LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajan v. The Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2019 INSC 574Decided 25 Apr 2019
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 321 of 2018
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

The petitioner, convicted in 1988 for dacoity and the murder of three persons (among other offences) and sentenced to life imprisonment on multiple counts plus a term under the Arms Act, had by 2018 spent over 30 years in actual custody (over 36 years with remission). His 2010 representation for premature release had been rejected by the State's Advisory Board, and a fresh representation made in February 2018 went unanswered, prompting him to file a writ petition under Article 32 seeking either outright release or a declaration that part of his sentence (under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, since struck down as unconstitutional in a separate Supreme Court ruling) was void.

Decision Breakdown

The Court agreed that the conviction under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act could no longer be reckoned since that provision had been declared unconstitutional, and also held, relying on Constitution Bench precedent, that sentences for offences already fully served concurrently (dacoity and the remaining Arms Act offence) could not be counted either, leaving only the multiple life sentences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC relevant to any remission decision. However, it held that granting or refusing remission/premature release is the prerogative of the appropriate Government under Sections 432-433 CrPC, not something a court can simply order, and since the petitioner now qualified for consideration only on the life-sentence counts, his earlier 2010 rejection could not be allowed to block a fresh, timely decision on his 2018 representation. It disposed of the petition by directing the State to process the February 2018 representation on its own merits within four months, without being influenced by the earlier rejection, and clarified that consultation with the Central Government was unnecessary.

Lesson Learnt

Courts generally will not order a prisoner's premature release directly, since that discretion belongs to the government under the Code of Criminal Procedure; but courts can require the government to actually decide a long-pending representation promptly and on its true, updated merits rather than let it languish or be dismissed on stale grounds.

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