LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 332Decided 8 Apr 2026
Crl.A. No.-001833-001833 - 2026 (arising from SLP(Crl) No. 19691 of 2025)
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice N.V. Anjaria

Background

Hem Raj was a passenger in a car stopped at a police checkpoint in Himachal Pradesh in December 2014, where police recovered over 4 kg of charas (cannabis resin) hidden below his seat. He and the car's driver were convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), and 25 read with 29, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and sentenced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment plus fines for each offence (later reduced to 10 years by the High Court, with sentences running concurrently). Hem Raj did not challenge his conviction but argued before the Supreme Court that he should not have received separate punishments (and separate fines) for offences under Section 20 and under Sections 25/29, since they arose from the same single transaction.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act do prescribe independent, separately imposable punishment by "legislation by reference". They incorporate the punishment scale of the underlying substantive offence (here, Section 20) rather than leaving the offences unpunishable. However, it clarified that where such offences arise from the same transaction, courts should, as a rule of wisdom, direct the sentences to run concurrently to avoid double jeopardy, which the trial court had already done. On the separate question of fines, the Court held that unlike prison sentences, a fine is itself a form of punishment under Section 53 IPC, and once the substantive sentences run concurrently, the convict cannot be compelled to pay the fine twice for what is effectively one criminal transaction. Since Hem Raj had already served about 11 years (including default imprisonment for non-payment) and was not required to pay the fine again, the Court ordered his immediate release.

Lesson Learnt

Even when a single criminal transaction technically breaches multiple sections of a law (such as separate NDPS provisions for possession and control), courts should order sentences to run concurrently and should not require a convict to pay the associated fine more than once for what is really one course of conduct: this protects against double punishment for the same wrong.

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