web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 438 – Anticipatory Bail

Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 13 Feb 2023

Posted on April 13, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

It is true that filing of first information report (F.I.R.) is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C., as held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab,(1980) 2 SCC 565, but at the same time it is also to be kept in mind, as held in the aforesaid case by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that“when a person apprehends arrest and approaches a court for anticipatory bail, his apprehension (of arrest), has to be based onconcrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to a specific offence or particular offences. Applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his version of the facts. These are important for the court which is considering the application, the extent and reasonableness of the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not a necessary condition that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier,so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.“

Then, What is ‘Reason to Believe‘?

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 4 SCC 303 has emphasized over this requirement and held as under.
“Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who is entitled to plead innocence, since he is not on the date of application for exercise of power under Section 438 CrPC convicted for the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. The applicant must show that he has “reason to believe” that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Use of the expression “reason to believe” shows that the belief that the applicant may be arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant’s apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. Mere “fear” is not “belief” for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that has some sort of vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be arrested. Grounds on which the belief on the applicant is based that he may be arrested in non-bailable offence must be capable of being examined. If an application is made to the High Court or the Court of Session, it is for the court concerned to decide whether a case has been made out of for granting of the relief sought. (Para 16)”
The aforesaid theory makes the legal position explicit that Section 438 (1) of Cr.P.C. applies not only at post FIR stage, but it does not require that the offence must have been registered. It is contemplated by this section that if a person is going to apply for anticipatory bail, he must have a reasonable belief that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.

Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 13 Feb 2023
Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail FIR is Not a Consition Precedent for Anticipatory Bail Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr | Leave a comment

Sanjay Vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 20 Jun 2022

Posted on June 25, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows:

We are of the considered view that in a matter involving personal liberty, the Court is expected to pass orders in one way or other taking into account the merits of the matter at the earliest. At any rate, posting an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be appreciated.
We request the High Court to dispose of the application for anticipatory bail on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks after reopening of the Court. If the main application could not be disposed of, for any reason, within the stipulated time, relief sought for in the interlocutory application shall be considered on its own merits. Till such time, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner herein.

Sanjay Vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 20 Jun 2022
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Sanjay Vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr | Leave a comment

Dr.S.Ariharan and Anr Vs Inspector of Police and Anr on 26 Nov 2019

Posted on April 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice G.R. Swaminathan held that Section 438 of Cr.PC is not the sole repository of the power to grant anticipatory bail. The High Courts are endowed with inherent powers (u/s 482 CrPC) to make such orders as to secure the ends of justice.

From Para 5,

5.The Union of India not wanting to take chances also filed Review Petition (Crl) No.228 of 2018. The same was disposed of vide judgment dated 01.10.2019 by a three Judges Bench. On a careful reading of the judgement dated 01.10.2019, one can note that the essence and soul of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment has not only survived but remains intact.

From Para 11,

11.The outcome of the challenge can be one way or the other. Section 18 A of the Act can be upheld. Or it can be struck down. Even if its validity is upheld, the High Courts would still be entitled to grant anticipatory bail. The statute only excludes the applicability of Section 438 of Cr.PC. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, Section 438 of the Code has been deleted by the State amendment and the said deletion has been upheld in (1994) 3 SCC 569 (Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab). But, that has not curtailed the extraordinary power of the High Court to entertain a plea of anticipatory bail and this power was held to be available in Hema Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Ors, (2014) 4 SCC 453).

From Para 12,

12. Section 438 of Cr.PC is not the sole repository of the power to grant anticipatory bail. The High Courts are endowed with inherent powers to make such orders as to secure the ends of justice. I hope I am not indulging in quibbling or hair-splitting when I say that neither Section 18 nor Section 18 A engraft a bar against grant of anticipatory bail. They are to the effect that the provision of Section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under the Atrocities Act. Even if Section 438 of Cr.PC is not available, Section 482 of Cr.PC can very much be invoked. Hence, I hold that this Court is very much possessed of the power to grant anticipatory bail even in cases arising under the Schedules Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitions can be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.PC.

