Criminal Law – DNA Sampling – Section 53-A CrPC – Petition challenging the trial court's order for the petitioner to provide a blood sample for DNA analysis was dismissed. The court upheld the order, referencing Section 53-A CrPC, which mandates DNA testing in rape cases to establish the connection of the accused with the crime. The petitioner’s claim of self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution was rejected based on precedent. Held that the prosecution must conduct DNA profiling to connect the accused with the crime, emphasizing that such testing is crucial when there is likely material to link the accused with the offense​​.

Testimony of Witnesses – Irrelevance at Pre-trial Stage – The petitioner’s argument that the minor victim and other witnesses turned hostile was deemed irrelevant at this stage. The court emphasized that the evidentiary value of such testimonies would be assessed during the final adjudication of the case. Held that the trial court's decision to order DNA sampling was neither illegal nor perverse​​.

Decision:

Petition Dismissed – The court dismissed the petition, supporting the trial court’s directive for DNA testing. It confirmed that such measures do not violate the accused’s fundamental rights and are essential for the prosecution to establish the case against the accused​​.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Deposit of Compensation – Petition against orders directing deposit of 20% of compensation awarded by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that, as per the judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, the word "may" in Section 148 of the Act should generally be construed as "shall". Therefore, the appellate court is required to direct the appellant to deposit at least 20% of the amount as compensation. The petition was allowed for the company but dismissed for the directors, maintaining their obligation to deposit the amount​​.

Role of Corporate Debtor in Cheque Dishonour – Analysis – Held that proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act must continue against the Managing Director and Director of the company despite the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The court emphasized that the statutory powers of the appellate court under Section 148 of the N.I. Act cannot be negated by the moratorium provision. The petition was allowed with respect to the company but not the individual directors, reinforcing the legal stance against abuse of the moratorium provision to evade financial liabilities​​.

Decision – Partial Allowance of Petition – The order directing the company to deposit 20% of the compensation was set aside, while the direction to the directors was upheld. This differentiated approach underscores the court's commitment to ensuring accountability without infringing on statutory protections provided under the IBC​​.

Criminal Law – Cheating – Section 420 IPC – The court, referring to the principle laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal (AIR 2010 SC 1097), held that it has the power to set aside a judgment of conviction on the basis of a valid compromise. Held that the judgment of conviction and sentence against the petitioner was set aside on the basis of a genuine and valid compromise between the parties. [Para 23]

Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – The application for condonation of delay of 1541 days in filing the criminal revision was allowed due to the absence of objections from the opposite side and the presence of a valid compromise. [Paras 1-5]

Compromise Validity – Section 482 CrPC – The court emphasized that the compromise was genuine, entered into without coercion, and served to bring peace between the parties. The decision in Ramgopal &Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012) was referenced to justify the quashing of proceedings post-conviction based on a compromise. [Paras 19-25]

Decision:

Setting Aside Conviction and Sentence – The criminal revision was allowed, and the judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2015 and 20.07.2017 were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him based on the valid and genuine compromise. [Para 25]

Criminal Law – Bail – Predicate Offence – Money Laundering – High Court's Consideration of Bail under PMLA – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – High Court referred to Nikesh Tara Chand Shah case, ruling that the principle is of granting rather than denying bail. No evidence was provided by the prosecution indicating that the petitioner, if granted bail, would abscond or tamper with evidence – Held that denial of bail would unjustly restrict personal liberty – Bail granted to petitioner subject to conditions. [Paras 1-35]

Bail Conditions – Applicability and Justification – Analysis – Held – Granting bail underlined by the absence of evidence suggesting the petitioner would evade trial or interfere with the evidence. Referenced conditions imposed to ensure the petitioner's compliance and presence during trial. [Para 33]

Decision – Granting of Bail – Judicial Reasoning – High Court grants bail to petitioner based on the rule favoring bail and lack of prosecution evidence against him at this stage. The order does not impact the merits of the main trial or restrict the prosecution from appropriate legal recourse. [Paras 30-34]

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Section 439 CrPC – The court held that bail cannot be denied solely on the ground that the accused has multiple prior cases. The precedent set by the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (2012(2) SCC 382) was applied, emphasizing that the role of the accused in the current case and other relevant factors must be considered. Held that the petitioner was granted bail based on these principles. [Paras 1-10]

Identification of Accused – Witness Testimony – The court noted that the primary witness, Kamalpreet Singh, did not identify the petitioner in court and denied giving his initial police statement. Another witness, Ravinder Singh, only heard rumors of the incident. The court found the prosecution's case weakened by these testimonies. [Paras 2-4, 8]

Decision:

