LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 427Decided 18 Apr 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022
N.V. Ramana · Surya Kant · Hima Kohli

Background

During a farmers' protest against Union Minister Ajay Mishra Teni in Lakhimpur Kheri (October 2021), vehicles allegedly belonging to the minister's son, Ashish Mishra (the respondent-accused), drove into the crowd of returning protesters, killing four farmers, a journalist, a driver, and others, and injuring several more. After a Supreme Court-monitored SIT filed a chargesheet naming him the main perpetrator, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted him regular bail, reasoning largely that there was no firearm-injury evidence to support the allegation he fired his weapon, and that he had cooperated with the investigation. The victims (family members of the deceased) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court ignored settled bail principles and did not properly hear them.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC has a right to be heard at the bail stage, and that the High Court had denied the appellants a fair hearing by disconnecting their counsel during online proceedings and ignoring their re-hearing request. On the merits, the Court found the High Court had adopted a "myopic view," fixating on the absence of firearm injuries while ignoring the well-established bail parameters (nature and gravity of the offence, likely sentence on conviction, risk of flight or evidence-tampering, and the impact of release on the trial and society) and had effectively conducted a "mini-trial" on the merits before trial had even begun. The Court set aside the bail order and cancelled the accused's bail bonds (directing his surrender within a week), but rather than leaving him without recourse, remitted the bail application back to the High Court for a fresh, fair decision within three months, this time with victims given a proper hearing (including free legal aid if needed), and expressed no opinion on the case's merits.

Lesson Learnt

Crime victims have a legal right to be heard when a court decides whether to grant bail to the accused, and a court weighing bail cannot cherry-pick a single favorable fact (like a missing firearm-injury report) while ignoring the broader established factors, doing so effectively pre-judges the case on merits before trial.

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