LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 110Decided 28 Jan 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Abhay S. Oka

Background

The appellant was externed (ordered to leave and stay out of) his home district in Maharashtra for two years by a police officer acting under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, based on five criminal cases registered against him (dating from 2013 to 2020, at various stages from acquittal to pending investigation) and confidential statements from two anonymous witnesses. The appellant argued the real motive was a family dispute involving a local MLA (his maternal uncle) trying to implicate him in a false case, and that the same set of facts had earlier failed to justify even a 15-day preventive detention by a magistrate. His appeal and High Court writ petition against the externment order were both dismissed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that externment is an extraordinary measure that infringes the fundamental right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, and must therefore be used sparingly and only where the law's specific conditions are genuinely satisfied, with objective material on record showing application of mind. It found the externment order was passed casually: it ignored the magistrate's earlier order releasing the appellant on the very same set of allegations, relied on three "stale" offences from 2013 and 2018 with no live connection to the 2020 externment decision, and failed to show that witnesses were actually unwilling to testify: a specific requirement under the relevant clause. The order also failed to explain why the maximum permissible externment period of two years was necessary, as the law requires. Both the externment order and the High Court judgment upholding it were quashed.

Lesson Learnt

An order restricting a citizen's fundamental right to move freely, such as police externment, must be based on genuine, current, and specifically-reasoned grounds, not stale allegations or a mechanical checklist; the harsher the restriction (such as imposing the maximum permissible duration), the more clearly the authority must show it actually applied its mind to that specific choice.

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