Seema Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

Criminal Appeal · 2018 INSC 364Decided 18 Apr 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2018
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

The appellant, mother of the deceased Sara Singh, challenged an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to her daughter's husband (respondent No. 2), who was accused of murdering his wife and staging the death as a car accident near Firozabad in July 2015. The CBI, which had taken over the investigation, filed a parallel appeal seeking the same relief: cancellation of the bail. The accused's defence was that the death occurred in a genuine accident while he tried to avoid hitting a cyclist, while the prosecution relied on forensic and medical reports (from CRRI, AIIMS, CFSL and IIT) suggesting the victim had been strangled before the "accident" was staged.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in granting bail, having considered relevant factors such as the absence of direct eye-witness evidence, the documentary/expert nature of the prosecution's case (whose evidentiary value was yet to be tested at trial), and the fact that family members and doctors present at the time of the post-mortem raised no immediate suspicion. The Court reiterated that bail is the general rule and incarceration the exception, and that seriousness of the charge alone cannot justify denying bail where the High Court's order was a reasoned one. It emphasized that at the bail stage courts assess only whether discretion was properly exercised, not whether the accused is guilty: that determination is for the trial court after evidence is tested. Both appeals (by the complainant and by the CBI) were accordingly dismissed, while leaving intact the conditions already imposed by the High Court and the liberty to seek cancellation of bail if those conditions were violated.

Lesson Learnt

Grant of bail pending trial is not a verdict on guilt: appellate courts will not disturb a well-reasoned bail order merely because the underlying charge is serious or because untested expert reports favour the prosecution; the proper forum to test that evidence is the trial itself.

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