LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajendra Prasad v. State of Goa

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 891Decided 18 Aug 2026
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9754 of 2026
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu

Background

Rajendra Prasad was accused of masterminding the murder of Chandrika @ Gabbar Sahani in Goa in August 2023, allegedly over a family/property dispute back in their native Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution's case was that the petitioner lured the victim to his rented residence under the pretext of offering painting work, then confined and assaulted him along with three co-accused, before the group tied the unconscious victim to a stone and disposed of the body in a river. Having spent nearly three years in custody with trial underway, the petitioner sought bail from the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected his second bail application, arguing parity with two co-accused who had already been granted bail.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected the parity argument, holding that bail granted to one accused does not automatically entitle another to bail: parity must be assessed based on each person's specific role, not applied as a mechanical formula. The Court found that the petitioner's role, as the alleged principal architect of the murder plan who used the other accused as facilitators, was more serious and distinguishable from that of the co-accused already released. The Court also rejected the argument that nearly three years of incarceration alone justified bail, noting the trial had already begun and witness safety concerns (given the circumstantial nature of the evidence) were significant. However, acknowledging the petitioner's right to a speedy trial, the Court directed the trial court to prioritize recording testimony of eight specifically named sensitive witnesses within a year, after which the petitioner could renew his bail plea.

Lesson Learnt

Being granted bail is not a right that automatically extends to co-accused just because someone else in the same case got bail. Courts look closely at each individual's specific alleged role. Prolonged pre-trial custody alone, without more, is not sufficient grounds for bail once a trial has actually commenced.

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