#interview with the vampire#iwtv#amc tvl#jacob anderson#sam reid
seen from Australia
seen from Australia
seen from Estonia
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from Spain
seen from Canada
seen from Lithuania
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Poland
seen from Belarus
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
Supapo Soundsystem - Ruído Térmico
Energia, Flutuações e Ruídos. Complexidade não elimina essas condições; ao contrário, amplia. Em certo sentido, todo sistema complexo abriga dentro de si as possibilidades de sua própria transformação ou colapso. Lançado - June 4, 2026 Cat no. SPP01-BNSS-020 – All rights reserved. Capa - cargocollective.com/studiocalcio
Forensic Ballistics in India's New Criminal Law When science enters the courtroom, evidence speaks louder than assumptions. 🔬⚖️ From bullet striations to digital ballistic databases, forensic ballistics is transforming criminal investigations in India. With the implementation of BNSS, scientific evidence is no longer optional for serious crimes—it is becoming central to justice delivery. Explore how firearm analysis, crime scene reconstruction, and mandatory forensic investigations are reshaping the future of criminal procedure. #ForensicScience #ForensicBallistics #BNSS #CriminalLaw #CrimeSceneInvestigation #ForensicExpert #Ballistics #JusticeSystem #ForensicField #LawAndScience #CrimeInvestigation
View On WordPress
Woman Can’t Get Bail Just Because She Is Female: Rajasthan High Court In Murder & 480 BNSS Case
Could a woman accused in a murder case get bail only because she is female? Rajasthan High Court has now made its stand clear.
JAIPUR: Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu of the Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a 63-year-old mother-in-law accused in the alleged murder of her daughter-in-law. The Court observed that merely because an accused is a woman, it does not automatically entitle her to bail when serious allegations like murder are involved.
The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Padukala, District Nagaur. The accused woman had approached the High Court after her bail plea was earlier rejected by the Sessions Judge, Merta. The case involved offences under Sections 103(1), 331(7), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, the deceased woman was allegedly assaulted and strangulated by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. It was also alleged that electric shocks were given to the victim after strangulation to ensure her death.
Read Also: Can Husband Stop Maintenance If Wife Is Working? Indian Law, Supreme Court Judgments & The Reality Men Must Know
The counsel for the accused argued that there were only “omnibus allegation against all accused” and claimed that the mother-in-law’s role was limited to administering electric shocks.
It was argued that the postmortem doctor had stated the injuries did not resemble electric shock injuries and that there was “no other evidence” linking her to strangulation or assault. The accused also sought bail under Section 480 BNSS on the ground that she was a woman.
However, the complainant opposed the plea and argued that all three accused were specifically involved in strangulating the deceased. After examining the charge-sheet and postmortem report, the High Court noted that the cause of death was “Asphyxia” and refused to accept the argument that the accused had only a limited role in the incident.
Read Also: Why India Needs Gender-Neutral Domestic Violence Laws? The Legal Gap Nobody Wants To Discuss
The Court observed:
“Merely because the doctor has stated that the injuries do not resemble those caused by electric shock does not absolve the petitioner of her involvement in the incident.”
The High Court further noted that the recovery of wire and broken bangles had been made from the accused woman, which created a reasonable ground to believe her involvement in the offence. The Court observed that the allegations involved a “serious offence of murder” and therefore bail could not be granted casually.
Read Also: How To Remove Name From 498A FIR: An Innocent Husband’s Legal Guide
While rejecting the argument that the accused should get bail merely because she was a woman, the Court made an important observation. It stated:
“Merely because the petitioner is a lady, she cannot be released on bail giving her the benefit of provisos under Section 480 BNSS specially when the offences involved are serious in nature.”
The defence had also argued parity with another co-accused who had already been granted bail. However, the High Court clarified that the co-accused was granted bail because he was a juvenile and therefore no benefit of parity could be extended to the present accused.
The Court further observed that granting bail at such a stage could impact the pending trial and appreciation of oral evidence of witnesses. Considering the seriousness of allegations and stage of trial, the Rajasthan High Court finally dismissed the bail application filed by the accused mother-in-law.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
Case Details
Case Title: Chhoti Devi @ Chhotudi vs State Of Rajasthan
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9213/2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:20600
Date of Order: 01/05/2026
Counsels:
For Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ramavtar
Key Takeaways
Serious criminal allegations should not become weak merely because the accused is a woman. Equality before law must work both ways.
Courts are slowly reinforcing that sympathy cannot override gravity of allegations in offences involving d*ath and domestic violence.
Medical contradictions alone do not automatically erase criminal liability when surrounding evidence still points toward involvement.
Once trial begins and witnesses start speaking, courts are becoming more cautious in granting bail in grave offences.
The growing misuse of “gender-based sympathy” in criminal litigation is finally being tested against principles of equal accountability.
Click Here to Download Judgment – Chhoti Devi @ Chhotudi vs State Of Rajasthan
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.
Visit: ShoneeKapoor.com Contact No.: +91–8010850498 Email ID: [email protected]
Recall of Order under BNSS
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, criminal courts cannot generally recall or review their final judgments, except to correct clerical errors under Section 403. However, procedural orders (like summoning or non-bailable warrants) can be recalled if passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice, and interim orders like ex-parte maintenance can be…
View On WordPress
Corpo Manifesto
Preservação é manter intocado ou manter circulando? Estampa é escudo ou alvo?
CDS: OLHO, Os Centros Da Consciência. (2024) 🪄10 Unidades/ Edições únicas.
Anticipatory Bail under BNSS Explained
A detailed legal guide on how anticipatory bail works in India under the new BNSS law. Learn eligibility, procedure, and key court considerations.
🔗
Detailed explanation of anticipatory bail under BNSS, eligibility, court procedure, and legal rights in India.
law #legal #bnss #anticipatorybail #india #pavanlawchambers
498A Case on NRI Husband in Canada? Legal Truth
Can a Section 498A IPC case be filed if the husband lives in Canada? Updated 2026 legal guide for NRI husbands on Indian jurisdiction, Section 85 BNS, arrest risk, sanction, and real court rulings.
NEW DELHI: Yes. A criminal complaint for matrimonial cruelty can still be filed in India even if the husband is living in Canada. But the real legal answer is more nuanced than the panic-driven version most NRI husbands hear.
After 1 July 2024, new cases are governed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where the old Section 498A IPC has effectively been replaced by Section 85 BNS read with Section 86 BNS. The offence still concerns cruelty by the husband or his relatives, and the punishment can extend to three years with fine.
For men in Canada, the first mistake is assuming distance creates immunity. It does not. Indian criminal law can still operate if jurisdiction exists in India, if part of the cause of action arose in India, or if the statute permits prosecution for conduct beyond India.
The second mistake is assuming that once a complaint is filed, everything the police do is automatically lawful. That is also wrong. Jurisdiction, procedure, sanction, and evidence still matter.
SO CAN A WIFE IN INDIA FILE A CASE IF THE HUSBAND IS IN CANADA?
Yes, she can file a complaint in India. The Ministry of External Affairs has long stated that a wife may initiate criminal proceedings against her husband under the criminal law process in India.
That is the filing side.
But filing a complaint is not the same thing as proving that every Indian police station or every court in India automatically has jurisdiction over every fact alleged against a man living abroad.
That distinction is where most NRI litigation turns.
WHEN INDIAN LAW CAN STILL REACH A HUSBAND LIVING IN CANADA
Under the BNS, a citizen of India can be tried for an offence committed beyond India as if it had been committed within India. Under BNSS Section 208, where an offence is committed outside India by an Indian citizen, he may be dealt with in India as if the offence had been committed at any place within India where he is found or where the offence is registered in India. But BNSS Section 208 also adds a critical safeguard: such an offence cannot be inquired into or tried in India without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
This means the legal answer changes depending on the facts:
If the husband is an Indian citizen living in Canada, the extra-territorial route is legally clearer.
If part of the alleged cruelty, dowry demand, retention of property, threats, or consequences took place in India, Indian territorial jurisdiction may also arise independently.
If the husband is not an Indian citizen and all alleged acts happened wholly outside India, the jurisdiction question becomes much more fact-sensitive and cannot be assumed merely because the marriage has an Indian connection.
See also Adultery in India
JURISDICTION IS NOT A SLOGAN. IT IS A LEGAL TEST.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly treated criminal jurisdiction as a question of where the offence, or part of its cause, arose. In the 2021 order connected with Rupali Devi, the Court reiterated that criminal cases ordinarily ought to be tried where the cause of action accrued, and while referring to Y. Abraham Ajith, it emphasized that the issue is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.
This matters enormously in Canada-based marriages.
If the marriage took place in India, the spouses lived together in India even briefly, dowry articles were entrusted in India, threats or demands were communicated into India, or the wife returned and continued to suffer the legal consequences of the alleged cruelty in India, the wife will often argue that Indian courts have jurisdiction.
The husband, on the other hand, may still challenge jurisdiction if the allegations are vague, omnibus, or disconnected from the police station where the FIR is lodged.
THE WIFE LIVING IN INDIA CAN STILL STRENGTHEN INDIAN JURISDICTION
In Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after being driven away can, in appropriate cases, have jurisdiction because the consequences of cruelty continue there. That principle has changed matrimonial jurisdiction battles in India.
So when a wife returns from Canada to India and says the cruelty forced her back, the jurisdiction argument in India becomes significantly stronger than many NRI husbands expect.
WHAT ABOUT ONLINE CALLS, MESSAGES, EMAILS AND WHATSAPP DEMANDS?
BNSS Section 202 specifically deals with offences committed through electronic communications, letters and messages, and provides that certain offences involving deception can be tried where such communications were sent or received.
While matrimonial cruelty cases are fact-specific and not every message automatically creates jurisdiction, digital communications now matter far more than many overseas husbands realise.
In an NRI marriage, a demand, threat, or harassment pattern carried through calls, chats, and emails can become a major jurisdictional and evidentiary battleground.
See also Why not to file the restitution of conjugal rights?
DOES LIVING IN CANADA PREVENT ARREST OR COERCIVE ACTION?
No. Living in Canada does not make a man untouchable. But it also does not permit automatic arrest merely because an FIR under 498A or Section 85 BNS exists. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court gave one of the most important safeguards in matrimonial criminal law and directed police “not to automatically arrest” in 498A cases.
The Court was responding to the documented misuse and over-arrest problem in such prosecutions.
So the accurate position is this: a husband in Canada may face summons, investigation, warrant attempts, LOC requests, and pressure tactics, but arrest is still supposed to follow statutory safeguards, not police reflex.
CAN INDIA SIMPLY EXTRADITE A HUSBAND FROM CANADA IN A 498A CASE?
This is where many people spread half-truths.
The MEA itself has recorded that several countries argue that cases filed under Section 498A IPC do not satisfy the requirement of dual criminality for extradition. That does not mean there is never any international pressure.
It means that “498A case filed in India” does not automatically equal “he will be extradited from Canada tomorrow.” That fear is often exaggerated to force panic settlements.
At the same time, the practical risks should not be trivialised. MEA materials and parliamentary answers show that in NRI matrimonial disputes, Indian authorities may assist with service of summons, Look Out Circular processes, and passport-related steps, depending on the case and orders obtained.
A REAL DELHI CASE MANY NRI HUSBANDS SHOULD UNDERSTAND
Your own website already reflects a useful Canada-linked pattern from Poonam Singh v. State & Ors., where the husband was residing in Canada, had come to India for the marriage, stayed only a few days, and the proceedings were scrutinised closely.
The judgment is often cited in arguments that courts should not mechanically proceed on broad accusations when the surrounding documents and actual facts show a different picture.
That is the practical lesson for Canada-based husbands: jurisdiction may exist, but weak, exaggerated, or generic allegations are still challengeable.
THE QUESTION MOST CANADIAN CLIENTS ACTUALLY NEED ANSWERED
The real question is not: “Can she file?”
The real question is: “If she files in India while I am in Canada, what part of the case is legally sustainable, what is procedurally defective, and what must be attacked immediately?”
That requires examining:
citizenship status,
where the parties last cohabited,
where marriage ceremonies occurred,
where dowry articles were allegedly entrusted,
where messages and threats were sent and received,
whether there was any actual matrimonial home in the FIR jurisdiction,
whether the allegations are specific or merely copied against every relative,
and whether the case depends on extra-territorial prosecution requiring Central Government sanction.
See also Missus Can Do No Wrong – Uxorem Non Potest Peccare
MY CLEAR LEGAL ANSWER
Yes, a 498A-type matrimonial cruelty case can be filed in India even if the husband lives in Canada. But “filed” is not the same as “legally bulletproof.”
If part of the matrimonial cause of action arose in India, or the wife returned to India alleging continuing consequences of cruelty, Indian courts may assume jurisdiction.
If the prosecution is based on acts committed outside India by an Indian citizen, the extra-territorial route exists, but BNSS Section 208 requires previous sanction of the Central Government before inquiry or trial. And even then, arrest cannot be automatic merely because matrimonial allegations have been typed into an FIR.
For Canada-based husbands, delay is usually the worst strategy. The first hours and first documents matter more than later outrage. Once the wrong FIR narrative hardens into process, even a weak case becomes expensive to unwind.
CONCLUSION
If you are an Indian husband living in Canada and your wife has threatened a 498A complaint, already filed one, or started using police pressure in India while you remain abroad, the issue is no longer merely matrimonial. It is now jurisdictional, procedural, strategic, and international.
The right response is not panic. It is immediate record preservation, jurisdiction mapping, anticipatory defence planning, and a facts-first legal strategy in India before process turns into punishment.
FAQs
1. Can a wife in India file 498A if the husband is in Canada?
Yes. Residence in Canada does not by itself block filing in India. Jurisdiction still depends on the facts.
2. Is Section 498A IPC still the current law in 2026?
For new offences after 1 July 2024, the current equivalent is Section 85 BNS read with Section 86 BNS.
3. Can India try an Indian citizen for acts done in Canada?
Yes, but where the offence is wholly outside India, BNSS Section 208 requires previous sanction of the Central Government before inquiry or trial.
4. Can police arrest immediately in every 498A-type case?
No. The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar said police should not automatically arrest in such cases.
5. Will Canada automatically extradite a husband in a 498A case?
No. MEA has acknowledged that several countries treat 498A as failing the dual-criminality requirement for extradition.
