LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Bikramjit Singh v. The State of Punjab

Criminal Appeal · 2020 INSC 589Decided 12 Oct 2020
Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2020
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman · Justice Navin Sinha · Justice K.M. Joseph

Background

The appellant was arrested in 2018 in connection with a grenade attack at a religious gathering in Amritsar that killed three people and injured many, and was charged under the IPC, the Arms Act, the Explosives Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). After 90 days in custody without a charge sheet being filed, he applied for "default bail," but a local Magistrate (rather than the Special Court set up under the National Investigation Agency Act) had already extended the investigation period to 180 days. This extension order was later set aside as being passed without jurisdiction, but by the time of the appeal, a charge sheet had since been filed and bail was denied.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that for offences under the UAPA, only the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act, not an ordinary Magistrate, has the power to extend the 90-day investigation period to 180 days. Since the Magistrate's extension order was itself invalid, the appellant's right to statutory "default bail" had already crystallized once the 90 days lapsed and he had applied for bail, and this right is not erased merely because a charge sheet was filed afterwards. The Court traced this principle through a long line of its own precedents (including the Constitution Bench ruling in Sanjay Dutt) and held that default bail is part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, not a mere technicality. It accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment and ordered the appellant's release on default bail, while clarifying this does not bar his re-arrest on proper grounds.

Lesson Learnt

An accused person's right to "default bail" when investigators miss their deadline is a fundamental right, and it survives even administrative or jurisdictional errors by the courts below: a technically defective order against the accused cannot be used to deny them a liberty they had already legally earned.

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