LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 168Decided 24 Feb 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2023
M.R. Shah · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

The appellant, a civil engineer, shared on Facebook on 5 April 2020 a picture mocking a then sitting Maharashtra Cabinet Minister. He alleged that late that night four policemen took him from his home to the Minister's bungalow, where on the Minister's instructions he was beaten and made to apologise and delete the post. An FIR was first registered against him (on a complaint by an associate of the Minister), and his own FIR against the police and the Minister's men omitted the Minister's name. He moved the Bombay High Court seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI, alleging a sham probe. Only under the High Court's monitoring was real investigation done, and the Minister was added as an accused nearly two years after the incident. The High Court eventually refused both a CBI transfer and any further investigation, reasoning that once a chargesheet is filed and charges framed, the trial has begun and re-investigation is not permissible.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It agreed with the High Court that no case for transfer to the CBI was made out, as that extraordinary power is used only in rare and exceptional cases and the appellant did not seriously press it. However, relying on Bharati Tamang and Dharam Pal, it held that constitutional courts can order further, fresh or de novo investigation even after a chargesheet is filed and charges are framed, because a fair trial is impossible without a fair investigation; accepting the contrary view would let an accused rush the framing of charges to block any proper probe. The Court noted the investigation had been perfunctory while the accused was a sitting Minister, key evidence such as call records and CCTV was collected only after the High Court intervened, and the State itself now conceded in its affidavit that further investigation was needed. It rejected the argument that the State's changed stand after a change of government was irrelevant, observing that the earlier stand was taken while the accused Minister held power. It directed the State police to carry out further investigation into FIR No. 120/2020, preferably within three months, and file a supplementary report before the trial court.

Lesson Learnt

A victim has a fundamental right to a fair investigation, and the filing of a chargesheet or framing of charges does not close the door: the High Court or Supreme Court can still order further investigation if the original probe was tainted or incomplete. At the same time, transferring a case to the CBI remains exceptional; the ordinary remedy is a proper investigation by the existing agency, not a change of agency on demand.

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