Ten (10) Important Judgments of April 2026 on Criminal Law

*Ten (10) Important Judgments of April 2026 on Criminal Law*

1. *Anosh Ekka v. State [2026] GCtR 315 (SC)* : In this case it was noted that the fact remains that the accused [ex-Minister] has undergone custodial incarceration of more than 10 months in the present case under PC Act, 1988 as well. The sentence awarded to the accused [ex-Minister] in the other case involving allegations of acquisition of disproportionate assets, having been suspended by Supreme Court, Supreme Court was inclined to grant bail to the accused [ex-Minister] in the present case also.
2. *Jai Prakash v. State [2026] GCtR 316 (Delhi)* : This case involved Section 316(2) (Criminal breach of trust) /318(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. It was pointed out that what was at the most a civil liability, has been given colour of criminality only to armtwist the accused/applicant for recovery of money. In any case even proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were pending in this case. There was nothing on record to show that the accused/applicant is either proprietor or partner of the said two business entities, who allegedly received the goods. Bail was ultimately granted to accused. 
3. *Vinod Kumar Ahuja v. State [2026] GCtR 317 (Delhi)* : Though it is a settled law that non-recovery of the weapon is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution, however, in the present case, the alleged weapon forms the core of the prosecution story and its absence assumes significance in the light of the fact that MLCs do not specify the depth of the injuries. It was held that in order to sustain conviction under Section 307 of IPC (Attempt to murder), it must be shown that the act was done with such intention or knowledge as would have made the act amount to murder if death had ensued.
4. *Christian Michel James v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 318 (Delhi)* : A plain reading of the Article 17 of Indian UAE Extradition Treaty would show that the person to be extradited can be tried for the offence for which his extradition is sought “or for the offence connected therewith”. Therefore, Article 17 of the Indian UAE Extradition Treaty permits the prosecution of a person extradited, for the offence which may be made out against such person from the same factual background asserted against the said person and on the basis of which his extradition has been permitted by the other State or an offence connected therewith. A reading of S.21 of Extradition Act, 1962 would show that a person extradited cannot, until he has been restored or has had an opportunity of returning to the State from which he was extradited, be tried in India for the offences other than (i) extradition offences in relation to which he was surrendered or returned; or (ii) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purpose of securing his surrender or return; or (iii) the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent.
5. *Kachru Narhari Sarode v. State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 319 (Aurangabad, Bombay)* : Rule 12 of the the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, assigned in descending order the importance and primacy as proof of age i.e. firstly Matriculation or equivalent certificate, secondly, date of birth as recorded by school first attended and thirdly, certificate of birth given by Corporation, Municipal Authority or Panchayat. This is the hierarchy of documents that is expected for determination of age. School Transfer Certificate is not to be accepted for age determination of victim of POCSO Act, 2012. Therefore, Transfer Certificate is of no avail to the prosecution.
6. *Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka [2026] GCtR 320 (SC)* : Criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The power of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict investigation is to be exercised with great circumspection, bearing in mind the statutory duty of the investigating agency to inquire into cognizable offences. 
7. *Court on Its Own Motion v. State [2026] GCtR 321 (Delhi)*: Section 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012 cannot be interpreted in isolation and must be read in conjunction with Section 2(1)(da) of the Act. The introduction of Section 2(1)(da) reflects a clear legislative intent that rigid or strictly objective standards for determining the precise age of a person visually depicted in a sexually explicit act should not impede the operation of Section 15. Any interpretation to the contrary would defeat the very purpose for which the provision was enacted. It is evident that the legislature was conscious of the practical difficulty involved in ascertaining the exact age of individuals appearing in such visual depictions. Had strict age-determination criteria been insisted upon in every case, the application of Section 15 would have been rendered largely ineffective. Section 2(1)(da) was therefore incorporated to ensure that offences relating to CSEM are not frustrated merely because the age of the person depicted cannot be established through conventional or objective means.
8. *Nitin Kaushik v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 322 (Delhi)* : This case involved anticipatory bail in allegations under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 of IPC. It is argued by accused that there is no material collected in investigation to show that the accused/applicant was in any manner a party to forge the subject title documents and there is also no evidence to show any financial connection between him and co-accused P. Court observed that "as regards the money allegedly received by P from the present accused/applicant, despite specific submissions in the status report that a part of that amount was paid through bank, no bank statement has been shown. Most importantly, there is nothing to rule out that the accused/applicant himself was under mistaken impression that the title documents, which (even if it is believed) he transmitted over mobile phone to P were genuine documents." Accused was granted anticipatory bail.
9. *Raghunath Saha v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 323 (Delhi)* : This case involved S.420/468/471/34 IPC. It was noted that "according to entire case set up by prosecution, it is Gopal Saha who induced the complainant de facto as well as the subsequently revealed victims to pay money for being sent to Canada for job. It would also be significant to note that the accused/applicants are close relatives of Gopal Saha, being his brother-in-law and niece, and that being so, submission of the accused/applicants cannot be brushed aside that they have been roped in only to armtwist the main accused Gopal Saha. In nutshell, apart from the bald statement of the complainant de facto, naming the present accused/applicants, there is no other evidence against either of them. Of course, on these aspects, the learned trial court shall take independent view on the basis of evidence adduced during trial." However, accused was held entitled to anticipatory bail.
