LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kanaklata v. State of (NCT) of Delhi & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2015)Decided 4 Feb 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2015
Justice T.S. Thakur · Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

The appellant (complainant in a caste-atrocity and assault case against her landlords) had seen the trial court discharge the accused of the more serious charges, with the trial judge making strongly-worded observations against her. The High Court later set aside that discharge order and sent the case back for a fresh decision, explicitly directing the trial judge to decide afresh without being influenced by her own earlier observations. The appellant, fearing the same judge could not fairly reconsider the matter after having already taken a strong view, asked for the case to be transferred to a different court: a request rejected by the trial court and then the Delhi High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The majority (Thakur and Goel, JJ.) held that although the High Court's safeguard (telling the trial judge to ignore her own earlier observations) would ordinarily be sufficient, the trial judge's earlier language was so strongly worded that it could reasonably make a litigant fear the judge had already mentally committed to a view, and since "justice must not only be done but must seem to have been done," the apprehension was not unreasonable or mere forum-shopping. The majority therefore allowed the appeal and transferred the pending Sessions Case from the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohini to the Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari. R. Banumathi, J. dissented, reasoning that once the discharge order was set aside and the matter remanded with a clear direction to proceed afresh, the apprehension of bias was legally untenable, especially since the appellant had not raised any bias concern earlier when the case was first remanded, and that a transfer should only be ordered on good and sufficient grounds, which she found absent here; she would have dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

A litigant can seek transfer of a case from a judge who has already made strongly-worded adverse observations against them, even if a higher court has directed the judge to decide afresh "uninfluenced" by those remarks: courts recognise that the appearance of fairness matters, not just the judge's actual capability to be impartial. This was a 2:1 decision with a recorded dissent, so it reflects the majority view.

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