LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 871Decided 18 Jul 2025
Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2254 of 2025)
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellant, a District Judge-cadre judicial officer, had granted bail in December 2022 to an accused (Sethu @ Angrej) in an FIR involving serious injury charges, applying the principle of parity with a co-accused who had earlier been released on bail by the High Court. That bail order was later cancelled by the Sessions Judge after it emerged the officer had overlooked the accused's criminal antecedents and misapplied the facts. When the accused subsequently sought bail again before the Rajasthan High Court, a Single Judge not only rejected it but also passed strong strictures against the appellant-judicial officer personally, calling his earlier bail order "grossly inappropriate and cavalier," accusing him of indiscipline and disobedience of High Court precedent, and directing that the order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The judicial officer appealed to the Supreme Court to have these personal strictures removed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's harsh personal criticism of the judicial officer was passed without giving him any opportunity to explain himself or show cause, which was procedurally unfair. It also noted that the High Court's reasoning rested heavily on a precedent (Jugal v. State of Rajasthan) that had since been overturned by the Supreme Court itself in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024), undermining the very foundation of the strictures. Reiterating the general principle that judges must avoid personal criticism of fellow judicial officers in judgments, since even constitutional courts are not immune to error, the Court expunged the strictures and modified the High Court's order to that extent, while allowing the appeal. Separately, noting the recurring problem of courts failing to account for an accused's criminal history at the bail stage, the Court recommended that all High Courts adopt a rule (modelled on a Punjab and Haryana High Court rule) requiring bail applicants to disclose their prior criminal cases, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to every High Court's Registrar General for consideration.

Lesson Learnt

Personal criticism or strictures against a judge or judicial officer in a court order should not be passed without first giving that person a chance to be heard, and should not rest on precedent that has since been overruled; separately, courts recommend that bail applicants be required to formally disclose any other pending or prior criminal cases so that bail decisions are made with full information.

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