Bail Application – Repeated Regular Bail Plea – Filing of Chargesheet Not a Substantial Change of Circumstances – Application Rejected - The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds of completion of investigation, delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and alleged non-involvement in the crime – Held: Filing of the chargesheet does not constitute a substantive change of circumstances to warrant reconsideration of bail – Material on record prima facie indicates active involvement in heinous crimes, including the continuous sexual abuse of a minor for over four years – The gravity of the offence, societal impact, and potential for tampering with evidence or absconding necessitated rejection of bail – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 6, 15-17].

Parameters for Grant of Bail – Discretion to be Exercised Judiciously – Prima Facie Case Against Applicant - The Court reiterated established principles for granting bail, including the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence – Held: A prima facie case exists against the applicant, and the circumstances do not warrant grant of bail, considering the heinousness of the offence and societal ramifications – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 10, 13-15].

Societal Impact of Heinous Crimes – Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Bail Denied - The Court emphasized the need to balance the accused's right to liberty against the societal interest of ensuring justice for victims of heinous crimes – Observed that granting bail in such cases could undermine societal confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the victim – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 9-14].

Precedential Rulings – Filing of Chargesheet Does Not Automatically Warrant Bail - Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that while filing of the chargesheet changes the stage of investigation, it does not lessen the seriousness of the allegations – Mere filing of the chargesheet is not sufficient to justify release on bail unless accompanied by other substantial changes in circumstances – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 15-16].

Judicial Observations – Application of Established Bail Principles – Protection of Victim and Witnesses - The Court emphasized judicial discretion in bail matters, considering the nature of evidence, apprehension of tampering with witnesses, and societal interest in justice – Strong prima facie case and seriousness of the charges warranted continued custody of the applicant – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 13-17].
 

Income Tax Law – Section 153C – Assessment Proceedings Initiated for a Non-Searched Person – Challenges Rejected - Jurisdiction – Validity of Notices under Section 153C – Extended Period of Ten Years – Petitioner challenged notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2014-15 as being time-barred – Court held that as per the amended provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, the extended period of ten years is applicable when the escaped income exceeds ₹50 lakh – Satisfaction note recorded on 23.10.2019, allowed reopening of assessments from AY 2009-10 to AY 2018-19 – Held: Notices were within the extended limitation period and validly issued [Paras 31, 34].

Satisfaction Note – Requirement for Valid Initiation of Proceedings – Petitioner contended that satisfaction notes by the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person (dated 31.03.2018) and by the AO of the petitioner (dated 23.10.2019) were invalid – Court observed that satisfaction was duly recorded before transmitting material to the jurisdictional AO and within the period prescribed for completing assessments of the searched person – Held: Satisfaction note complied with Section 153C requirements and the CBDT Circular No. 24/2015 [Paras 27-28, 33].

Incriminating Material – Validity of Notices for Years Without Specific Material – Petitioner argued that notices for AYs where no incriminating material was found were invalid – Court held that the relevance of incriminating material to specific AYs could be addressed during assessment proceedings and through statutory remedies – Held: Challenges on this ground are premature and can be raised before the AO [Paras 35].

Principles from Precedents – Compliance with Judicial Guidelines – Court referred to the decisions in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC)], CIT v. Jasjit Singh [(2023) 458 ITR 437 (SC)], and Principal CIT v. Karina Airlines [(2024) 165 Taxman.com 421 (Delhi)] to affirm that:

Satisfaction notes must be recorded at the appropriate stage, but minor delays are permissible unless prejudicial to the assessee.
Notices may cover ten AYs when income exceeding ₹50 lakh has escaped assessment post-amendment.
A composite satisfaction note suffices if it refers to incriminating material impacting the relevant AYs [Paras 26-33].

Alternative Remedies – Premature Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction – Court held that the petitioner had adequate remedies during assessment proceedings and by filing appeals against any adverse order – Writ jurisdiction was deemed inappropriate at this stage to decide the validity of satisfaction or incriminating material’s sufficiency [Paras 18, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Notices under Section 153C validly issued for AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15 – Assessment proceedings allowed to continue – Rule discharged [Paras 35].
 

Criminal Law – Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Legality of Arrest – Procedural Compliance - Petitioner challenged his arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA on grounds of procedural violations, including failure to supply “reasons to believe” and non-consideration of exculpatory material – The Court held that Section 19 imposes stringent safeguards, requiring officers to record reasons in writing, communicate grounds of arrest, and forward arrest orders to the Adjudicating Authority – Held: Arrest complied with procedural requirements as the arrest order and detailed grounds of arrest were provided within statutory timelines – Non-supply of reasons to believe was excused as the arrest predated the Supreme Court's decision in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 [Paras 46-47, 53].

Financial Fraud – Money Laundering – Grounds of Arrest – Sufficient Material - Petitioner’s arrest was based on allegations of diversion of public funds exceeding ₹3,700 crores through shell companies, misuse of personal guarantees, and systematic concealment of assets – ED’s investigation unearthed proceeds of crime involving fraudulent transactions and properties held benami – Held: Grounds of arrest contained substantial details linking petitioner to money laundering activities – Allegations of tampering with evidence and non-disclosure of beneficially owned assets justified necessity to arrest [Paras 48-52, 55].

