LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The State of Kerala v. K. Ajith & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2021 INSC 366Decided 28 Jul 2021
Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2021
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

During the presentation of the Kerala state budget in 2015, a group of opposition MLAs climbed onto the Speaker's dais and damaged assembly property, including the Speaker's chair, microphone and electronic panel, causing over Rs. 2.2 lakh in damage. A criminal case was registered and a charge sheet filed. Years later, after a change of government, the state's Public Prosecutor sought the trial court's permission to withdraw the prosecution against the MLAs under Section 321 of the CrPC; the trial court (CJM) refused, and the Kerala High Court upheld that refusal. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a court's consent to withdraw a prosecution under Section 321 is not a rubber stamp: it must be satisfied that withdrawal serves the broader interests of justice and is not an attempt to subvert the normal course of law for improper reasons. The Court rejected the argument that the MLAs' acts were protected by legislative privilege under Article 194, holding that the freedom of speech and immunity given to legislators inside the House does not extend to acts of physical destruction of public property: such conduct cannot be equated with protest or free speech. It also held that video recordings of the incident were not protected "proceedings" of the House and could be used in the prosecution. Finding no error in the lower courts' refusal to permit withdrawal, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeals, meaning the criminal trial against the MLAs must continue.

Lesson Learnt

Legislative privilege protects free speech and debate inside a legislature, not criminal acts like vandalism: elected representatives cannot use parliamentary immunity as a shield for destroying public property; and a prosecutor cannot withdraw a criminal case merely because the political climate has changed, without the court being satisfied it genuinely serves justice.

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