https://youtube.com/@legalservice4082?si=N2a7LmC23IjhOvnK

The Legal World, Jammu (2026)

27/02/2026

A Delhi court today acquitted all 23 accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.

In a detailed judgement running into nearly 600 pages, Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh dismantled the CBI case, citing procedural lapses, violation of constitutional principles and reliance on hearsay evidence.

In fact, the Court issued a scathing indictment of the CBI, holding that the probe was neither objective nor impartial.

Here is a summary of the Court's findings and how the case collapsed.

1. No manipulation of liquor policy

Judge Singh said that the Excise Policy was the outcome of a structured governmental process involving multiple departments, expert committees and cabinet-level approvals.

The Court said that there was no admissible material demonstrating that Sisodia or Kejriwal exercised their official authority with the intent to confer undue benefits or to participate in any criminal conspiracy.

It stressed that policy decisions, even if later withdrawn or criticised, cannot by themselves give rise to criminal liability unless supported by clear evidence of quid pro quo, personal gain, or misuse of office. It held that the prosecution failed to place any such material on record.

“The clauses incorporated in the policy cannot be traced to any document allegedly supplied by the so-called South Group. The record reflects deliberations at various levels, examination by the competent authorities, and a progressive development of the policy framework, culminating in approval by the Hon’ble LG. No material has been shown to suggest any prior agreement or meeting of minds indicative of a criminal conspiracy in the formulation of the policy,” the Court said.

2. Case against Kejriwal based on a singular approver statement

It was the CBI case that Kejriwal, in his capacity as the Chief Minister of Delhi, occupied the apex position and exercised overarching control over the criminal conspiracy relating to the formulation and implementation of the policy.

Judge Singh rejected the allegations outright. He noted that Kejriwal’s role features in the case only in the fourth supplementary chargesheet filed in July 2024 and the only principal material relied upon to implicate him is the statement of approver Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy.

The judge said that despite an alleged conversation occurring in the presence of public persons, none were examined, leaving the claim incapable of verification.

The Court ruled that mutual reliance between accomplice-like statements does not amount to legal corroboration.

“The allegation against A-18 rests primarily on a solitary line in the statement of PW-225 [Reddy], an accomplice-like witness, stating that A-17 [K Kavitha] would be contacting him. The said statement is alleged to have been made in the presence of 10 to 12 persons. Those persons were admittedly present; however, they have either not been examined or, if examined, have not been cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. The absence of such independent version raises serious concerns regarding the completeness and fairness of the investigation. Where direct witnesses are available, reliance on a tainted source cannot compensate for their non-production."

3. Approver statements unreliable, uncorroborated

The Court held that the prosecution’s case against certain accused, like Kejriwal, was built almost entirely on statements made by an approver, without any independent corroboration.

It noted that these statements (by one Raghav Magunta) amounted to inadmissible hearsay insofar as they were not supported by documentary evidence, financial trails, or testimony from independent witnesses.

The Court found that the CBI court found that the investigating agency treated the approver’s version as inherently truthful, without subjecting it to rigorous verification.

“In the considered view of this Court, the manner in which the investigating agency has proceeded, by repeatedly recording the statements of the approver without justification and over a prolonged duration, reflects an exercise of discretion that cannot be characterised as fair or reasonable. If left unchecked, such conduct risks converting the exceptional mechanism of pardon into an instrument for narrative construction rather than truth discovery, thereby causing serious prejudice to the accused and eroding confidence in the criminal justice process,” the Court said.

4. Case against Sisodia built on inferences

The CBI had alleged that Manish Sisodia, as Deputy Chief Minister holding the Excise portfolio, was the principal architect of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22 and the central controlling force behind its formulation and alleged conspiratorial implementation.

However, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any prima facie case against Sisodia.

It found no evidence placing him in conspiratorial meetings, clandestine deliberations, or alleged cash transactions and no recovery, document, or financial trail linking him to any transfer of funds.

The attempt to connect him to the money movement through another accused was based on inference, not admissible proof, the Court said. It added that the Excise Policy was formulated through consultations involving the Lieutenant Governor and the Council of Ministers, following constitutional procedures.

A selective conspiracy allegation against Sisodia alone was legally untenable, with the record reflecting institutional deliberation rather than criminal intent, Judge Singh added.

While concluding the judgment, Judge Singh quoted Martin Luther King Jr that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He also referred to the Latin maxim “fiat justitia ruat caelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)”.

“These principles serve as a constant reminder that the judicial task is neither to secure a convenient outcome nor to endorse a dominant narrative, but to uphold the rule of law. It is only by remaining anchored to these ideals that the confidence of the citizen in the administration of justice is preserved. With that assurance, and conscious of this obligation, the file is directed to be consigned to the record room,” the Court said.

