Keeping Pace with Legal Change
The article discusses an important decision of the Supreme Court of India that throws light on the most important procedural…
In this article, we are going to examine the Abdul Hameed v. State case, a landmark judgment explaining anticipatory bail under the new BNSS in India. It focuses on the maintenance of consecutive bail applications, the retrospective effect of procedural legislations such as BNSS and principle of beneficial law in the sense that the evolution of the law legally deserves reconsideration of bail considering the new legal considerations.
It was decided by the Supreme Court in the case Sachin v. State of Maharashtra that an accused person cannot be made worse off for appealing a conviction that they have already been found guilty of. Increasing the severity of punishment in such appeals is a violation of both procedural fairness and natural justice, particularly when the state does not oppose the decision.
According to the Supreme Court’s clarification, the statute of limitations in arbitration law is computed as three calendar months from the date of award reception, except the day that the award was received. In the event that the final day falls on a court holiday, the form can be submitted on the following working day.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 presents provisions for jurisdiction for electronic communication and journey offences, supplanting the Criminal Procedure Code 1973. According to Section 13 of BNSS, electronic communication-based offences can be tried by courts where messages are received or sent, ranging digital crime adaptability. For offences related to journeys, jurisdiction is widened to courts along the route of journey, which facilitates procedural flexibility. These reforms seek to update India’s criminal justice system, addressing delays and technological deficits. The BNSS facil
