LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Another

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 628Decided 4 Jun 2026
Crl.A. No.-003048-003048 - 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 18022/2025)
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant's father died an unnatural death in 2014, leading to an FIR and chargesheet against respondent no. 2 under Sections 120-B and 306 read with 34 IPC (abetment of suicide/criminal conspiracy). Over the following decade, respondent no. 2 filed a series of petitions before the High Court seeking to quash the case, obtained interim protections (including suspension of a Look Out Circular), left the country, and repeatedly withdrew his petitions before final adjudication after securing interim relief. After his eventual arrest and release on return to India, he applied for return of his passport to travel to the USA citing medical treatment; the Magistrate's order on this was set aside by the Sessions Judge but then restored by the High Court, which allowed him to travel abroad, prompting the complainant-appellant's challenge before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while Article 21 guarantees personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad, this must be balanced against the equally fundamental right to a speedy trial and the wider public interest in effective criminal justice administration: no right is absolute. Noting respondent no. 2's decade-long pattern of filing and strategically withdrawing petitions to obtain and misuse interim protections (including leaving the country previously), and that comparable medical facilities exist in India, the Court found the High Court had been unduly indulgent rather than exercising judicial restraint. It set aside both the High Court's and the Sessions Judge's orders and restored the Magistrate's original order, while clarifying that respondent no. 2 need not deposit his passport but also may not fly abroad except with the Sessions Court's express permission (to be sought after committal), with police and airport authorities directed to coordinate to prevent unauthorized departure.

Lesson Learnt

The right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute for an accused facing trial. Courts must weigh it against the complainant's and society's right to a speedy, unobstructed trial, especially where the accused's own conduct shows a pattern of using litigation to delay proceedings.

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