LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others

Criminal Appeal · 2021 INSC 253Decided 13 Apr 2021
Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice M.R. Shah · Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Background

The appellant company had lodged an FIR alleging forgery of a board resolution and fraudulent sale of its valuable property to a third party. The accused persons, while their anticipatory bail application was pending before the Sessions Court, separately approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR, and the High Court, while adjourning that quashing petition, passed an interim order directing that "no coercive measures shall be adopted" against them. The original complainant (the appellant) challenged this interim order before the Supreme Court, arguing that such a blanket protection from arrest was unwarranted while the quashing petition itself remained undecided.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences, and that courts should be slow to interfere with ongoing investigations; quashing of an FIR is meant to be an exception, not the rule, and should be confined to cases falling within the well-established categories (such as those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal). It laid down detailed guidelines stating that High Courts should not grant blanket "no coercive steps"/"no arrest" interim orders routinely, casually or mechanically while a quashing petition is pending, accused persons should instead be relegated to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, and that any such interim protection, if granted in an exceptional case, must be supported by brief reasons and clearly define what "no coercive steps" actually means. Applying these principles, the Court quashed the High Court's interim "no coercive measures" direction in this case, clarified it had not commented on the merits of the FIR, and directed its judgment be circulated to all High Courts given repeated disregard of similar earlier rulings.

Lesson Learnt

A person seeking protection from arrest while a petition to quash an FIR is pending should generally apply for anticipatory bail rather than expect an automatic "no coercive steps" order from the High Court: such blanket interim protection is meant to be rare, reasoned, and clearly defined, not a routine shield against investigation.

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