Criminal Procedure - Bail - Application for regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC - Allegations of compromising national security and sharing secret information with co-accused - Petitioner falsely implicated - Weak evidentiary value of disclosure statement - No recovery of narcotics from petitioner - Trial in progress - Serious and specific allegations against petitioner - Bail denied. (Para 5)

National Security - Compromise of national security - Allegations of sharing critical information with co-accused - Information forwarded to Pakistan for financial gain - Prima facie grave allegations - Denial of regular bail. (Para 5)

Promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. Public Works Department under the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department "Group-B" Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 - Controversy regarding promotion of Junior Engineers (Technical) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the 50% promotion quota as per the Rules, 2004 - Eligibility and procedure for promotion as per the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department "Group-B" Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 - Cadre of Junior Engineer (Technical) consisting of directly recruited Junior Engineers (Technical)/Computers and promoted Junior Engineers (Technical) who were initially appointed as Draftsmen - Amendment in the promotion quota from 20% to 50% in the year 1992 - Petitioners challenging the inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). (Para 1)

Interpretation of Rules, 1968, Rules, 1984, and Rules, 2004 - The interplay between the Rules governing the promotion from Draftsman to Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer - The effect of the Rules, 1984 on the promotion opportunities for Draftsmen - Continuation of Rules, 1968 despite the enactment of Rules, 1984 - Unity of cadre between directly recruited Junior Engineers (Technical)/Computers and promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) - Eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) based on seniority and years of substantive service as Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer. (Para 2)

Prerogative of the Engineer-in-Chief to determine the source/feeder post for promotion - Engineer-in-Chief's authority to decide the eligibility for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer - Eligibility conditions under Rules, 1968 and Rules, 2004 - Inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list for promotion as per the direction of the Engineer-in-Chief. (Para 3)

Court's role in prescribing qualification and eligibility for promotion - Court's inability to amend statutory Rules and determine qualifications for promotion - Mandate of Rule 5(2) of Rules, 2004 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) based on years of substantive service as Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer - Compliance with statutory rules in the promotion process. (Para 4)

Challenge to promotion after a lapse of time - Petitioners' delay in challenging the promotion of the opposite parties - Inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the seniority list and subsequent promotions - Belated challenge to the promotion not maintainable. (Para 5)

Legality of requisition for promotion - Compliance with the Court's direction in previous judgment - Legality of requisition sent to the Public Service Commission for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) - No illegality found in the impugned requisition dated 28.5.2022. (Para 6)

Dismissal of writ petitions and allowance of one writ petition - Dismissal of writ petitions challenging the inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list for promotion - Allowance of the writ petition filed by promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) for quashing an order and considering their case for promotion based on seniority. (Para 7)

Regular Bail – Pendency of Trial – Overstaying in India after Expiry of Passport and Visa – Allegations of violation of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Passports Act, 1967 – Petitioners, residents of Afghanistan, arrested for residing in India without valid passports and visas – Trial progressing at a slow pace – Only two prosecution witnesses examined till date – Further detention not serving any useful purpose – Petitioners released on regular bail – No expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 63 and 65 - Secondary evidence - Original will sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence - Existence and execution of original will not established - Mere assertion of possession by one defendant not sufficient - Secondary evidence cannot be admitted without establishing existence and loss of original document - Order allowing secondary evidence set aside. (Para Number: 7, 9, 11)

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of plaint - Application filed by defendant-petitioners seeking rejection of plaint - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiffs alleging possession and seeking injunction against dispossession - Defendant-petitioners claiming possession and contending suit not maintainable - Reliance on unregistered agreement to sell - Availability of alternative remedy - Impugned order dismissing application - Challenge thereto - Whether grounds exist for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Held, only averments of plaint to be considered - Plaintiffs specifically averring possession and seeking injunction - Defendant-petitioners' argument on possession not to be considered at this stage - Alternative remedy and reliance on unregistered agreement matters of evidence - No grounds made out for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision petition devoid of merits - Revision petition dismissed. (Para No. 5-6)

Criminal Writ Petition – Quashment of interception orders under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 – Violation of right to privacy – Compliance with Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution – Lack of sufficient reasoning and procedural safeguards. (Para 1)

Provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act – Requirement for occurrences of public emergency or interest of public safety – Impugned orders lacked disclosure of material justifying public safety – Failure to record reasons in writing for interception. (Para 4)

Precedents – Illegal tapping of phone conversations violates right to privacy – Upheld by a 9 Judges Constitution Bench – Importance of procedural fairness and protection of privacy rights reaffirmed in previous cases. (Para 9)

Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules, 2007 – Mandate for issuance of interception orders by competent authorities – Orders must contain reasons – Requirement to consider other means of acquiring information – Failure to adhere to procedural safeguards. (Para 16)

Non-compliance with statutory provisions – Impugned orders passed by an incompetent authority – Failure to send orders to the Review Committee – Impugned orders suffered from manifest arbitrariness. (Para 17)

Quashing of all three interception orders – Direction to destroy intercepted messages and their copies – Prohibition of use of intercepted messages in pending criminal proceedings. (Para 19)

Petitioner allowed to seek further legal remedies for other reliefs sought in the writ petition – No costs imposed on either party. (Para 20)

Offenses relating to the security of women and POCSO Act - Duty of criminal courts to ensure witness protection - Rebuttal of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act through cross-examination - Right to cross-examine as an indelible right and essential for a fair trial. (Para 11)

Delay in filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Seriousness of offenses and harsh punishments under the POCSO Act - Importance of right to cross-examine in such cases - Delay not a sufficient ground to deny the opportunity for cross-examination. (Para 12)

Granting limited opportunity for cross-examination - Petitioner afforded a single date for cross-examining PW1 - Cross-examination to be conducted and completed on August 7, 2023 - No further opportunities to be provided. (Para 15)

Conditions and consequences - Precondition of payment to the witness - Payment of Rs. 10,000/- to be made by the petitioner within one week - Violation of conditions leading to the automatic vacation of the granted opportunity. (Para 17)

Disposal of the petition - Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the trial court's order dismissed - Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para 19)

Bail application - Allegations under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - Serious allegations against accused Deputy Chief Minister/Excise Minister for formulating excise policy to benefit certain individuals and receiving illegal gratification - Defense challenges credibility of Enforcement Directorate (ED) case based on inconsistent statements and contradictions in witnesses' testimonies - Court to balance personal liberty with societal interests. (Para 53-55)

Evidentiary value of statements under Section 50 PMLA - Statements admissible but not considered gospel truth - Court to weigh evidence during trial - Defense argues case based on whims and fancies, while ED relies on Section 50 statements. (Para 57)

Involvement of third parties and mens rea in formulating excise policy - Bail jurisdiction discretionary but must be exercised judiciously - Court to consider legislative intent behind Section 50 PMLA. (Para 58)

Serious economic offense by accused public servant - Gravity, nature, and impact of offense considered in bail decision - Previous bail application rejection and possibility of evidence tampering. (Para 59-66)

Dismissal of bail application - Failure to meet conditions under Section 45 PMLA and triple test for bail - Deep-rooted conspiracy and alleged loss of public funds. (Para 67-79)

Passport - Deletion of spouse's name - Petitioner sought direction to delete the name of her alleged husband from her passport - Petitioner contended that she had not solemnized marriage with the said person and the inclusion of his name was for the purpose of travel, which did not materialize - Respondents accepted notice and undertook to decide on the petitioner's representation and legal notice within six weeks - Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's representation and legal notice within the stipulated timeframe. (Para 1-4)