Exculpatory Material – Non-Consideration – Judicial Review - Petitioner argued that exculpatory material, including forensic audit reports and court orders setting aside fraud declarations, was ignored – Held: Letter and reports cited by petitioner contained disclaimers or limited findings, and ED’s assessment relied on contemporaneous material and investigation records – Judicial review does not permit merits review but ensures adherence to statutory safeguards – Allegation of selective reliance by ED rejected [Paras 56-56.6].

Necessity to Arrest – Investigative Justification – Judicial Scrutiny - Necessity to arrest was assessed considering risks of tampering with evidence, influence on lower-rung employees, and likelihood of further offences – Court examined applicability of Section 41 CrPC principles on necessity – Held: Arrest was warranted to preserve evidence, ensure effective investigation, and prevent further concealment of proceeds of crime – Petitioner’s arguments on non-cooperation and self-incrimination did not negate the necessity for arrest [Paras 57, 74].

Remand Orders – Validity and Compliance - Petitioner argued that remand orders were mechanical and failed to address compliance with Section 19(1) of the PMLA – Held: Remand orders considered the grounds of arrest and established compliance with procedural requirements, including communication of grounds of arrest and forwarding of material to Adjudicating Authority – Remand orders not vitiated by arrest irregularities [Paras 58, 56.7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Arrest of petitioner upheld as compliant with Section 19 of the PMLA – Petitioner to raise further contentions during bail proceedings [Paras 59-62].
 

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Recovery from Co-Accused – Petitioner Not Directly Implicated – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, asserting false implication and lack of recovery from him – Court noted that the contraband was recovered from a co-accused, and the petitioner’s involvement was based solely on a disclosure statement – Held: Prolonged incarceration and no specific role attributed warranted bail – Petition allowed [Paras 3, 5, 7].

Principle of Bail – Presumption of Innocence – Reverse Burden Not Applicable to Case – Court relied on the presumption of innocence and absence of concrete evidence against the petitioner to justify bail – Held: Bail is a rule, and incarceration is an exception, aligning with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Para 5].

Right to Speedy Trial – Indefinite Detention – Court recognized the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Emphasized that prolonged detention during trial without conclusive evidence against the accused is unjustified – Bail granted [Para 6].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail under Section 439 CrPC upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate – Observations not to affect the merits of the case【Paras 6–7】.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Quashing of Complaint Based on Compromise – Petition Allowed – The petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, citing a mutual settlement between the parties – Held: Continuation of proceedings after a mutual compromise amounts to abuse of process of law – It was observed that the complainant had initially admitted to the compromise before the trial court but later attempted to backtrack without just cause – Decision: Complaint and all subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 2-10].

Abuse of Process – Enforcement of Compromise – Complaint Quashed – The respondent/complainant admitted to receiving payment as part of a mutual compromise but later denied the same, continuing litigation to harass the petitioner – Held: Allowing such actions would grant a premium to dishonest litigation and mock judicial proceedings – Court quashed the complaint to uphold the integrity of legal proceedings [Paras 9-10].

Settlement in Criminal Cases – Judicial Approach – The court relied on precedents, including Ruchi Aggarwal v. Amit Kumar Aggarwal (2004) and Paramjit Khanna v. Inder Pal (2018), to emphasize that once a compromise is acted upon, neither party can resile from it – Such settlements are binding, and continuation of litigation thereafter constitutes an abuse of process [Paras 6-9].

Decision: The petition was allowed. The complaint titled "Khilar Singh v. Smt. Babli" (NACT/2751/2019) and all subsequent proceedings arising from it were quashed by the court.
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Upheld – The appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused under Sections 302 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence – The appellate court emphasized the principle that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that leads only to the guilt of the accused – Citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that suspicion, even when coupled with recovery of items allegedly belonging to the deceased, is insufficient – The chain of evidence was found incomplete – Held: Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-8].

Evidence Law – Last Seen Theory – Insufficiency of Proof – The prosecution relied on the testimony of P.W.4 to establish the last seen theory – However, the witness failed to provide clear and corroborative details linking the accused to the deceased – The testimony lacked precision, and the evidence was inconsistent – Held: The last seen theory lacked evidentiary weight and failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 6-7].

Recovery of Ornaments – Identification Standards – Prosecution Failure – Recovered ornaments allegedly belonging to the deceased were identified by P.W.1 based solely on oral testimony – The identification was not supported by distinct marks or forensic evidence – The appellate court held that the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary threshold to connect the accused with the crime – Held: Recovery and identification did not substantiate guilt [Paras 6, 9].

