LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Aminuddin vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 1058Decided 30 Sept 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2022
Dinesh Maheshwari · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

This appeal is linked to the appellant's other appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2022, decided a week earlier) arising from the same murder of his son Danish, in which seven persons allegedly attacked the victim with knives, causing eight ante-mortem injuries. Two more co-accused, granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on 26.08.2020 and 17.06.2020 respectively, again received bail purely on the ground of "parity" with other co-accused who had themselves already had their bail orders disapproved by the Supreme Court. The father challenged both bail orders together in these connected appeals.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the same reasoning it had applied in the appellant's earlier, related appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2022, decided 23.09.2022) and in an even earlier order concerning co-accused Fahim (15.03.2021) applied equally here: since the High Court's bail grants rested solely on parity with co-accused whose bail had already been disapproved by the Supreme Court, these orders could not stand either. The Court rejected arguments based on the length of time the respondents had already spent in custody, the stringent bail conditions imposed, or delay in filing the appeals, holding none of these provided a valid distinction. It set aside both impugned bail orders and directed the two respondents to surrender forthwith, while leaving it open to them to apply afresh for bail at an appropriate stage and clarifying that it had not pronounced on the merits of the underlying case.

Lesson Learnt

When bail is granted to multiple co-accused solely by chain-reaction "parity" with each other rather than on independent facts, an appellate court's disapproval of the first such order in the chain can unravel bail granted to every co-accused who relied on it.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case