LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajkumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2023 INSC 718Decided 6 Feb 2023
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 36 of 2022
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · J.B. Pardiwala · Narasimha

Background

Following the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Rashidul Jafar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), which laid down directions for considering premature release of life-sentence convicts in UP, the Court kept receiving fresh petitions from convicts whose eligible cases for premature release were still not being processed. In this matter, the Court had directed Uttar Pradesh's Director General of Police/Prisons to file an affidavit explaining what steps had been taken, how many convicts were eligible, and how many cases were pending, particularly regarding a specific group of 50 prisoners whose cases had been flagged to the Court.

Decision Breakdown

The affidavit revealed that of over 26,000 convicts in UP, more than 2,200 had completed the mandatory minimum sentence (14 years) and were eligible for premature-release consideration, with cases pending at various bureaucratic stages (District Magistrate, Prisons Headquarters, State Government). Of the specific 50 flagged prisoners, only a handful had been released or resolved, with many still stuck in the pipeline. The Amicus Curiae pointed out that the State was applying a "pick and choose" approach: sometimes making convicts wait an extra two years (16 years instead of the legally required 14) so their cases could be considered under a later, less favourable policy window. The Supreme Court held that the State is bound by its own Rules and Standing Policy and cannot apply an arbitrary yardstick; each case must be decided based on the law/policy as it stood on the date of conviction (unless a later policy is more beneficial). It directed that all pending cases be resolved by 30 April 2023, with a compliance report to be filed, and listed the matter for a compliance check on 4 May 2023.

Lesson Learnt

Government authorities cannot selectively delay or apply prisoner release policies to disadvantage eligible convicts. Once a person meets the legal criteria for premature release under the rules or policy applicable on the date of their conviction, the State must process their case promptly and cannot manipulate timing to apply a stricter, later policy instead.

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