Dr.S.Ariharan and Anr Vs Inspector of Police and Anr on 26 Nov 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186580740/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Dr-S-Ariharan-and-Another-Versus-The-Inspector-of-Police-Thirumangalam-Madurai-District-Crime-No-of-2019-and-Another-2019-11-26

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Denied CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Atrocities Act CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Dr.S.Ariharan and Anr Vs Inspector of Police and Anr Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Aparna Bhat and Ors Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 18 Mar 2021

Posted on March 23, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed the following directions in regards to bail proceedings in sexual offences (only applicable to women survivors).

From Para 45 and 46,

44. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, it is hereby directed that henceforth:
(a) Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim. Such conditions should seek to protect the complainant from any further harassment by the accused;
(b) Where circumstances exist for the court to believe that there might be a potential threat of harassment of the victim, or upon apprehension expressed, after calling for reports from the police, the nature of protection shall be separately considered and appropriate order made, in addition to a direction to the accused not to make any contact with the victim;
(c) In all cases where bail is granted, the complainant should immediately be informed that the accused has been granted bail and copy of the bail order made over to him/her within two days;
(d) Bail conditions and orders should avoid reflecting stereotypical or patriarchal notions about women and their place in society, and must strictly be in accordance with the requirements of the Cr. PC. In other words, discussion about the dress, behavior, or past “conduct” or “morals” of the prosecutrix, should not enter the verdict granting bail;
(e) The courts while adjudicating cases involving gender related crimes, should not suggest or entertain any notions (or encourage any steps) towards compromises between the prosecutrix and the accused to get married, suggest or mandate mediation between the accused and the survivor, or any form of compromise as it is beyond their powers and jurisdiction;
(f) Sensitivity should be displayed at all times by judges, who should ensure that there is no traumatization of the prosecutrix, during the proceedings, or anything said during the arguments, and
(g) Judges especially should not use any words, spoken or written, that would undermine or shake the confidence of the survivor in the fairness or impartiality of the court.
45. Further, courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order, to the effect that (i) women are physically weak and need protection; (ii) women are incapable of or cannot take decisions on their own; (iii) men are the “head” of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family; (iv) women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture; (v) “good” women are sexually chaste; (vi) motherhood is the duty and role of every woman, and assumptions to the effect that she wants to be a mother; (vii) women should be the ones in charge of their children, their upbringing and care; (viii) being alone at night or wearing certain clothes make women responsible for being attacked; (ix) a woman consuming alcohol, smoking, etc. may justify unwelcome advances by men or “has asked for it”; (x) women are emotional and often overreact or dramatize events, hence it is necessary to corroborate their testimony; (xi) testimonial evidence provided by women who are sexually active may be suspected when assessing “consent” in sexual offence cases; and (xii) lack of evidence of physical harm in sexual offence case leads to an inference of consent by the woman.

 

Aparna Bhat and Ors Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 18 Mar 2021

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Aparna Bhat and Ors Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr CrPC 437 - When bail may be taken in case of Non-Bailable Offence CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Satri Anitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a while-color crime from Kadapa, AP from 2017, wherein the accused went to Supreme Court for Anticipatory bail.

Satri Anitha Vs State of AP on 28 Sep 2020

Here is the AB dismissal order from AP High Court:

Satri Anitha Vs State of AP on 06 Aug 2020

Some news about these people:

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/vijayawada/2017/jul/11/couple-held-for-duping-people-with-easy-loans-1626616.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/man-woman-aide-held-for-gypping-loan-seekers/articleshow/59518402.cms

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Satri Anitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

All Bail Judgments

Posted on August 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are all kinds of Bail matters, granted/denied, Regular/Anticipatory etc

  • Station Bail
  • Regular Bail Orders u/s 437
  • Anticipatory Bail Orders u/s 438 CrPC
  • Default or Statutory Bail u/s 167(2)
  • Transit Bail
  • NBW Judgments

 


Index to MASTER sitemap here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 167 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours CrPC 167(2) - Default or Statutory Bail CrPC 437 - When bail may be taken in case of Non-Bailable Offence CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail | Leave a comment

Ankit Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 March 2020

Posted on March 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark judgment, where in Full-bench (5-Judge) of Allahabad High Court held that, Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters of 438 CrPC (Anticipatory Bail) and that there is no rule that first option at Sessions Court ought to be exhausted before seeking audience at High Court, but can be done so under Special circumstances only.

