LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2020 INSC 500Decided 19 Aug 2020
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 225 of 2020
Justice Hrishikesh Roy

Background

Following the unnatural death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput at his Mumbai residence in June 2020, his father filed a complaint in Patna, Bihar, alleging offences including abetment of suicide and criminal breach of trust against the actor's partner, actress Rhea Chakraborty, and others. Rhea Chakraborty filed this petition asking the Supreme Court to transfer the Patna FIR and all related proceedings to Mumbai, arguing that the alleged events occurred in Maharashtra, that Mumbai Police (who were separately conducting a limited inquiry into the cause of death) were the competent authority, and that the Bihar case had been registered only due to political pressure. By the time of the hearing, the Bihar government had already handed the investigation over to the CBI.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that under Section 406 CrPC it has the power to transfer only "cases or appeals," not ongoing police investigations, so it could not grant the specific relief sought. It found that Mumbai Police's Section 174 CrPC proceedings were merely a limited inquiry into the cause of death and not a full criminal investigation, and that since allegations of breach of trust/misappropriation also had a jurisdictional link to Patna (where the complainant resided and funds were to be accounted for), the Bihar Police had not acted illegally in registering the FIR. Invoking its special constitutional power under Article 142 to do "complete justice," the Court approved the CBI's ongoing investigation as lawful and additionally directed that if any separate case is later registered in Mumbai over the same death, the CBI would investigate that too, to avoid parallel and potentially conflicting investigations by two state police forces whose impartiality had both been publicly questioned.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court cannot directly transfer a police investigation (as opposed to a pending court case) from one state to another under ordinary law, but it can use its special constitutional powers to ensure a single, credible investigating agency like the CBI handles all related angles of a high-profile case when rival state police forces are in conflict over jurisdiction.

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