident of Dalpatpur, Police Station- Maharajganj, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Dipak Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 246Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1507 of 2017 ====================================================== Dipak Kumar Jha Son of Late Shyam Charan Jha, Grand Son of Late Tara Charan Jha @ Lalan Babu Resident of Village - Mahisi, P.O. and P.S. - Mahisi, ...

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

undefined INSC 700Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

in CWJC No. 6343 of 2023, has been complied with, inasmuch as the Director (Primary Education), Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, has already passed a reasoned order dated 13.3.2024. 2.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the ...

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

undefined INSC 783Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 222-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 33(1) / 66 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment 1989) Ac...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

70% 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 →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →