Advocate Vishal Gautam

Advocate Vishal Gautam Thanks.

( ex injuria jus non oritur )

I am Advocate Vishal Gautam, practicing as a Divorce Lawyer & Criminal Lawyer in greater noida With years of experience in family law and criminal defense, I help clients navigate complex legal challenges.

30/08/2026

India’s leave policy is evolving under the New Labour Codes, aiming for a more uniform and employee-friendly framework. Understanding your rights regarding earned leave, sick leave, maternity benefits, and other statutory leaves is essential for every employee and employer.

28/08/2026

The Supreme Court has issued important directions to ensure speedy trials in dowry death and cruelty cases. The judgment emphasizes priority treatment of such cases, timely framing of charges, day-to-day evidence, fewer adjournments, witness management, and regular monitoring of long-pending matters. The objective is clear: justice must be timely, fair and effective.





23/08/2026

Legal Update | Supreme Court

In Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., the Supreme Court restored ₹60,000 per month as interim maintenance for two minor daughters. The Court held that the mother’s ₹1.5 lakh salary, by itself, cannot reduce the father’s maintenance liability. The welfare and needs of the children remain paramount.







— Advocate Vishal Gautam
Surajpur District & Sessions Court, Greater Noida
📞 8745008585

The Supreme Court clarified that rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC application is not a decision on merits. Therefore, ...
22/08/2026

The Supreme Court clarified that rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC application is not a decision on merits. Therefore, a fresh FIR can be registered when new information discloses a cognizable offence. This ruling reinforces that procedural rejection cannot defeat the right to seek justice.



21/08/2026

The Supreme Court clarified that rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC application is not a decision on merits. Therefore, a fresh FIR can be registered when new information discloses a cognizable offence. This ruling reinforces that procedural rejection cannot defeat the right to seek justice.

FIR QUASHING v/s DISCHARGE Law Update — FIR Quashing vs. DischargeThe   in Mukesh & Ors. v. State of   (SLP (Crl.) No. 1...
16/08/2026

FIR QUASHING v/s DISCHARGE

Law Update — FIR Quashing vs. Discharge

The in Mukesh & Ors. v. State of (SLP (Crl.) No. 12354/2024), decided on 29 November 2024, clarified the distinction between and discharge. Quashing under Section #482 CrPC provides a wider remedy where external material demonstrates abuse of the process of law or exceptional circumstances. Discharge, on the other hand, primarily examines the material contained in the to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused. Therefore, the appropriate remedy depends upon the nature of the case, the available evidence, and the stage of proceedings. This distinction can be crucial while deciding the correct strategy in criminal proceedings.

⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️

Advocate Vishal Gautam










Supreme Court's historic decision on   of the   Act; "Now every search will not be protected by  !"The   has clarified t...
25/07/2026

Supreme Court's historic decision on of the Act; "Now every search will not be protected by !"

The has clarified that the power to search in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, applies only to personal searches. Section 50 will not apply if narcotics are recovered from a bag, container, suitcase, bottle, or other belongings carried by the accused.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered this important judgment in the case of vs State of Madhya Pradesh.

Key observations of the court:

The protection of is limited to personal searches only.

Section 50 does not apply to the search of a bag, water bottle, container, or other item carried by the accused.

Not taking samples in the presence of a magistrate under is merely a procedural irregularity. The accused cannot be acquitted on this basis alone unless it is proven that the drug caused actual harm (prejudice).

In this case, the accused was carrying smack concealed in a water bottle, so the court upheld his conviction. However, the sentence was reduced from 14 years to the minimum of 10 years under Section 21 of the .













POLICE LATHI CHARGE 🚓🚓                 Advocate Vishal gautam
23/07/2026

POLICE LATHI CHARGE 🚓🚓









Advocate Vishal gautam





इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय देते हुए कहा कि जमानत आवेदन की सुनवाई के दौरान सरकारी अधिवक्ता को समय पर आवश...
13/07/2026

इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय देते हुए कहा कि जमानत आवेदन की सुनवाई के दौरान सरकारी अधिवक्ता को समय पर आवश्यक जानकारी एवं निर्देश उपलब्ध न कराना गंभीर प्रशासनिक लापरवाही है, जिसके कारण किसी अभियुक्त की व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता (Personal Liberty) बाधित नहीं की जा सकती।

न्यायालय ने कहा कि जांच अधिकारी (Investigating Officer) की लापरवाही के कारण यदि जमानत आवेदन अनावश्यक रूप से लंबित रहता है और अभियुक्त को बिना कारण अधिक समय तक जेल में रहना पड़ता है, तो यह न्याय प्रशासन (Administration of Justice) में हस्तक्षेप के समान है

न्यायालय

मामला: Vinod Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh

वाद संख्या: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.

32994 of 2025












निर्णय दिनांक: 25 नवम्बर 2025

न्यायालयः इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय

पीठः माननीय न्यायमूर्ति अरुण कुमार सिंह देशवाल

Address

13
Greater Noida
201306

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Advocate Vishal Gautam posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Advocate Vishal Gautam:

Shortcuts

Share

Category