CBI v Kuldeep Singh & Ors

24/02/2026

Supreme Court Orders All India Institute of Medical Sciences Jammu to Assess Health of UAPA Accused Mian Abdul Qayoom

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Director of AIIMS Jammu to constitute a special medical team to examine former High Court Bar Association, Kashmir (KCBA) President Mian Abdul Qayoom, who is facing prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N K Singh made it clear that it was not inclined to interfere with the case on merits. However, considering the medical concerns raised on behalf of the 77-year-old petitioner, the Court limited its consideration to his health condition.

During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that Qayoom has been periodically examined and is receiving appropriate treatment at the Government Medical College, Jammu. It was argued that his health condition is stable and that necessary medical care is being provided as required.

Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, appearing for Qayoom, informed the Court that the petitioner has a single kidney and a heart pacemaker, urging the Bench to consider palliative care in view of his age and medical history.

In its order, the Court clarified that it would not grant any relief on merits. For the limited purpose of assessing his medical condition, it directed AIIMS Jammu to constitute a special medical team to examine him.

The medical board has been asked to assess the need for palliative care and to indicate the facilities available in Jammu. The report must also state whether there is any necessity to transfer the petitioner to Delhi for further treatment.

The Court has directed that the medical report be filed within three weeks. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 24.

21/02/2026

Srinagar court finds guardian guilty after minor caught driving.

The Court, however, released the accused on probation.

A court in Srinagar has sentenced a guardian (accused) to three years’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on him after a minor was found driving a vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Shabir Ahmad Malik, however, released the convicted guardian under Probation of Offenders Act after he pleaded guilty.

The Court also ordered cancellation of the vehicle registration for 12 months.

"Keeping in view the mentioned facts and circumstances and the statement of the accused person wherein he pleaded guilty, the accused person is accordingly convicted for the commission of offence under Section 199-A I propose to sentence the accused to three (3) years simple imprisonment and rupees 25,000/- as fine. Further the registration of vehicle bearing registration number JK04K-0673 shall be cancelled for a period of twelve months," the judge ordered.

The accused was directed to execute a bond of ₹2 lakh rupees for keeping peace and good behavior during the probation period of two years.

In case of violation of any conditions of the bond during the probation period, the accused shall receive the proposed sentence and bond amount of rupees ₹2 lakh shall be forfeited to the government, the Court clarified.

According to the court records, after the minor was found driving the motor vehicle, a challan was filed against the guardian, who was also the registered owner of the vehicle.

The prosecution relied upon Section 199A of the Motor Vehicle Act, which holds guardian or vehicle owners liable when offences are committed by juveniles using their vehicles.

During the court proceedings, the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offence and chose not to contest the trial.

After examining the voluntariness of the plea and considering the nature of the offence, the Court proceeded to convict the accused without conducting a full trial.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Chasfeeda Shafi appeared for the UT.
Advocate Waseem Reshi appeared for the accused.
UT of J&K vs Syed Mohd Hussain

21/02/2026

Denial of passover not ground for review of judgment: Delhi High Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay case
One of the grounds agitated by the former West Bengal Chief Secretary in his review petition was the denial of pass over to junior counsel for a senior to argue the matter.

The Delhi High Court has held that seeking a passover in a case is not a matter of right [Alapan Bandyopadhyay v Union of India and Ors].

A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Jyoti Singh said that if the Court denies pass over, it cannot be a ground for review of the judgment.

“The ground that no pass over was granted cannot be a ground for review of the judgement. It is not a matter of right to seek a pass over and moreover, counsel for the Petitioner was heard at length, which is evident from a bare reading of the judgement,” the Court observed.

The Bench made the observations while rejecting a plea filed by former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay seeking review of the Court's 2022 decision. In the judgment under review, the High Court had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Chairman's decision to transfer a case filed by Bandyopadhyay from the CAT's Kolkata Bench to Delhi.

The Central government initiated proceedings against Bandyopadhyay after he allegedly arrived late to a meeting presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Cyclone Yaas in 2021.

The IAS officer challenged the move before the Kolkata Bench of CAT. However, the matter was transferred to Delhi by the CAT Chairman before any hearing could take place. On Bandyopadhyay’s challenge, the Kolkata High Court set aside the Chairman’s directive.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision, holding that the CAT Chairman’s decision could be subjected to scrutiny "only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal concerned falls."

This prompted Bandyopadhyay to move Delhi High Court, but it rejected his petition.