Ankit Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 March 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links:


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Ankit Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Anr CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail CrPC 438 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest CrPC 438 - High Court can be approached under Special Circumstances for AB Full-Bench Decision Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020

Posted on January 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful pronouncement indeed, of a 5-eminent judge Constitutional bench which decided that once Anticipatory Bail is granted u/s 438 CrPC by either a Sessions Court or High Court, it does not have any time limit to it regarding it’s effect. Further, here it was held, No need to get a Regular Bail once AB is granted.

From now onwards, no need to covert Anticipatory Bail into a Regular Bail, upon closure of investigation by I.O. and filing of Charge sheet into a Trial Court.

Here is the Order passed.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Order

And the 133-page jewel of judgment, endorsing the view taken by my favorite Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandavi in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre is below.

From Para 69 of the judgment of Justice Ravindra Bhat (On page 112),

69. Therefore, this court holds that the view expressed in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, K.L. Verma, Nirmal Jeet Kaur, Satpal Singh, Adri Dharan Das, HDFC Bank, J.J. Manan and Naresh Kumar Yadav (supra) about the Court of Sessions, or the High Court, being obliged to grant anticipatory bail, for a limited duration, or to await the course of investigation, so as the “normal court” not being “bye passed” or that in certain kinds of serious offences, anticipatory bail should not be granted normally- including in economic offences, etc are not good law. The observations – which indicate that such time related or investigative event related conditions, should invariably be imposed at the time of grant of anticipatory bail are therefore, overruled. Similarly, the observations in Mhetre that “the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it” is too wide and cannot be considered good law. It is one thing to say that as a matter of law, ordinarily special conditions (not mentioned in Section 438 (2) read with Section 437 (3) should not be imposed; it is an entirely different thing to say that in particular instances, having regard to the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, or some peculiar feature, special conditions should not be imposed. The judgment in Sibbia itself is an authority that such conditions can be imposed, but not in a routine or ordinary manner and that such conditions then become an inflexible “formula” which the courts would have to follow. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice- to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions such as those stated in Section 437 (2) while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161, Cr. PC, etc. Other conditions may be imposed, if the facts of the case so warrant.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Judgement

Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 98], [2020 DLT SC 266 741]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123660783/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another

5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail [Full report]


The life of this case is in detail available here.


Index of all Anticipatory Bail Matters is here and all Bail matters list is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail CrPC 438 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest CrPC 438 - Valid Duration For Anticipatory Bail Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) | Leave a comment

Anticipatory Bail Orders

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Anticipatory bail granted in cases filed under various IPC sections. The bare section is here.

Supreme Court of India

  1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc Vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial; No FIR necessary for grant of AB]
  2. Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014 [Landmark Judgment: No automatic arrest in all cases with punishment less than or up to 7 years]
  3. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 December, 2010 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
  4. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 1 Sep 2015 [Ground for grant of AB]
  5. Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 15 May, 2018
    • Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
  6. Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 05 Mar 2021 [No need to go and obtain Regular Bail after filing of Charge sheet by IO, if Anticipatory Bail was granted earlier]
  7. Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 [No Payments when allowing Anticipatory Bail]
  8. Monirul Islam Vs The State of West Bengal on 01 Dec 2022 [AB cannot passed for a fixed time period]
  9. Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 Jan 2023 [Criminal Proceedings cannot be converted into Recovery Proceedings]
  10. Kunal Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 05 Dec 2023 [A condition to take wife to home is untenable while granting anticipatory bail]

 

 

Allahabad High Court

  1. Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 13 Feb 2023 [Relies on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia; FIR is not a pre-condition to grant AB, but Reasonable Apprehension Of Being Arrested has to be explained]

 

Bombay High Court

  1. Chandra Kanjappa Kuchchikurwe Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 14 December, 2012

 

Kerala High Court

  1. Koshore Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2016
  2. Shelbin Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2018

 

District Courts

  1. In re:- Arnab Rao @ Arnad Roa

Index of all Bail matters is here.

