LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sanchit Alagh & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.

Not available · 2022 INSC 354Decided 28 Mar 2022
Not available
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

The petitioners faced multiple FIRs registered in different police stations across Delhi, Chandigarh, Pune and Thane, all allegedly involving identical allegations. They approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking a single, consolidated investigation by the CBI into all the FIRs, and also sought anticipatory bail for both petitioners in relation to these FIRs. The Court had earlier, in 2019, issued notice and granted interim anticipatory bail while the petition was pending. The Union of India and the CBI filed affidavits stating that the investigations in the individual matters were being conducted in accordance with law.

Decision Breakdown

Having examined the facts and the affidavits on record, the Court found no case made out for transferring the investigation of the multiple FIRs to the CBI, and saw no reason to entertain the petition further. The petitioners' counsel informed the Court that regular bail had already been granted in some of the matters pursuant to the earlier interim order. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioners could avail the benefit of any such bail orders already granted, and that for any FIRs where bail had not yet been obtained, they would need to apply through the ordinary legal process, with each application to be decided on its own merits.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court will not ordinarily transfer investigation of multiple, separately registered FIRs to a central agency like the CBI merely because the allegations across them appear similar; an accused facing several FIRs must generally pursue bail and other remedies before the appropriate courts in each case rather than seeking a blanket consolidated remedy from the Supreme Court.

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