Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 35

Statute: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)

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

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

71% 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 →
Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 626Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

the offences under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8/20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drug & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. As per prosecution case, total 6 Kgs. Ganja wrapped in a polythene bag along with a theft motorcycle were recovered from the possession of the petition...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Md. Nakib Alam v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 411Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Bakhtiyarpur (Baluahat O.P) P.S Case No. 29 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 506/34 of the I.P.C. 3. As per prosecution case, there is allegation that as per direction of Government, the informant, who is PACS Mangager, made agreement on 10.06.2015 wit...

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 →
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 →
Santosh Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 527Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

tried to forcibly evict the informant from the land in which his buffaloes were grazing and the informant was taking care of that land as caretaker on behalf of some other person. When the informant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6504 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/3 opposed his eviction, the p...

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

undefined INSC 851Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Yadav. 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he came to know about the killing of his brother and named the accused persons on suspicion that they have killed his brother. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is not an eye-witness and on suspicion t...

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

undefined INSC 320Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Sections 25(1-b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UPA Act. 3.Considering the nature of allegation as alleged in the FIR, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Dumariya P.S. C...

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