LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Interlocutory Application · Neutral citation not assigned (Interlocutory Application No. 13 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012)Decided 23 Jan 2017
Interlocutory Application No. 13 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012
Justice Madan B. Lokur · Justice Kurian Joseph · Justice A.K. Sikri

Background

In the long-running coal block allocation ("Coalgate") PIL, the Supreme Court had earlier found it "completely inappropriate" that the then CBI Director, Mr. Ranjit Sinha, had met persons accused in the coal block allocation cases without the investigating officer or team present. Concerned that such meetings may have influenced the investigation and the charge-sheets or closure reports filed, the Court asked a retired IPS officer, Mr. M.L. Sharma, to head a committee and report on the allegations. After receiving that report and hearing arguments, including from Mr. Sinha's counsel, the Court had to decide the petitioners' specific prayer that a Special Investigating Team (SIT) be appointed to probe the alleged abuse of authority.

Decision Breakdown

Having examined Mr. Sharma's report, the Court held that a prima facie case had "definitely been made out" for an investigation into abuse of authority by Mr. Ranjit Sinha aimed at scuttling CBI enquiries, investigations and prosecutions in the coal block cases. Rather than appointing an entirely outside body, the Court decided, since there had since been a change in CBI leadership, to repose its faith in the CBI itself and directed the Director, CBI to constitute a Special Investigating Team (with two CBI officers of his choice, legal assistance from a court-nominated special public prosecutor, and the Chief Vigilance Commissioner kept in the loop) to carry out the investigation. The Court was careful to clarify it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the underlying allegations or the contents of the Sharma report beyond this prima facie finding, and directed that the CBI report back on the composition of the team and the time needed, stressing the matter's considerable public importance.

Lesson Learnt

Even the head of a premier investigating agency is not above scrutiny: if a court finds a prima facie case that an investigating officer's own conduct may have compromised an investigation, it can direct a fresh, specially constituted probe into that officer's conduct, while still leaving the question of guilt or innocence to be determined only after that investigation is completed.

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