Akshay Dhingra Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi), 2022 Scc Online Del 4646

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Akshay Dhingra Vs....

It is established that the authority granted by Section 438 of the CrPC is not to be used frequently. The authority must be used if it appears that an accusation was made with the intent to harm or humiliate the applicant by having him arrested. Consequently, bail cannot be ordered in advance of an arrest if it will be utilised as a defence. However at the present moment phase, it cannot be concluded based on the circumstances of the case that the accusations are baseless or were merely fabricated to harm or degrade the applicant by getting him detained. The court held that there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Ajaykumar Sunilkumar Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 359

The Court held in the Instant case that the following, among other circumstances, can generally be used to determine if someone had the intent to cause death: The type of weapon used, whether the accused carried the weapon or if it was picked up there, whether the blow is intended Read more »

High Court Can’t Become Guardian of Limitation Without Pleadings : Limitation Must Be Pleaded, Not Presumed

In Jai Ram Vs. Som Prakash & Anr. etc., 2025 INSC 227, the Hon’ble Supreme Court chided the High Court for setting-aside a reasoned order of the District Court on the ground of limitation when the issue of limitation was never pleaded, raised or evidence for the same led before Read more »

Promotions don’t satisfy the grounds to attain the posts meant for Direct Recruitment

In Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha (2025 INSC 87), the Supreme Court held that no promotion can be claimed to a post reserved solely for direct recruitment under statutory rules. Rejecting a Peon’s claim for appointment as a Tracer, it said bypassing open selection would violate Article 16 and Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.