Criminal Law – Application for Cancellation of Bail – Dowry Prohibition and Cruelty Allegations – Bail granted to husband under Sections 498A/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act – Alleged violations of mediation agreement by husband – No sufficient grounds to cancel bail based on non-compliance of compromise terms – Legal precedent holds that non-compliance with compromise does not justify bail cancellation in absence of misuse of liberty or harm to justice process – Application dismissed by the High Court. [Paras 1-20]

Precedents Applied – Bail cannot be cancelled solely on breach of compromise – Cited judgments: Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee (2004) 3 SCC 388, Bhuri Bai v. State of M.P. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1779), Pritpal Singh v. State of Bihar (2001 SCC OnLine SC 123), Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 – Held, bail once granted should not be cancelled without cogent reasons. [Paras 7, 20]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision – The Court held that the bail granted to the husband by the Additional Sessions Court was in accordance with law, and no valid grounds for cancellation were found – The petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed. [Paras 21-22]

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation Enhancement – Appeal against compensation awarded under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of a 23-year-old in a road accident – Tribunal awarded ₹5,21,000 as compensation – Appellant claimed inadequate compensation, contesting the tribunal's assessment of income and personal expenses deduction – Court considered notional income due to lack of documentary proof of the deceased's earnings – Modified the award by applying Pranay Sethi's guidelines and awarded ₹5,38,300 with 7.5% interest per annum – Appeal partly allowed with enhanced compensation [Paras 1-16].

Assessment of Income – No documentary evidence to prove income of the deceased – Tribunal relied on notional income of ₹3,000 per month, affirmed by the High Court – Held, fixation of notional income and multiplier of 18 was appropriate as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi judgments – Future prospects at 40% of notional income applied, considering the deceased was below 40 years [Paras 5-9].

Conventional Heads – Enhanced compensation for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of filial consortium awarded under Pranay Sethi – Rs.18,150 for funeral expenses, Rs.18,150 for loss of estate, and Rs.48,400 for loss of filial consortium allowed, replacing the lower tribunal's award – Compensation increased based on the legal precedents [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Compensation increased to ₹5,38,300 from ₹5,21,000 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim filing – The respondent insurer directed to pay the revised amount within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction for Murder – Sections 302 and 364 IPC – Reversal of Trial Court’s Conviction by High Court – Inconsistencies in Prosecution Evidence – Appeal against the judgment of conviction by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC – Accused was convicted for the murder of the deceased based on circumstantial evidence and alleged motive – High Court set aside the conviction due to lack of corroboration in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the evidence produced by the prosecution, including discrepancies in the "last seen" theory and recovery of evidence. [Paras 1-25]

Evidence Evaluation – Last Seen Theory and Motive Rejected – Contradictory Witness Testimonies Undermine Prosecution’s Case – High Court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, including PW1 and PW2 – The "last seen together" theory was doubted as the timeline of events was inconsistent – The alleged recovery of evidence, including the blood-stained shirt and the motive based on blackmail, was found unreliable due to witness contradictions and lack of concrete evidence. [Paras 16-22]

Recovery of Evidence – Blood-Stained Shirt and Voter ID Card – The recovery of the accused's voter ID card at the scene and the blood-stained shirt were presented as crucial evidence – High Court rejected the admissibility of this evidence, citing the contradictions in the testimony of the recovery witnesses and failure to prove the chain of custody. [Paras 23-24]

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused – Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. [Para 25]