Grant of Bail – The petition for regular bail was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the required surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. The decision was influenced by the lack of supporting testimony from key witnesses and the ongoing delay in trial exacerbated by the pandemic. [Paras 9-10]

Constitutional Law – Detention of Goods under CGST Act, 2017 – Release of detained goods under Articles 226 and 227 – Challenge against order of Assistant Commissioner detaining goods under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 – Authorities' power to check goods in transit when accompanied by valid documents – Investigation report relied upon to initiate proceedings under Section 130 found to lack direct nexus with the activity of the trader – Authorities required to reflect reasonable nexus before proceeding under Section 130 – Held, authorities exceeded jurisdiction under Section 130 – Order quashed and direction to release goods [Paras 1-32].

Tax Law – Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Sections 129 and 130, Rule 138A – Inspection and seizure of goods in transit – Criteria for proceeding under Section 130 – Genuineness of tendered documents and absence of intent to evade tax – Held, without discrepancy in documents and lack of direct nexus with evasion, authorities cannot proceed under Section 130 – Provisions for timely conclusion of inspection deemed mandatory – Goods accompanied by valid documents cannot be detained indefinitely – Notice for confiscation under Section 130 requires proof of intent to evade tax [Paras 13-22, 24-31].

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Held – The order dated 30.08.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner and the notice dated 14.09.2021 issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act are quashed – Directions to release detained goods and conveyance – Authorities retain right to proceed under applicable provisions if future contravention occurs – Writ petition maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction and legal foundation by authorities [Para 32].

Parole - Temporary Release for Medical Reasons – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking parole under Section 3(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Petitioner’s mother seriously ill and hospitalized – Petitioner previously released on emergency parole without misuse – Parole rejected on grounds of apprehension of absconding and committing crimes – Held, apprehension without material evidence cannot justify parole denial – Parole granted for 3 weeks. [Paras 1-8]

Basis of Parole Rejection – Analysis – Petitioner's mother’s serious illness and petitioner being sole breadwinner confirmed – No misuse of previous parole – Rejection based on mere apprehension of absconding and committing crimes lacks material evidence – Parole cannot be denied solely on such apprehensions. [Paras 5-6]

Judicial Principles – Reference to coordinate Bench decision in Amritpal Singh @ Amba vs. State of Punjab – Pendency of FIRs or apprehensions cannot solely deny parole – Right to meet family and attend to urgent familial needs recognized – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Parole Granted – Impugned order dated 06.05.2022 set aside – Petitioner granted parole for 3 weeks on heavy surety – Directed to surrender on 14.06.2022 at 4:00 PM before Central Jail, Ambala. [Paras 7-8]

Criminal Law – Right to Conjugal Relations – Criminal writ petition seeking parole for conjugal relations and procreation within jail premises – Petitioner's husband, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment, classified as a hardcore criminal – Held, right to conjugal relations is not an absolute right – Convicted persons cannot enjoy the same rights as law-abiding citizens – Petitioner's husband can apply for parole in terms of relevant instructions and statutory conditions.

Right to Conjugal Relations – Analysis – Held – The right to conjugal relations is not absolute and is subject to statutory conditions and reasonable restrictions. Convicts are entitled to infertility treatment but cannot claim conjugal rights akin to law-abiding citizens. Distinctions between law-abiding citizens and convicts must be maintained[Para 12-13]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – The petition for conjugal parole is dismissed with observations. Petitioner’s husband can apply for parole per instructions and conditions under the statute. Jail Reforms Committee to consider relevant judicial precedents while formulating policies [Para 17]

Constitutional Law – Regularization of Contractual Employees – Writ petition against regularization of ADAs under policy dated 18.03.2011 – Petitioners contended regularization was arbitrary, lacked transparency, and violated constitutional scheme requiring public posts to be filled by best available talent through open competition – Held, policy applied only to certain departments and was extended arbitrarily – Regularization not permissible for Group-B posts under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution – Regularization set aside, State directed to make appointments through direct recruitment within six months, private respondents eligible to apply.

Permanent Appointment vs. Regularization – Analysis – Held – The concept of permanent appointment differs from regularization. Regularization under the policy dated 18.03.2011 was arbitrary and not justified, especially since regular appointments were initiated and could have been done in a staggered manner. Regularization on Group-B posts is impermissible under the Rules framed under Article 309. The best talent must be appointed through open competition

[Para 27-32]

Decision – Quashing of Regularization – The impugned order of regularization dated 08.10.2013 is quashed. The State may continue the private respondents as contract employees while initiating direct recruitment. The process to be completed within six months, with an age relaxation for private respondents. The writ petitions are allowed

[Para 32]