LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Devesh Chourasia vs The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 88Decided 24 Jan 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2022
Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Dinesh Maheshwari

Background

The appellant was detained under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 by an order dated 11 May 2021 in connection with an FIR alleging supply/distribution of fake Remdesivir injections to COVID-19 patients at a hospital in Jabalpur; his detention was later extended by three months. His writ petition challenging the detention was heard together with, and rejected along with, a companion petition filed by the hospital's owner, Sarabjit Singh Mokha, both by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 24 August 2021. In the companion case, the Supreme Court had already set aside the detention order and its extensions on 29 October 2021, since the facts and grounds of detention in both cases were found to be substantially similar.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that the grounds of detention against the appellant were virtually identical to those against Sarabjit Singh Mokha, whose detention order was already quashed for (i) delay in the government considering the detenu's representation, depriving him of his right under Section 8(1) of the NSA to expeditious consideration, and (ii) failure of the Central and State Governments to communicate rejection of the representation in a time-bound manner. Neither the State (through the AAG) nor the Union (through the ASG) disputed that the earlier judgment applied equally here, and no distinguishing feature was shown. Following its own precedent in the Mokha case, the Court granted leave, allowed the appeal, and set aside both the original detention order and its extensions.

Lesson Learnt

Preventive detention orders are strictly bound by procedural safeguards: unexplained delay in deciding a detenu's representation, or failing to promptly communicate the decision on it, is by itself enough to invalidate a detention order, regardless of the seriousness of the underlying allegations.

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