LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs The State of Gujarat

Writ Petition (Crl.) · 2022 INSC 574Decided 13 May 2022
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Vikram Nath

Background

The petitioner was convicted along with co-accused for offences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(e)(g) read with Section 149 IPC, committed in Gujarat in 2004. Because of the sensitive nature of the case, the Supreme Court had earlier transferred the trial to Mumbai, where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008. After serving over 15 years 4 months in custody, he sought pre-mature release under a 1992 Gujarat policy that existed on the date of his conviction, but the Gujarat High Court dismissed his plea, holding that since the trial was concluded in Maharashtra, only Maharashtra (not Gujarat) was the "appropriate Government" competent to consider his release under Section 432(7) CrPC.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that even though the trial was transferred to Maharashtra for exceptional reasons (by the Court's own 2004 order), the crime was committed in Gujarat, and once the trial concluded and conviction was recorded, the "appropriate Government" for remission/pre-mature release purposes under Section 432(7) CrPC reverts to the State where the crime was committed: i.e., Gujarat, not the State where the trial happened to be held. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in State of Haryana vs Jagdish that a prisoner's pre-mature release application must be considered under the policy that existed on the date of conviction. It rejected the State's reliance on Union of India vs V. Sriharan, noting there cannot be concurrent jurisdiction of two States under Section 432(7). The petition was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and Gujarat authorities were directed to decide the release application under the 1992 policy within two months.

Lesson Learnt

A convict's eligibility for pre-mature/remission release is governed by the policy of the State where the crime was actually committed (not where the trial was later shifted to for special reasons), and must be assessed under the remission policy in force on the date of conviction.

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