One of the grounds agitated by him in his review petition was that despite repeated requests by the junior counsel to pass over the matter for the senior advocate to argue, the Bench denied the request.

However, the Court found no force in the argument.

Senior Advocate AK Behera with advocates Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani, Kartikey Bhatt and Prashant Alai appeared for Bandyopadhyay.

The Central government was represented through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Nidhi Raman, as well as advocates Akash Mishra, Arnav Mittal, Suraj, Kartik Dey and Mayank Sansanwal.

21/02/2026

J&K and Ladakh High Court pulls Sub-Judge Rajouri to remind him of how to deal with the civil suit.

Petitioners who approached Hon'ble High court herein are brother and sister of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
The two petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the successors-in-interest of one Mithu, who left behind estate in the form of land in different khasra numbers in village Treru, tehsil Teryath and district Rajouri.
The two petitioners, being the son and daughter of late Mithu, have filed a civil suit for partition with respect to the land before the court of learned Sub-Judge, Rajouri.
Institution of said civil suit is dated 08.11.2023 and the same is said to be pending disposal with respect to which the petitioners have come forward with a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction unto the court of learned Sub-Judge, Rajouri for expediting the trial of the civil suit. Whether the suit of the petitioners is maintainable in its present form before the civil court is for the court below to a take call, and that call shall not be long deferred.

Therefore, this Court disposes of this petition with a direction to the learned Sub-Judge, Rajouri to bear in mind provisions of section 139 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt., 1996, which excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts in matters within the jurisdiction of the revenue officers. Partition of land covered under the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt., 1996 is a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the revenue officers in terms of Chapter-X (section 104 to 119-A) of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt., 1996.

The role of a civil court reserved under the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt., 1996 is only to the extent as envisaged under section 118(c) when disputed question of CM(M) No. 313/2025 Page 2 of 3 title with respect to the property sought to be partitioned arises.

Therefore, this Court reminds the learned Sub- Judge, Rajouri to deal with the suit in terms of its maintainability also and effect disposal as early as possible.

09. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Coram :-(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE
CM(M) No. 313/2025

20/02/2026

J&K and Ladakh High court held :-
NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Resampling and Retesting – The statutory scheme under NDPS Act does not allow routine re-testing or re-sampling of seized narcotic drug samples, and such requests must be allowed only in extremely exceptional circumstances with recorded reasons by the trial court; absence of such reasoning renders re-testing impermissible.

Mohd. Mansha & Ors. vs. Union of India, [16/02/2026] 2026 Legal Eagle 72(J&K)

20/02/2026

J&K and Ladakh High Court Pulls Up Police; Imposes Costs on SHO Nowshera, Warns SSP, Rajouri of Personal Appearance*

In a stern message of police accountability, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has imposed costs on the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Nowshera for failing to file a response in a petition challenging an FIR, and warned that the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Rajouri, shall be required to appear personally in case of further non-compliance.

The directions came in Mohd. Qasim & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors., pending as CRM(M) No. 593/2023, wherein the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 109/2023 dated May 18, 2023, registered at Police Station Nowshera under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners contend that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that criminal proceedings were initiated with mala fide intent and without proper inquiry.

In its earlier interim order dated July 19, 2023, after hearing the Submissions of Advocate Monish Chopra for the Petitioners, the Hon’ble High Court while issuing notice to the respondents, Stayed the operation of the impugned FIR, effectively halting further investigation.

When the matter was taken up on February 16, 2026, the Court was informed that despite repeated communications, the SHO, Police Station Nowshera, had failed to file a reply. Taking a serious view of the lapse, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Sekhri granted a last and final opportunity of two weeks to submit the response, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 as costs. The amount has been directed to be recovered from the concerned SHO personally and deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund.

In a strong message reinforcing hierarchical accountability, the Court further directed that in the event of continued default, the SSP, Rajouri shall remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing, fixed for April 1, 2026. The case remains pending, with the interim stay on FIR No. 109/2023 continuing until further orders.

The order underscores the High Court’s firm approach towards ensuring compliance with judicial directions and preventing procedural delays in criminal matters. By fastening costs personally on the SHO and cautioning the district police chief, the Court has reiterated that investigating authorities are duty-bound to respond promptly in matters where judicial scrutiny of criminal proceedings is underway.

18/02/2026

seeks State’s response to bail plea of Delhi Riots conspiracy accused Khalid Saifi
The Delhi High Court had denied Saifi bail in September last year.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the Delhi government's response to a bail plea filed by Khalid Saifi, an accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case [Khalid Saifi vs. State of Delhi].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale issued notice to the State on Saifi's plea and tagged it with a similar plea filed by co-accused Tasleem Ahmed.