Posted in File a Petition | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Criminal Proceedings cannot be converted into Recovery Proceedings CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.Take legal action on the mischief mongers? @NCBNOffice @ncbn @OfficeofNL @PawanKalyan @JanaSenaParty @apcpim @CpiAp @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @apngo_official @AshokParchuri @utfchittoor @Anitha_TDP @Ravinaidu1111 @RamuduM_RCT @IRayachoti @Telugodu1982 @DSGRAJU1 @SVSN_Varma

Reply on Twitter 2060946323273404827 Retweet on Twitter 2060946323273404827 3 Like on Twitter 2060946323273404827 2 X 2060946323273404827
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.1.Please provide online facility for RTI Applications in the state.2. Start two regional offices at Vijayawada and Vizag for Lokayukta and APHRC? @NCBNOffice @cbn_updates1 @OfficeofNL @tv5newsnow @RamMNK @ravivallabha @abvrao @nalamotu @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @gvreddy0406

Reply on Twitter 2060967039142068602 Retweet on Twitter 2060967039142068602 2 Like on Twitter 2060967039142068602 2 X 2060967039142068602
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.@SajjanarVC_IPS @SajjanarOffice @CVAnandIPS @bandisanjay_bjp @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @GvNarasaiah @lawyersrinu @apcpim @CpiAp @BjpVarma @BJP4Andhra @IYRKRao @iTDPVinukonda @SriKrishnaLavu @Collector_Plnd @Palnadu_Police @tv5newsnow @MP_Araku @VasBytes @ravivallabha @ANI

Reply on Twitter 2060993042606428296 Retweet on Twitter 2060993042606428296 2 Like on Twitter 2060993042606428296 2 X 2060993042606428296
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.@AdvocateAsr @BhimavaramJSP @bjp4elurujilla @OfficeofNL @JP_LOKSATTA @Anitha_TDP @JSPWestGodavari @KRaghuRaju @BjpVarma @RamanaiduTDP @PawanKalyan @JanaSenaParty @JanasenaBadvel @NagababuPasam @CityJsp @HariramaJogayya @palakollu_NFans @Police_WG @NCBNOffice @VasBytes @DSGRAJU1

Reply on Twitter 2061065013641843078 Retweet on Twitter 2061065013641843078 2 Like on Twitter 2061065013641843078 1 X 2061065013641843078
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations? June 3, 2026
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 June 2, 2026
  • Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018 May 28, 2026
  • Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 May 27, 2026
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 May 26, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,829 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,351 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,187 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,422 views)
  • Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 (2,122 views)
  • Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 (2,083 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (1,977 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,875 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,776 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,556 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (361)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (327)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (58)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (2)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 15, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 28, 22:16 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify tunnels, routes, hostname routes, virtual networks, devices and tunnel configurations via the Dashboard or the public […]
  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 4, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 21, 00:41 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, customers will be unable to modify configurations via the Dashboard or the public API for a period of up to 3 minutes. This […]
  • Audit Log Delays June 3, 2026
    Jun 3, 19:59 UTC Update - We are continuing to investigate this issue. Jun 3, 19:58 UTC Investigating - We are investigating an issue where Cloudflare Audit Log processing is running behind, causing a delay in timely delivery of audit data. These delays do not impact analytics for DNS or Rate Limiting.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 193.193.237.158 | SD June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,352 | First: 2025-11-25 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 158.94.211.154 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 987 | First: 2026-01-28 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 45.164.196.232 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2026-06-03 | Last: 2026-06-03
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 583 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel