LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rohit Tandon v. The Enforcement Directorate

Criminal Appeal · 2017 INSC 1096Decided 10 Nov 2017
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1878-1879 of 2017
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Background

The appellant was arrested in December 2016 in connection with a money-laundering case (ECIR) linked to an FIR alleging large-scale deposit of demonetized currency and related offences following the November 2016 demonetization. His bail applications were rejected first by a Sessions Court and then by the Delhi High Court, and he approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's refusal of regular bail.

Decision Breakdown

The Court examined the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA: that the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It held that the volume of demonetized currency and fresh notes recovered from the appellant, including drafts made out to fictitious persons, raised a strong presumption that the money was "proceeds of crime," which the appellant failed to rebut: his arguments based on income-tax compliance and the absence of a deposit limit under the demonetization notification did not address the legal presumption of money laundering. Since the Section 45 threshold was not overcome, the Court declined to interfere with the Sessions Court and High Court's refusal of bail, while directing the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously on a day-to-day basis given the appellant's custody period, and clarifying the trial should be decided independently on the evidence rather than being influenced by this bail ruling. The appeals were dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Under the PMLA's special bail provision (Section 45), an accused must affirmatively show the court there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not reoffend: ordinary defences like tax compliance or the absence of a deposit cap do not, by themselves, rebut the legal presumption that unexplained cash recovered from an accused is "proceeds of crime."

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