LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Jaswant Singh & Ors. vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2023 INSC 31Decided 13 Jan 2023
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 323 of 2022
Dinesh Maheshwari · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

Three men (Jaswant Singh (63), Ajay (43) and Naresh (57)) were serving life sentences for a 2006 double murder committed by an unlawful assembly in Durg, Chhattisgarh; their convictions were confirmed up to the Supreme Court in 2015. After about 16 years in prison without remission (about 21 years counting remission), they applied for premature release. The Jail Superintendent sought the sentencing court's opinion as the law requires, and the Special Judge, Durg, wrote back in one-line letters that "in view of the facts and circumstances" remission was not appropriate; the State's Law Department relied on that negative opinion and the applications were rejected. Meanwhile, a co-accused in the same case, Ram Chander, had obtained an order from the Supreme Court in April 2022 directing a fresh, reasoned opinion, following which the same judge recommended his release.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the present petitioners' situation was identical to Ram Chander's. Under Section 432(2) CrPC the presiding judge's opinion must be accompanied by reasons, and those reasons must engage with the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar vs Union of India, whether the offence affects society at large, the likelihood of the crime being repeated, the convict's potential for future crime, whether any purpose is served by continued imprisonment, and the convict's family's socio-economic condition. A mechanical statement repeating the crime and saying remission is "not appropriate" does not meet that standard, and the government cannot treat such a defective opinion as decisive. The Court allowed the writ petition, directed the Special Judge, Durg, to give a fresh, reasoned opinion on all three applications, and directed the State to take a final decision within one month of receiving it.

Lesson Learnt

A life convict's application for early release cannot be rejected on the strength of a one-line "no" from the trial judge: the opinion has to be a reasoned one that weighs the convict's present circumstances, not just the original crime. Similarly placed co-accused are entitled to the same treatment the Court has already given one of them.

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