Supreme Court: Jail Superintendents Should Make Special Efforts To Identify Women Prisoners Eligible For Release U/s. 479 Of BNSS:

 Although the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS are gender neutral, it is also necessary for this Court to say that special efforts should be made to identify women prisoners who are entitled to release under the beneficial provision. The concerned Jail Superintendents where the women prisoners are lodged should therefore pay personal attention to the female prisoners, who might have become eligible for the release benefits, under Section 479 of the BNSS. {Para 12}

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).406/2013

IN RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 

 VERSUS

. & ORS. Respondent(s)

([MR. GAURAV AGRAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE IS AMICUS CURIAE.] )

Date : 19-11-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

Print Page

Landmark Supreme Court judgments on bail

Introduction

Over the last three decades, the Supreme Court of India has steadily transformed the law of arrest from a broad police power into a constitutionally disciplined, rights‑oriented process. The Court has insisted that arrest must be lawful, necessary, documented and reviewable, not a reflex or a tool of harassment.

This evolution runs through a series of landmark judgments—on judicial officers, ordinary citizens, women, under‑trials and high‑profile accused—culminating in a recent mandate for written grounds of arrest in all cases.

Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat

Print Page

Bombay HC: Police must supply copy of Complaint to accused along with notice U/S 41A of CRPC /S 35 of BNSS

 In the aforesaid backdrop, we are of the opinion that a practice of issuing notices to the individuals/noticees, asking them to attend the inquiry without furnishing the details of the complaint and/or copy of the complaint, violates the mandate of Article 20 Sub Clause 3 of the Constitution of India and is also contrary to the principles of natural justice. {Para 10}

11. Therefore, in our Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, we are constrained to issue the following

directions to be complied with by all the police authorities within the

State of Maharashtra :

(i) Whenever any person is so summoned with a direction to

participate in the inquiry, whether prior to registration of FIR or

otherwise, the concerned officer shall, as a general rule, shall furnish

a copy of complaint received by the police, along with said notice.

(ii) In cases where it is not feasible to furnish a copy of the

complaint, the notice shall mandatorily contain or annex a separate

sheet mentioning clear and sufficient gist of the allegations levelled

against the individual so summoned, so as to enable the person to

understand the nature of the inquiry that is being held against him.

(iii) Any deviation from the requirement of furnishing complaint

or its narration in a gist, shall be only in rare and peculiar

circumstances where disclosure would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation or endanger the safety of the complainant or

witnesses. In such cases, if the police officer is of the said opinion,

the reasons for not disclosing the details of the complaint, shall be

recorded in writing by the officer concerned.

12. We, therefore, direct that the Director General of Police,

State of Maharashtra, to circulate this order to all the Commissioners

of Police and Superintendents of Police, forthwith and to ensure its

due implementation in letters and spirit, so as to protect the

constitutional guarantee to every citizen even though he is accused of

committing an offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1703 OF 2026

Ajay Prakashchand Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR JJ.

DATE : 15th APRIL, 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:18137-DB

Print Page

What is ouster of co-sharer? which law is related to it?

A three judge bench of this Court in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. R. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 1789, while examining the necessary conditions for applicability of doctrine of ouster to the shares of co-owners, held as follows: {Para 22}

4. Now, the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi nec clam nec precario. (See Secretary of State for India v. Debendra Lal Khan [MANU/PR/0072/1933 : (1933) LR 61 IA 78, 82]). The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. (See Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Khulna [(1900) LR 27 IA 136, 140]). But it is well-settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heir's title. (See Cores v. Appuhamy [(1912) AC 230)]. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. This does not necessarily mean that there must be an express demand by one and denial by the other.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1858-1859 of 2016 

Decided On: 26.02.2016

 Nagabhushanammal  Vs. C. Chandikeswaralingam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Author: Kurian Joseph, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0231/2016.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page