LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The State of Gujarat vs. Sandip Omprakash Gupta

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 1288Decided 15 Dec 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2022
S. Abdul Nazeer · J.B. Pardiwala

Background

The respondent was arrested and charged under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 ("the 2015 Act") based on an FIR alleging "continuing unlawful activity" evidenced by multiple past chargesheets, even though his last chargesheeted offence was from 2019, before the 2015 Act came into force in Gujarat (01.12.2019), and no fresh FIR had been registered against him after that date. The Sessions Court refused him bail, but the Gujarat High Court granted bail, relying on a Supreme Court precedent (Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane) to hold that past offences alone, without any fresh unlawful act after the Act's commencement, could not sustain prosecution under the special law. The State of Gujarat appealed to the Supreme Court against the grant of bail.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by clarifying the legal position rather than disturbing the bail grant: notably, the State's own counsel conceded that the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail need not be disturbed. The Court held that "organised crime" under the Act requires some fresh act or omission constituting organised crime after the law's commencement date, for which the accused is being tried for the first time; mere reliance on past chargesheets (the "continuing unlawful activity" ingredient) is not by itself sufficient to invoke the special Act if the accused has committed no unlawful activity since the Act came into force. The Court affirmed that the dictum in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane remains correct law, while clarifying that if a person continues unlawful activity after the Act's commencement, the State need not wait for two fresh chargesheets before acting.

Lesson Learnt

Special anti-organised-crime laws with strict bail conditions cannot be invoked merely on the strength of a person's past criminal record; there must be some act of organised crime committed after the special law came into force for a person to be prosecuted and denied bail under it.

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