LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Chander Prakash Wadhwa vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Diary No. · 2022 INSC 1138Decided 22 Oct 2022
Diary No. 33350 of 2022
Bela M. Trivedi

Background

The petitioner was arrested in two cases: one by the Delhi Economic Offences Wing and another by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He had earlier been granted interim bail in the first case on medical grounds, but was arrested in the second (PMLA) case during that period and has remained in custody since; his bail application in the PMLA case was rejected by the trial court on 27.05.2022. Separately, in March 2022 the Supreme Court itself had rejected an interim bail plea on medical grounds after a four-doctor Medical Board from King George's Medical University found his condition stable. The petitioner now approached the Supreme Court again with fresh medical certificates (indicating significant arterial blockages, heart-related complaints, and trigeminal neuralgia) obtained after the trial court's May 2022 rejection.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that the new medical report/certificates relied upon postdated the trial court's rejection of bail, meaning the trial court never had the opportunity to consider this updated medical evidence. Rather than deciding the bail question itself, the Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with directions: the petitioner was permitted either to file a fresh bail application before the trial court based on the new medical grounds, or to challenge the 27.05.2022 order on both merits and the medical condition; whichever court examines this may, if necessary, have the petitioner examined by a four-member Medical Board as was done earlier. The petition was disposed of on these terms without the Supreme Court itself granting or denying bail.

Lesson Learnt

Where fresh medical evidence emerges after a lower court's bail order, the Supreme Court will often decline to decide bail itself and instead direct the petitioner back to the trial court (or appellate forum) to have that specific new evidence properly considered on its own merits, rather than substituting its own assessment for a forum that never saw the material.

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