LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 784Decided 3 Aug 2026
Crl.A. No.-003647-003648 - 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240-2241 of 2026)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

Dr. Lokesh B.H. and a woman, Theertha, lived together as a couple in Bengaluru from 2010; after the relationship broke down, she filed complaints alleging cruelty, dowry harassment and physical assault, and that he had concealed an earlier marriage while presenting himself as her husband. Dr. Lokesh B.H. sought to have the criminal proceedings quashed, arguing no valid marriage existed between them and so Section 498A IPC (which applies to a "husband" or his relatives) could not apply. The Karnataka High Court refused to quash the case, reading "husband" broadly to include a man in a relationship with the trappings of marriage.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 498A IPC does extend to live-in relationships that qualify as a "relationship in the nature of marriage," provided there was an intrinsic intent to marry and both partners were consenting adults, but clarified this expanded reading is limited strictly to Section 498A and does not affect other legal provisions. The Court also reiterated that the existing safeguards against arbitrary arrest (from the Arnesh Kumar guidelines) must be strictly followed in such cases. On the specific facts, since the allegations of concealment, harassment and physical injury, if taken at face value, disclosed a criminal offence, the Court declined to quash the case and allowed the trial to proceed, without commenting on the truth of the allegations.

Lesson Learnt

A man in a live-in relationship resembling marriage can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A IPC just as a legally married husband can (the protection follows the substance of the relationship, not merely a marriage certificate) though the accused still retains the same protections against wrongful arrest.

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