LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Nandkishore Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 531Decided 22 May 2026
Crl.A. No.-002787-002787 - 2026
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant, convicted of murder in 2022 and sentenced to life imprisonment, had his appeal listed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. When his own advocate (who was ill) did not appear, the High Court appointed an amicus curiae on 20 November 2025 and dismissed the appeal just six days later, on 26 November 2025, affirming the conviction. The appellant, who remained in custody throughout, argued before the Supreme Court that he was never informed of this arrangement and that the amicus never met or conferred with him before the appeal was decided.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found nothing on record showing the appellant was notified that an amicus had been appointed in place of his own counsel, and drew an adverse inference against the State on this point since it offered no rebuttal. Relying on its own precedents (Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand), the Court held that an amicus must be given reasonable time to prepare and an adequate opportunity to meet the accused, neither of which happened here, and that legal aid must be a substantive exercise, not a token formality. It set aside the High Court's dismissal, revived the appeal for a fresh (de novo) hearing preferably before the same Division Bench, directed it be listed within two months, and clarified the appellant would remain in custody until the appeal is freshly decided on its merits.

Lesson Learnt

When a court steps in to appoint a lawyer (amicus curiae) for an unrepresented, especially incarcerated, accused, that lawyer must genuinely have time to prepare and meet the accused: legal representation that is only a formality can void the resulting decision and entitle the accused to a fresh hearing.

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