However, the Court rejected Saifi's contention of claiming parity with co-accused Gulfisha Fatima and four others who were granted bail by the top court earlier this year.

Saifi was denied bail by a special court on April 8, 2025. The special court had opined that the allegations against Saifi were prima facie true.

He had then approached the Delhi High Court.

The High Court denied him bail on September 2, 2025, resulting in the present appeal before the top court.

Saifi was arrested by the Delhi Police in February 2020, soon after the Delhi Riots that led to death of more than 50 people. Saifi was charged with several offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), after the police alleged that he was involved in planning the Delhi Riots along with other co-conspirators like and

The police alleged that Saifi used the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the national capital as a front.

18/02/2026

Ej*******on without pe*******on of p***s is only attempt to r**e, not r**e: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging conviction in a r**e case. The victim had said that the accused kept his private part above her private part but did not pe*****te her.

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that ej*******on from p***s without pe*******on constitutes an attempt to commit r**e but does not attract the offence of r**e itself [Vasudeo Gond v State of Chhattisgarh]

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was dealing with an appeal challenging a r**e conviction in which the victim in her cross examination had stated that the accused kept his p***s above her va**na but did not pe*****te her.

"The sine qua non of the offence of r**e is pe*******on, and not ej*******on. Ej*******on without pe*******on constitutes an attempt to commit r**e and not actual r**e," the Court said.

In the case dating back to 2004, the trial court in 2005 sentenced the accused to 7 years jail for r**e, ruling that the accused had committed sexual in*******se with the victim against her will. However, the High Court has now modified the conviction to attempt to r**e.

In the verdict dated February 16, the Court noted that the medical examination revealed that the h***n was not ruptured but a tip of one finger “could be introduced in va**na, therefore, there is possibility of partial pe*******on”.

“The doctor in her evidence has also stated that the victim has complained about pain in her private part. There was redness in the v***a and having white liquid in it which clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was subjected to commission of offence of r**e by the appellant,” it added.

The Court added even slight pe*******on is sufficient for conviction under Section 376 of IPC. In order to constitute pe*******on, there must be clear and cogent evidence to prove that “some part of the virile member of the accused was within l***a of the pudendum of the woman,” it further said..

However, the Court also said that indecent assault is often magnified into attempts at r**e. Taking into account the victim’s statement in the present case, the Court said,

“When the evidence of the prosecutrix is considered in the proper perspective, it is clear that the commission of actual r**e has not been established as the victim’s own statement creates doubt as in one stage of her evidence, she has stated that the appellant has pe*****ted his private part in her va**na and in her further evidence, she has stated that the appellant had kept his private part above her va**na for about 10 minutes. She again affirmed that the appellant has kept his private part above her private part but he has not pe*****ted it.”

On medical evidence, the Court opined that it was not sufficient prove that r**e was committed since the h***n of the victim was intact and there was no definite signs of r**e.

“This [victim’s] statement is corroborated with the evidence of doctor (PW-11) has stated that h***n was not raptured and no definite opinion can be given with respect to commission of offence of r**e and also stated about partial pe*******on. In the cross-examination, she has reiterated that there is possibility of partial pe*******on. However, this evidence is sufficient to prove that attempt to commit r**e was made out but not r**e.”

Thus, the Court concluded that an offence of attempt to commit r**e was made out against the accused as there was a partial pe*******on.

“As such, the act of the appellant forcibly taking the victim inside the room, closing the doors with motive of carnal knowledge, was the end of ‘preparation’ to commit the offence. His following action of stripping the victim and himself, and rubbing his ge****ls against those of the victims and partial pe*******on which was indeed an endeavour to commit sexual in*******se. These acts of the appellant were deliberately done with manifest intention to commit the offence aimed and were reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offence. Since the acts of the appellant exceeded the stage beyond preparation and preceded the actual partial pe*******on but without ej*******on, the appellant is guilty of attempting to commit r**e as punishable within the ambit and scope of Section 511 read with Section 375 IPC as it stood in force at the time of occurrence,” it said.

Consequently, the Court modified the convict’s sentence to three years and six months. He was asked to surrender within two months to serve the remaining jail sentence.

“It has been reported that the appellant remained in jail during trial from 03.06.2004 to 06.04.2005 i.e. 10 months 4 days and he has been released on bail by this Court on 06.07.2005, therefore, he remained in jail for 3 months thus, he remained in jail for about 1 year and 1 month & 4 days. The appellant is entitled to get set off as per Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 468 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023."

Advocates Rahil Arun Kochar and Leekesh Kumar represented the convict.

