LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 930Decided 5 Aug 2025
Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 10010 of 2025
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The victim, a married woman, went missing on 21.11.2018 and her dead body was found four days later hanging from a noose in a wooded area near her village. The FIR initially named one Ajay Kumar as the sole suspect, and after investigation only Ajay was charge-sheeted while the petitioner, Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar, was given a clean chit and dropped from the case. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the husband (first informant) applied under Section 193 CrPC to have the petitioner summoned as an additional accused based on witness statements and mobile call records suggesting his involvement; it took nearly five years for the trial court to decide this application, which it ultimately allowed. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision against that summoning order, and he approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court framed the core legal question as whether a Court of Session, after a case is committed to it under Section 209 CrPC, can take fresh cognizance under Section 193 CrPC and summon a person not named in the police charge-sheet, or whether such summoning is possible only during trial under Section 319 CrPC. After an extensive review of precedent (including the Constitution Bench decision in Dharam Pal), the Court held that what is committed to the Sessions Court is the "case"/"offence," not merely the named "offenders," and that once the case is committed the Sessions Court assumes original jurisdiction and can summon any person who, on the material before it, appears prima facie involved, without needing to wait for a Section 319 application during trial. Applying this to the facts, the Court found no error in the Sessions Court's or High Court's view that the evidence (extra-judicial confession, witness statements, and call detail records) justified summoning the petitioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court was directed to frame charges (if not already done) and complete the trial within six months.

Lesson Learnt

Being dropped from a police charge-sheet is not the end of the road. If a Sessions Court later finds credible material implicating a person in the same offence after the case is committed to it, it has the power (and indeed the duty) to summon that person to face trial, rather than being restricted to doing so only mid-trial under Section 319 CrPC.

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