10. *Himanshu Gupta v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 324 (Delhi)* : This case involved S.105 of BNS 2023 (cuplable homicide not amounting to murder). The material on record also indicated that despite being informed of the incident during the night itself, neither the present Accused nor the sub-contractor took immediate steps to inform the police or arrange medical assistance for the victim, and instead there are allegations of attempts to cover up the lapses at the site. The investigation further reveals that the Accused was apprised of the incident soon after it had taken place and remained in contact with the sub-contractor thereafter. Moreover, although Accused Himanshu Gupta was the first person to receive a call from the alleged sub-contractor informing him about the accident, he neither informed the police nor took steps to arrange medical assistance for the victim. Grant to bail to accused was not found justified.
11. *Deepak @ Appu v. State GNCTD [2026] GCtR 325 (Delhi)* : This case involved allegations under S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. It was held that one has to keep in mind that consequence of drug peddling is not just making the consumers ecstatic or ‘high’. Drug peddling leads to generation of large scale black money used in international crimes, especially terrorism. That is one of the reasons for the legislature in enacting the special rigours under Section 37 NDPS Act which stipulates the twin conditions. Dilution of those twin conditions and treating commercial quantity drug peddling with soft gloves would have serious repercussions on security of State as well as overall economy. Of course, liberty of an individual is sacrosanct and Article 21 of the Constitution of India is fully capable of making inroads into the provision under Section 37 of NDPS Act. But at the same time, while examining the argument of delay in trial, the court cannot ignore the ground realities in the form of overflowing dockets due to extreme shortage of not just judges, but even the investigators and prosecutors, which compounds the workload on courts manifold. In order to meaningfully interpret the expression “delay in trial” in consonance with the objective of the twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act, the court has to keep in mind the said factors in arriving at the decision as to what period can be treated as delay in trial. Nothing has been placed by the accused/applicant to satisfy Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/applicant did not possess 300 grams heroin. Grant of bail to accused was not found proper. 
12. Chimaka Promise Udenna @ Angel v. NCB [2026] GCtR 353 (Delhi) : In this case, while rejecting bail application it was found that "as regards the legality of arrest, of course, at the time of being produced before the Special Judge NDPS for the first time after arrest, the present accused/applicant did not make even a whisper challenging the legality of arrest. Even in the earlier bail applications, the accused/applicant never raised any challenge to the legality of her arrest. Despite that, in my view, the issue of legality of arrest because of its very nature should be allowed to be raised at any stage." It was also observed that in the present case, the accused/applicant was served with a notice dated 04.09.2022 under Section 67 NDPS Act, calling her upon to join inquiry connected with the case. Copy of the said notice under Section 67 NDPS Act is at page 86 of the paperbook. In other words, the accused/applicant was not arrested or even detained on 04.09.2022 as alleged. 
13. Jaswinder Singh v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 354 (Delhi) : In this case issue of parole was raised. Accused had suffered incarceration for the past six years out of the total period of twenty years of rigorous imprisonment awarded to him, applied for parole on the ground that he has to file Special Leave Petition (SLP) against upholding of his conviction and sentence. Court held that so far as the report of local police of Aligarh is concerned, it was completely mechanical, to say the least. The only submission of the local police is that if released on parole, the accused could flee. But no reasons behind this apprehension have been laid out. Of course the SLP can be filed by the prisoner through legal aid counsel, but in order to ensure right to be effectively heard, the right of the prisoner to choose his private counsel cannot be denied to him. Similarly, no doubt the private counsel can take instructions from the petitioner by visiting the jail, but in order to ensure effective communication between the prisoner and his counsel, visitor’s room in jail is not a conducive environment. It was held that in order to ensure that the accused is not deprived of a right to be effectively heard by the Supreme Court, grant of parole cannot be denied to him.  
14. Mohd Talha v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 355 (Delhi) : It was held that Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that when a statement written or verbal, is made by a person in the discharge of professional duty whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, the same is relevant and admissible in evidence.   Section 222(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with a case, “when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars”. The Section 222 permits the Court to convict the accused “of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it”. Subsection (2) deals with a similar, but slightly different situation. As per sub-Section (2), when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved, it is reduced to a minor offence, he may be convicted of a minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
15. Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI [2026] GCtR 356 (Delhi) : A perusal of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which is the provision in respect of presumption and determination of age, also applicable to the POCSO Act, 2012, would show that a hierarchy of documents has been provided in sub-clause 2 thereto. As per the same, the priority is given to a date of birth certificate from the respective school or matriculation certificate from the respective examination board, which if available, shall be produced. In the absence thereof, birth certificate from a Corporation/Municipal Authority/ or a Panchayat, may be produced. It is only in cases where neither of the two categories of documents are available, would determination through ossification test or other medical examination may be resorted to.