LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2022 INSC 720Decided 14 Jul 2022
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2009
A.M. Khanwilkar · J.B. Pardiwala

Background

In 2009, an NGO worker (Himanshu Kumar) and several relatives of villagers from Dantewada district, Chhattisgarh, filed a writ petition alleging that Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers, Salwa Judum activists and paramilitary forces (CRPF/CoBRA) had carried out brutal massacres of tribal villagers in Gachhanpalli, Gompad and Belpocha on 17 September and 1 October 2009, including mutilation and killing of women, children and an infant. The petitioners sought a CBI investigation and compensation for the victims' families. Over the years the Court had directed statements of the victims' relatives to be recorded before a District & Sessions Judge, and the Union of India later filed an application asking the Court to hold the petitioners guilty of levelling false charges and fabricating evidence.

Decision Breakdown

After examining the recorded statements of petitioners 2 to 13 (the victims' relatives) taken before a District Judge, the Court found these statements directly contradicted and "demolished" the massacre narrative set out in the writ petition, and that police investigations had instead attributed the killings to Naxals. The Court held that the conditions for court-monitored/independent investigation (as laid down in the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights case) were not satisfied, and dismissed the writ petition, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on petitioner no. 1, Himanshu Kumar, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. On the Union of India's separate application, the Court declined to itself hold a formal perjury inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, but left it open to the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI to examine and take appropriate action, including possibly under Section 211 IPC (false charge of an offence made with intent to injure) or for criminal conspiracy, against those responsible for the allegedly false allegations, clarifying that the usual bar under Section 195 CrPC would not stand in the way.

Lesson Learnt

Serious allegations placed before a constitutional court, especially ones invoking Article 32 against security forces, must be backed by consistent and credible evidence. Courts can and will impose heavy costs, and refer the matter for possible perjury/false-charge prosecution, where a petitioner's own subsequently-recorded evidence contradicts the story pleaded in the petition.

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