LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 176Decided 23 Feb 2026
Crl.A. No.-001058-001058 - 2026
Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

Following a tip-off about an illegal sex-determination racket run by one Dr. Abdul Kadir, health authorities in Gurugram set up a decoy operation: a pregnant woman posing as a patient was taken, with a "shadow witness," to get an ultrasound. Dr. Kadir arranged for Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, a radiologist at Vatika Medicare, to conduct the scan without signing the mandatory Form F, making any register entry, or disclosing the sex of the foetus. A complaint and criminal case were registered against Dr. Garg under the PCPNDT Act, and he sought to have the complaint quashed, arguing procedural irregularities in how the raid and decoy operation were conducted.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, refusing to quash the criminal complaint against Dr. Garg. It rejected his argument that the raid was vitiated because a doctor involved in setting up the decoy (Dr. Saryu Sharma) had also sat on an advisory committee, holding that Rule 18A of the PCPNDT Rules only bars persons who are part of the "investigating machinery" from advisory roles, and Dr. Sharma did not fall in that category; in any event, the Rule was only directory, not mandatory, so its breach would make a proceeding irregular rather than void. The Court emphasized the serious social harm of female foeticide and sex-selective practices, and noted it was prima facie established that the appellant conducted the ultrasound without maintaining required records or disclosing the sex determination: issues that must be tested at trial, not resolved by quashing the complaint at a threshold stage. The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits and kept all questions of evidence and reliability open for trial.

Lesson Learnt

Courts are reluctant to quash a criminal complaint at the threshold, especially in sex-selection/foeticide cases treated as matters of serious public concern, when there is prima facie material connecting the accused to the offence; procedural objections about the composition of investigating or raiding teams must show an actual breach of a mandatory rule, not just a technical irregularity, to succeed.

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