Advocate Manish Kashyap appeared for the State.

18/02/2026

Allahabad HC issues contempt notice to Bareilly officials for stopping namaz on private property:----

The Allahabad High Court has issued
contempt notices to Bareilly District Magistrate Avinash Singh and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya for allegedly preventing members of the Muslim community from offering namaz inside a vacant house in Mohammadganj village, The Times of India reported on Tuesday.

On Thursday, a bench of Justices Atul Shreedharan and Siddharth Nandan initiated proceedings against the officials under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act. It also stayed coercive action against petitioner Tarik Khan

The court has sought responses from the district magistrate and the police officer on March 11, when it will next hear the matter.

The dispute relates to an incident on January 16, when a group of Muslims were stopped while offering prayers inside a vacant house owned by a woman, Reshma Khan. Several Muslim men were detained and four persons had been arrested for allegedly disturbing public order by gathering there, and were later released.

Reshma Khan said that she had permitted the gathering and that the prayers had been held within the premises.

The petitioners had approached the High Court, citing its January 27 ruling in a separate matter that no permission is needed for holding a religious prayer meeting on private property in Uttar Pradesh as long as the activity was within its premises.

16/02/2026

Case Title:- & Anr. v. M/S Murali Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Hearing Date: February 16, 2026

Cheque Bounce Case: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Rajpal Yadav After ₹1.5 Cr Payment.
The Delhi High Court directed Rajpal Yadav to remain present before it on March 18, either physically or through video conferencing if professional commitments prevented his appearance

Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav gets interim relief from Delhi High Court in cheque bounce case after depositing ₹1.5 crore

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted interim suspension of sentence to Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav in a cheque bounce case, after noting compliance with its direction to deposit the remaining ₹1.5 crore payable to the complainant.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing Yadav’s plea seeking interim bail, primarily to attend his niece’s wedding scheduled on February 19 in Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

During the hearing, in the pre-lunch session, the counsel for Yadav informed the Court that the actor was unconditionally willing to deposit the amount through a fixed deposit receipt.

The Bench, however, made it clear that the payment had to be made through a demand draft.

The Court recorded that ₹25 lakh had already been deposited earlier in favour of the respondent, and another ₹75 lakh had been submitted previously. The Bench noted that the remaining amount of ₹1.5 crore was yet to be paid and granted time until 3 pm the same day for compliance, making it clear that failure would result in the matter being taken up again the next morning.

Later in the day, counsel for the respondent informed the Court that ₹1.5 crore had been credited to the complainant’s bank account by Yadav. Taking note of the submission, the High Court granted interim suspension of sentence to the actor till March 18, the next date of hearing.

The Court directed Yadav to remain present before it on March 18, either physically or through video conferencing if professional commitments prevented his appearance. It further imposed standard bail conditions, directing the actor to surrender his passport if not already done, refrain from leaving the country without prior permission, and furnish a bail bond of ₹1 lakh along with a surety of the same amount.

With these directions, the High Court granted Yadav interim relief in the cheque bounce case, subject to strict compliance with the conditions imposed.

Notably, on February 12, the high court had come down sharply on Bollywood actor, observing that his incarceration was a direct consequence of repeatedly failing to honour commitments made to the court to pay dues to the complainant. “You have gone to jail because you didn’t honour your own commitment,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had remarked while hearing Yadav’s bail application, which was moved on the ground of a wedding in his family.

It had noted that on at least two dozen occasions, Yadav had made statements before the court assuring that he would clear the outstanding amount, but had failed to follow through each time. Justice Sharma had pointed out that both Yadav and his counsel had earlier assured the court that the payment would be made directly to the complainant, whereas the present stand was that the money would now be deposited before the court. “Make up your mind,” Justice Sharma had told Yadav’s counsel, indicating the court’s displeasure at the shifting stands taken by the actor’s legal team.

Rajpal Yadav is currently lodged in judicial custody following his conviction in a cheque dishonour case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. After today's order he will be released on interim bail till March 18.

The case relates to Yadav’s failure to repay a loan taken from the complainant, despite multiple undertakings given before the trial court and appellate forums. After continued non-compliance with court directions and failure to honour settlement assurances, Yadav was taken into custody to serve his sentence. Yadav surrendered to authorities on January 12, 2026, after a non-bailable warrant was issued against him in connection with a cheque bounce and recovery case. Following his surrender, Yadav was taken into judicial custody, where he remains as the High Court hears his bail application.

The Legal World

27/02/2026

24/02/2026

21/02/2026

21/02/2026

21/02/2026

20/02/2026

20/02/2026

18/02/2026

18/02/2026

18/02/2026

16/02/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category