Appeals Against Acquittal – Limited Scope of Interference – The court reaffirmed the principle that interference with an acquittal judgment requires evidence of perversity, misapplication of law, or disregard for material evidence – Suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt – The appellate court found no errors in the trial court's reasoning or appreciation of evidence – Held: The acquittal judgment was justified and did not warrant interference [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The trial court's judgment acquitting the accused was upheld – The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
 

Property Law – Specific Performance – Agreements to Sell – Plaintiff alleged that documents executed in favor of Defendants were for securing a loan, not for sale of the suit property at 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – Defendants claimed entire sale consideration was paid, and Agreements to Sell were valid sale transactions – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish that the transactions were loans or that the executed documents were for security purposes – Defendants proved Agreements to Sell were genuine sale transactions – Decree for specific performance granted in favor of Defendants [Paras 80-93, 162-172].

Loan vs. Sale Transaction – Plaintiff's Claims Contradicted by Evidence – Plaintiff claimed loans totaling ₹60 lakhs were secured by sale documents – Evidence revealed inconsistencies in Plaintiff's financial transactions, inability to prove interest payments, and lack of supporting documentation – Handwriting expert and CFSL reports confirmed Plaintiff's receipts alleging loan repayment were forged – Held: Plaintiff's defense of a loan transaction was unfounded [Paras 99-127, 133-136].

Unilateral Revocation of Sale Documents – Invalidity – Plaintiff executed Revocation Deeds and issued a public notice asserting ownership of the suit property – Court held unilateral revocation of Agreements to Sell and related documents was invalid in law – Plaintiff failed to seek a declaration of revocation's validity – Defendants’ possession and payments supported their claims under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 138-155].

Specific Performance – Relief Granted – Defendants were found to have paid full consideration for the first and second floors of the suit property and performed their obligations under the Agreements to Sell – Plaintiff directed to execute sale deeds within 60 days, failing which Defendants could initiate execution proceedings – Decree granted in favor of Defendants [Paras 156-174].

Suit Valuation – Proper Court Fee Paid – Initial undervaluation corrected by amendment – Enhanced valuation of ₹5.25 crores permitted – Court Fees Act complied with – Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court restored [Paras 164-169].

Decision: CS(OS) No. 1336/1998 dismissed – Plaintiff’s claims of loan transaction and unilateral revocation rejected – No relief granted. CS(OS) No. 2273/2000 decreed – Specific performance of Agreements to Sell in favor of Defendants – Plaintiff directed to execute sale deeds for respective floors of the suit property.
 

Criminal Law – Conviction Modified – Appellants charged under Sections 302, 324, 326, and 114 of IPC for murder of a co-worker during a sudden quarrel while playing cards – Trial court convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court re-examined evidence and held the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC as there was no premeditation – Conviction under Section 302 set aside – Appellants sentenced to 8 years' simple imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC – Rest of the sentence remains unaltered [Paras 12–13].

Witness Testimony – Eye-witness Account – Sole eye-witness, P.W. 6 (complainant), corroborated the sudden quarrel leading to the assault – Testimony established that appellants used iron rods lying at the scene and assaulted the deceased without premeditation – Other witnesses turned hostile or were not eye-witnesses to the incident – No prior intent or preparation to murder established [Paras 2.1, 7.6].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Postmortem confirmed intracranial hemorrhage due to head injury caused by blunt force trauma – Injuries over the parietal and occipital regions consistent with assault described by P.W. 6 – Doctor’s evidence established injuries likely to cause death, not necessarily intended to cause death in the ordinary course of nature [Paras 7.8, 12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Iron rods and strip used in the assault recovered from the scene – No evidence of pre-arming by the accused – Incident occurred during a sudden fight arising out of a card game quarrel during Diwali holidays at the workers' residence [Paras 2.1, 7.9, 12].

Legal Principles – Exception to Murder under Section 300 IPC – High Court applied principles from Anbazhagan vs. State (2023) – Found that the act was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight – Accused had knowledge of likely fatal consequences but no intention to cause death or injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – Offence reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 114 IPC modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to 8 years’ simple imprisonment – Rest of the trial court's findings and sentences for other charges upheld – Registry directed to return R&P to trial court for compliance [Paras 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction overturned - Dying Declarations – Conflicting Evidence – Two inconsistent dying declarations formed the basis of the prosecution's case – Court observed significant discrepancies in the deceased's statements regarding specific overt acts by the accused – Decision: The Court held it unsafe to convict the accused solely based on inconsistent dying declarations without corroborative evidence, leading to acquittal [Paras 28-32, 45-47].

Corroborative Evidence – Lack of Supporting Witnesses – Prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses who could corroborate the deceased's statements – Key witnesses turned hostile, raising doubt about the prosecution's case – Decision: The absence of corroboration was deemed critical, warranting the appellants' acquittal [Paras 33-36].

Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt to Accused – Highlighted the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof – Court emphasized the duty to ensure guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt – Decision: The appellants were granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 40-43].

Judicial Examination of Evidence – Admissibility of Dying Declarations – Reiterated that dying declarations must be voluntary, consistent, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances – Found inconsistencies and lack of clarity in statements raised doubts about their veracity – Decision: Conviction based solely on the declarations was overturned [Paras 24-27].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 IPC by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, were set aside. The appellants were acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC.