Criminal Law : Important Judgments of May 2026

Criminal Law : Important Judgments of May 2026

Written in Memory of Late Shri R.P. Mishra, Prayagraj

1. In case of Jagabandhu Jena v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 366 (Delhi) it was held that "where the case rests solely upon the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, the court must subject such evidence to careful scrutiny, and if reasonable doubt arises as to its reliability on material particulars, the benefit thereof must go to the accused".  It was was explained that while "it is true that PW1 has not mentioned certain fact either in her FIS/FIR or in her testimony before the court. However, this omission is not of such a nature so as to demolish the prosecution case especially when PW1 withstood the cross-examination."

2. In case of Kommineni Ajay Babu v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 367 (Delhi), it was held that in cases of large scale cyber frauds and even other economic offences, grant of anticipatory bail is not appropriate because doing so would thwart and derail the investigation. It was noted that the legal character of the relationship between the accused/applicant and Smartplan Media Pvt. Ltd. also needs to be unearthed, because the said entity is a private limited company, but the accused/applicant claims himself to be a “proprietor” thereof, which is not a coherent statement.

3. In the case of Raj Mahato v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 368 (Delhi), even in cases of alleged offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 the Court does exercise discretion to grant bail in appropriate cases. While consent is legally irrelevant in cases involving offences under the POCSO Act, Court has thus recognised that relationships among young adults, where there may have been de facto approval of both participants for a sexual relationship, however misguided, must be treated on a different footing.

4. In case of Brijesh Kothia v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 369 (Delhi), though illegality in arrest and remand warrants that an arrestee be released from custody, it does not by itself nullify the investigation or bar further action in accordance with law.  Non‑supply of written grounds of arrest within the stipulated window vitiates the arrest and the remand, irrespective of the statute under which the arrest is made, though without invalidating the investigation or the trial. It was held that there is a clear distinction between generic “reasons for arrest” as routinely recorded in arrest memos and “grounds of arrest” which are personal and specific to the accused; observing that the former cannot be treated as a substitute for the latter.

5. In the case of Heera Lal v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 370 (Delhi), the accused was acquitted. It is settled law that where a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, each link of the evidence must lead only to the culpability of the accused. Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. In this case, the "alleged recoveries, even otherwise, do not take the case of the prosecution any further. As far as the shirt and pants stated to be of the appellant Heera Lal are concerned, no blood could be detected on them. As far as the shirt alleged to be belonging to the appellant Surender is concerned, though blood was detected on it and was stated to be of human origin, the blood group could not be conclusively stated. Even otherwise, whether the shirt at all belonged to accused has not been proved by the prosecution, except only through the statement of accused2 Heera Lal, which would be inadmissible as against Surender (accused 1) . As far as the knife is concerned, again, no blood was detected on it."

6. In the case of Nirmal Kumar v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 371 (Delhi), it was held that there is a distinction between “taking” and merely allowing a minor to accompany a person. Where a minor, having sufficient understanding, voluntarily leaves the protection of her guardian and joins the accused, it cannot be said that the accused has “taken” her, unless there is clear evidence of inducement or active participation in forming such intention. In this case, it was seen that there does not appear to be any specific act of inducement or active role on the part of the accused in causing PW1 to leave her lawful guardian’s custody. In fact the case of PW1 is that she loved the appellant/ accused, but later on she realised that he was already married and hence a cheat. Apart from the version of PW1, there are no materials to show that the accused was in fact a married man when PW1 eloped with him. It was held that the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC have not been satisfactorily established. Accordingly, the trial court went wrong in convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.

7. In the case of CCL S v. State of NCTD [2026] GCtR 372 (Delhi), it was held that the court cannot be oblivious of harsh reality of today’s society where a number of heinous crimes even under special legislations like NDPS Act and MCOCA are being committed by the organized syndicates through juveniles, abusing the social welfare legislation.In the present case itself, there were five assailants as alleged by prosecution. Besides that, the CCL/applicant was involved in two more cases of serious nature, one of which is another murder case and it is while on bail in that murder case, the CCL/applicant got involved in the present murder case. The apprehension expressed by the State is not vague that if released on bail, the CCL/applicant would come in contact with some known criminals. The murder in which the CCL/applicant is alleged to be involved took place while he was already on bail in yet another murder case, in addition to which he is involved in yet another serious crime. Ultimately, bail was denied to accused.

8. In the case of Sunil @ Sunil Sharma v. DRI [2026] GCtR 373 (Delhi), it was concluded that inventory prepared was not in accordance with Sub section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. It was held that the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the punishments prescribed therein are stringent, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts cast on the prosecution, is more onerous. The courts would have to undertake a heightened scrutiny test and satisfy itself of "proof beyond all reasonable doubt". It was then noted that Section 52(3)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 clearly says that the article seized shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer empowered under Section 53 of NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, it was incumbent on PW9 to hand over the case property/material objects without any delay to PW10, the officer empowered under Section 53. However, there are no materials to show that it was in fact handed over by PW9 to PW10 on 18.05.2012 itself.