Supreme Court Landmark Judgments
Comprehensive repository of Supreme Court of India rulings on Cybercrime, Bank Account Freezes, Bail Rights, Digital Evidence Certification, and Personal Liberty.
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy
Landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India establishing that a bank account constitutes 'property' capable of seizure by an investigating officer under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 BNSS), provided the funds therein have direct nexus with alleged criminal activities.
Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The 3-Judge Bench held that police officers do not have the power to seize immovable property under Section 102 CrPC, while affirming the distinct power to freeze movable assets, financial credits, and bank balances under the Tapas Neogy doctrine.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
The Supreme Court settled conflicting precedents regarding digital evidence, ruling that a Section 65B(4) certificate (now Section 63 BSA) is an absolute condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic records, server logs, mobile chats, emails, and CCTV recordings produced as secondary evidence.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Supreme Court mandated that police officers must not automatically arrest accused persons in offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less without recording specific statutory reasons. Mandatory Section 41A notice (now Section 35 BNSS) must be served.
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Supreme Court laid down landmark guidelines categorizing criminal offences into Category A, B, C, and D for standardizing bail grants and eliminating routine incarceration where the accused cooperated with investigation.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
Supreme Court clarified the statutory remedy available to bank account holders against police freeze orders. The proper legal recourse is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 451/457 CrPC (now Section 503 BNSS) rather than filing premature writ petitions.