LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rashmi Behl v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Writ Petition (Criminal) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 218 of 2013)Decided 17 Feb 2015
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 218 of 2013
Justice M.Y. Eqbal · Justice Shiva Kirti Singh

Background

The petitioner, a young woman from Uttar Pradesh, alleged that her father and his associates tried to force her into the flesh trade, repeatedly raped and abducted her, including once being forcibly dragged out of a courtroom after a judge had already ruled she was a free adult, and that this continued across years and locations. Although she lodged an FIR in January 2013 under Sections 366, 323, 504 and 376 IPC, the Uttar Pradesh police neither recorded her statement nor conducted the mandatory medical examination, and the investigation was shuffled between at least four different investigating officers with no real progress over two years. She approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, arguing the local police could not be trusted given alleged police complicity, and that she could not safely approach the Allahabad High Court while in hiding.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to record her statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Delhi, which was done and forwarded to the Court; her statement detailed grave and specific allegations against her father, relatives, and named police personnel. The Court found that more than two years of shuffling the case between successive investigating officers, with no statement recorded and no medical examination conducted, showed the UP police had not investigated in a forthright, objective manner and appeared to be shielding the accused. Citing its earlier ruling in R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. that an investigation loses credibility where local police themselves face serious allegations, the Court held this was a fit case for transferring the probe to an independent agency. It allowed the writ petition and directed the CBI to investigate the matter independently, objectively, and in accordance with law.

Lesson Learnt

When local police face credible, serious allegations of their own complicity or persistent, unexplained inaction, including serial reassignment of investigating officers without progress, the Supreme Court can and will step in under Article 32 to transfer a stalled or compromised investigation to an independent agency like the CBI.

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