LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2016)Decided 29 Jun 2016
Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2016
Justice Dipak Misra · Justice Shiva Kirti Singh

Background

The first respondent was convicted along with 20 others in TADA (terrorism) cases in Gujarat and sentenced to life imprisonment for offences including criminal conspiracy, smuggling of arms/explosives, and related charges; his conviction was later confirmed by the Supreme Court itself in an earlier appeal. He was subsequently transferred to a Punjab prison on humanitarian grounds, and after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment, sought premature release under Section 432 CrPC. The Gujarat Government rejected his plea for premature release, citing his continued involvement in disruptive and anti-national activities. He challenged this refusal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held the Gujarat Government's refusal illegal, ordered reconsideration, and separately directed that he be released on parole for three months, prompting the State of Gujarat to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's analysis was largely abstract and failed to show that the Gujarat Government's order was without reasons or violated principles of equality: the order had, in fact, detailed the respondent's involvement in disruptive activities, arms/explosives smuggling, and a wide clandestine network, which justified declining remission. The Court also found the High Court's separate direction granting three months' parole to be legally unsustainable, since constitutional courts may order temporary release/parole only sparingly and with reasoned justification, which was absent here. On the related jurisdictional question, the Court noted that since the respondent was convicted under TADA, a law falling within the Union's executive power, the Union Government, not the State of Gujarat, is the "Appropriate Government" competent to decide his premature release. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent was given liberty to make a fresh representation to the competent Union authority within eight weeks, to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law and applicable guidelines.

Lesson Learnt

For offences under central laws like TADA, it is the Union Government, not the State Government where the conviction occurred, that has the power to decide applications for premature release/remission; and courts should not order parole or remission reconsideration without concrete reasons showing the original refusal was arbitrary or unreasoned.

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