LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ritika Awasty vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Not available · 2023 INSC 421Decided 24 Apr 2023
Not available
Krishna Murari · Sanjay Karol

Background

Ritika Awasty and her husband Virkaran Awasty were accused of fraud relating to food-grain transactions with a private company, leading to FIRs and proceedings to have Ritika Awasty declared a proclaimed offender and eventually extradited. In December 2017, the Supreme Court had ordered attachment of several properties said to belong to the couple, including a house at 5/1 Vasant Vihar (in fact occupied by other, unrelated Awasty family relatives) and a house at C-1/2 Vasant Vihar (already sold years earlier to one Monica Gogia). Three interlocutory applications were filed: by the relatives occupying 5/1 Vasant Vihar seeking to lift the attachment, by another relative seeking to be added as a party, and by the buyer Monica Gogia seeking to lift the restraint on transferring her property.

Decision Breakdown

The Court found that the relatives occupying 5/1 Vasant Vihar had no connection to the accused couple's business dealings and had held their shares of the property for decades under a lawful 1990 family partition, so there was no basis to keep it attached. As for C-1/2 Vasant Vihar, the sale to Monica Gogia was executed in July 2015, before the FIRs were even registered, and nothing on record showed it was a sham transaction to hide the accused's assets; her ownership was therefore treated as bona fide. The Court de-attached 5/1 Vasant Vihar entirely, disposed of the impleadment application, and vacated the restraint on Monica Gogia transferring her property, while making clear this order only decided these applications and did not affect the extradition proceedings or other pending investigations against the couple.

Lesson Learnt

Provisional attachment orders meant to secure the assets of an accused person cannot be stretched to cover property genuinely owned by unconnected relatives or by a purchaser who bought it before the alleged wrongdoing came to light. Courts will lift such attachments once bona fide, unconnected ownership is shown.

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