Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Selvam @ Selvakumar – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1224 of 2023 in SC.No.209 of 2016 before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai dated 11.10.2023 and set aside the same.)
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1224 of 2023 in SC.No.209 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, dated 11.10.2023.
2. Directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the trial Judges throughout India with a direction to the respective High Courts to issue the copy of the judgments to the learned trial Judges across the country through the respective State High Courts. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in CDJ 2015 SC 115, when witnesses are available before the Court to depose the evidence, the case shall not be adjourned and also, when the witnesses depose as prosecution witness, they s
The duty of trial judges and defense counsel to uphold Supreme Court guidelines discouraging adjournments and requiring immediate cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and the condemnation of t....
The main legal point established is that once the examination of a witness begins, the trial should proceed continuously, with adjournments only granted for the strongest possible reasons, and the du....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, requiring trial courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely witness examination.
The court established that both prosecution and defense must be heard before trial scheduling, ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial and legal representation.
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C., requiring expeditious trials and continuous examination of witnesses, with adjournments only granted for special re....
The right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses should not be deferred at the whims and fancies of the accused, and lenient allowance of petitions under 311 Cr.P.C. is deprecated.
(1) Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds – Even in cases where accused had been enlarged on bail right to a speedy trial....
The importance of affording the accused an opportunity to examine their witnesses before pronouncing judgment, and the discretion granted to the trial judge in conducting the examination of witnesses....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article