Bail – NDPS Act – Procedural Non-compliance – Petitioner charged under NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity of contraband opium – Petitioner argued non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52A, raising questions about the legality of the search and the admissibility of evidence – Court found merit in the arguments, stating that procedural lapses, including failure to properly inform the accused of his rights and improper handling of the contraband, prima facie weaken the prosecution's case [Paras 10-13].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Rights of Accused – Court emphasized that under Section 50, the accused must be informed of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Failure to secure this option and mere acknowledgment of receipt of notice by the petitioner was held as a critical procedural deficiency, invalidating the search and the recovery of contraband [Paras 12-13].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Procedure for Seizure – Court noted improper compliance with Section 52A, as the list of contraband was prepared and verified by the judicial magistrate under police supervision, which deviated from the legal protocol [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on personal bond and sureties, with conditions, due to procedural violations in search and seizure under the NDPS Act, and prolonged custody since October 19, 2023, without further justification for detention [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 22(c) – Bail under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged incarceration considered for granting bail – Petitioner apprehended with 295 grams of heroin under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Prosecution failed to present significant progress in the trial despite the charges being framed on 30.11.2023 and only one witness being examined out of 16 listed witnesses – Custody certificate showed petitioner behind bars for more than one year and two months – Supreme Court's rulings in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha and Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh v. State of Gujarat cited to argue that prolonged incarceration justifies bail even in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act – Bail granted on the condition of compliance with standard legal requirements and certain additional conditions – [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Conditional Liberty under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged detention beyond reasonable time violates the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – The court emphasized that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the prolonged custody of the petitioner and minimal progress in the trial – [Paras 5-12].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Rulings – Relevance of Custodial Period – Court followed precedents established by the Supreme Court, including cases like Chitta Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Nitish Adhikary v. State of West Bengal, where prolonged custody and slow progress in trials were key factors for granting bail under the NDPS Act – Court concluded that continued incarceration of the petitioner in this case would be unjustified – [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition for bail allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, subject to standard bail conditions and additional restrictions like surrendering the passport, maintaining good behavior, and ensuring timely appearance in court – [Paras 13-17].

Industrial Dispute – Termination of Workman – Validity of Domestic Inquiry – Petitioner challenged the termination order and the Labour Court's decision – Workman dismissed for misconduct, including physical assault on a superior and a co-worker – Domestic inquiry upheld by the Labour Court – Petitioner failed to challenge the inquiry's fairness earlier – High Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the inquiry was fair and the dismissal justified – No jurisdictional error found warranting interference [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Article 226 does not function as an appellate body – It corrects jurisdictional errors and acts contrary to natural justice, not errors of fact – High Court found no procedural errors or jurisdictional overreach in the Labour Court's decision – Petition dismissed on these grounds [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and dismissal of the petitioner for proven misconduct – No relief granted to the petitioner .

Criminal Law – Transfer of Investigation – Petitioner sought transfer of investigation in the murder of her husband from the Crime Branch to CBI – Allegations of inadequate investigation by local police, failure to examine critical aspects of the case, and possible involvement of other individuals – Court held that in cases where credibility and public confidence in investigation are at stake, transfer to an independent agency like CBI is warranted – Ordered transfer of investigation to CBI to ensure thorough and impartial investigation [Paras 17-28].

Fair Investigation – Scope of Judicial Review – Courts have the power under Article 226 to transfer investigations, but such power should be exercised cautiously and in rare circumstances – Transfer to CBI justified when local investigation raises suspicions of impartiality or significant gaps in probing key aspects of the crime [Paras 9-16, 27-28].

Decision: Petition allowed – Investigation transferred to the CBI – Zonal Director, CBI, directed to appoint an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to head the investigation – Court clarified that this transfer does not reflect on the efficiency of the Crime Branch but aims to ensure a fair investigation [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 386, 449, 326, 365, 506, 120B, and 34 of the IPC, contending that the allegations made in the complaint were fabricated and unsupported by material evidence. Upon review, the court found discrepancies between the allegations of assault and the medical records, which suggested a different version of events, i.e., that the complainant fell and sustained injuries without any mention of assault​.

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – The Court noted that the complainant’s account of the assault was not corroborated by the medical reports, as the history given to the doctors mentioned a fall rather than an attack. This discrepancy undermined the credibility of the complaint​.

Misuse of Legal Process – Bhajan Lal Principles – The court invoked the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, highlighting that where allegations are inherently improbable or where the proceedings are manifestly initiated with mala fide intent, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to prevent abuse of legal process​.

Decision: The criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 503/2018 arising from Asansol (South) Police Station Case No. 88/2018 were quashed with respect to the petitioners. The Court ruled that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and failed to secure the ends of justice​.

Tender Process – Validity – Technical Bid Requirements – Petitioners challenged the tender process, alleging that the successful L-1 consortium did not meet the required stockholding conditions and that there was no physical inspection of stock as mandated under the e-bid document – Court held that the stockholding requirement was satisfied based on the evidence presented by the respondents – The clause requiring physical inspection was held to be discretionary, and since it was waived for all bidders, there was no arbitrariness in the process [Paras 6-10, 17-18].

Judicial Review – Scope – Tender Matters – The Court reaffirmed that judicial interference in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias – Merely differing interpretations of tender terms by the court are not grounds for intervention – The authorities' decision-making process was upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 11-16, 19-21].

Decision:

Writ petitions dismissed – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in the tender process – Petitioners failed to establish grounds for judicial intervention – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].