The Calcutta High Court sought a response from the West Bengal government on TMC’s plea challenging the police search at Abhishek Banerjee’s residence. The Court ordered preservation of CCTV footage and police recordings, while refusing interim relief until the State files its reply.
The Allahabad High Court issued detailed guidelines governing preventive detention under the BNSS and CrPC, holding that detainees should ordinarily be released on personal bonds without sureties. The Court also introduced compensation for unlawful detention beyond 24 hours, strengthening accountability and protection of personal liberty.
The Allahabad High Court termed the situation “shocking” after records showed that 4,847 people were placed in preventive detention in Prayagraj and Ghaziabad over two years. The Court expressed concern that many detainees remained jailed for days or weeks despite statutory safeguards under the law.
A District Consumer Commission directed FirstCry to compensate a customer after finding that it arbitrarily cancelled an order, withheld payment, and labelled the customer a “fraud user” without inquiry or due process. The Commission ordered refund with interest and compensation for mental distress.
The Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal government to file a report on allegations that extortion accused were paraded with ropes tied around their waists after their arrest. The Court stressed that police must act strictly according to law and ensure that no person is subjected to humiliation.
The Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two men, holding that merely questioning the legality of police action cannot constitute a criminal offence unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly established. The Court found the accusations vague and legally insufficient.
The Karnataka High Court held that the Enforcement Directorate must strictly comply with statutory requirements before provisionally attaching property under the PMLA, emphasizing that mere reproduction of legal provisions cannot replace genuine application of mind or justify attachment without specific material supporting such action.