LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vernon vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2023 INSC 655)

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 655Decided 28 Jul 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2023
Aniruddha Bose · Sudhanshu Dhulia

Background

Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were arrested in August 2018 in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence/Elgar Parishad case, accused under various IPC sections (sedition, promoting enmity, criminal conspiracy) and multiple provisions of the UAPA, 1967, based on alleged links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). Neither appellant featured in the original FIR; they were implicated later based on materials recovered from co-accused. Their bail applications were rejected by the Special NIA Court and then by the Bombay High Court in October 2019, after which they approached the Supreme Court, by the time of this judgment, they had been in custody for nearly five years without trial having concluded.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the UAPA charges (including Section 38, membership of a terrorist organisation) and held that mere association or being described as a member is not enough. The prosecution must prima facie show intention to further the organisation's terrorist activities, which the Court found was not established here at this stage. Applying the principle from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb that constitutional courts can grant bail under Articles 14 and 21 despite statutory bail restrictions (like Section 43D(5) UAPA) where trial is unlikely to conclude soon and prolonged incarceration has occurred, the Court held that nearly five years' detention without conclusion of trial, combined with the weakness of the specific evidence linking the appellants to actual terrorist acts, justified bail. It set aside the High Court's orders and granted bail to both appellants, subject to strict conditions (passport surrender, restriction on leaving Maharashtra, mandatory location-tracking via mobile phone, weekly police reporting, etc.), noting that a breach would allow the prosecution to seek cancellation without returning to the Supreme Court.

Lesson Learnt

Even under stringent anti-terror laws like the UAPA, prolonged pre-trial detention without a realistic prospect of the trial concluding can violate the constitutional right to liberty (Article 21), and courts can grant bail with strict conditions in such cases: mere allegation of association with a banned organisation, without evidence of intent to further terrorist activity, is not sufficient to justify indefinite incarceration.

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