LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs The State of Bihar

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 723Decided 14 Jul 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2017
Abhay S. Oka · M.M. Sundresh · Rastogi

Background

The appellant was convicted of murder and criminal conspiracy (Sections 302/120-B IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Bihar trial court. His appeal against conviction was admitted by the Patna High Court in 2009, but while it was pending, he absconded, prompting a non-bailable warrant and a police reward for information on his whereabouts. In 2015, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed his already-admitted appeal outright, without examining its merits, solely on the ground that he had absconded and thereby "forfeited" his right to be heard, expressly acknowledging it was deviating from settled Supreme Court precedent to do so.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once an appellate court has admitted a criminal appeal for hearing (rather than summarily dismissing it), Sections 385-386 of the CrPC do not permit dismissal of that appeal for non-prosecution or default: the appeal must be examined on its merits after perusing the trial court record, per the three-judge bench ruling in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. The Court held that the High Court could not lawfully deviate from this settled position merely because it found the appellant's absconding egregious; a Patna High Court rule requiring surrender before "admission" of an appeal did not apply here since the appeal had already been admitted years earlier. While sympathizing with the High Court's frustration at the appellant's conduct, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the appeal to the Patna High Court for consideration on its actual merits, directing it be disposed of expeditiously (preferably within six months), with liberty to the appellant to seek suspension of sentence if that timeline was not met.

Lesson Learnt

An appellate court cannot dismiss an already-admitted criminal appeal against conviction merely because the convict has absconded or is not prosecuting it diligently. The law requires the appeal to be decided on its merits by examining the trial record, and courts cannot bypass settled Supreme Court precedent even in the face of an accused's defiant conduct.

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