EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

XXX vs Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

SLP (Crl.) · 2023 INSC 767Decided 24 Aug 2023

SLP (Crl.) No. 3482 of 2023

Vikram Nath · Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

The victim (name withheld) and the Andaman & Nicobar administration challenged orders of the Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair granting bail to the Union Territory's former Chief Secretary, Jitendra Narain, and two co-accused, in a case involving offences under Sections 376(D)/228A/506/120B IPC. The High Court had granted bail mainly on the ground that the main accused had already been transferred out of the islands and was unlikely to influence witnesses or abscond, and extended the same benefit to the co-accused on grounds of parity.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reasoning for granting bail did not properly engage with the relevant factors for bail (nature of accusation, risk of tampering, danger of justice being thwarted, etc.) and had focused on issues that should not have been primary. Despite this flaw, after independently examining the material on merits, the Court agreed with the ultimate outcome and declined to interfere, but tightened the bail conditions, directing the trial to proceed expeditiously without adjournments, requiring full cooperation from the accused, barring him from leaving India, and requiring surrender of all passports. The Court also directed the Director-General of Police to examine the victim's pending complaints about other persons within ten days.

Lesson Learnt

Even when a court's original reasoning for granting bail is inadequate, the Supreme Court can independently assess the merits rather than automatically sending the matter back, and it can strengthen bail conditions to protect the integrity of the trial and the victim's safety instead of simply upholding or cancelling bail outright.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

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