LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sunil Saini & Ors. vs The State of Haryana & Ors.

Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2023 INSC 715Decided 30 Jan 2023
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 125 of 2019
K.M. Joseph · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

During the 2016 Jat reservation agitation in Haryana, the petitioners' houses, godowns and belongings were allegedly set on fire, and a murder-and-arson trial (Sessions Case No. 285 of 2016) was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. The petitioners, who were victims and witnesses, alleged that an influential advocate (a former Bar President) had engineered the turning of witnesses hostile, that their application to summon him as an accused had been rejected, and that the prosecution was not acting fearlessly. They asked the Supreme Court to transfer the trial to Delhi, or at least to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor and provide witness protection.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court declined to transfer the case, noting that 42 witnesses had already been examined and considerable time had passed. It also declined to replace the recently appointed Special Public Prosecutor, who had two decades of experience and against whom no allegations were made. However, the Court used the occasion to make strong observations: the State exists on the implied consent of the governed and its most elementary duty is to protect the lives and property of citizens; the rule of law is part of the Constitution's basic structure; and the Public Prosecutor plays a "paramount" role, bound to act fairly but also to fearlessly adduce evidence so the guilty do not go free. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Director of Prosecution if the Special Prosecutor fails to act impartially, and to seek witness protection from the presiding Judge, the Prosecutor or the District Superintendent of Police under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Lesson Learnt

Transferring a trial to another State is an exceptional step, unlikely once the trial is far advanced; but victims and witnesses who fear intimidation or a weak prosecution have concrete remedies, complaining to the Director of Prosecution and invoking the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

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