Anticipatory Bail – Conditions Imposed – Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Freedom of Press – The petitioner, a journalist and managing editor of a YouTube news channel, was granted anticipatory bail with a condition that he should not publish news related to the death of Bishop K.P. Yohannan – Held: The condition restricting the petitioner’s journalistic freedom was unreasonable – The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed as part of a bail condition unless justified under Article 19(2) – The Court deleted the condition restraining the petitioner from airing news on the subject, observing that such a condition amounts to a gag order, which is disproportionate and violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304 Part II IPC – Defense of Private Defense – The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for pelting stones at the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries. The incident occurred during a scuffle over a monetary dispute where the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and attempted to snatch money from the appellant – Held: The appellant had the right to private defense as he was protecting himself and his property when the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, initiated an attack – The appellant did not exceed the right of private defense by pelting stones, as he had initially tried to avoid confrontation by running away from the scene – Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges [Paras 21-25]​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The judgment and sentence dated 20.01.2001 by the ASJ Kukshi District Dhar in S.T. No.89/2000 is set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges under Section 304 Part II IPC – His bail bonds are discharged, and he is no longer required in the present case [Paras 29-30]​.

Motor Accident Claims – Determination of Compensation – The insurance company appealed against the award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which granted compensation of Rs. 8,03,000/- to the claimants for the death of the deceased in a road accident – The appellant argued that the compensation exceeded the claimed amount and that deductions for personal expenses were improperly calculated – Held: While the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/10th for personal expenses instead of 1/4th as per Pranay Sethi guidelines, the award remains just since the total compensation would otherwise have been higher due to a correct multiplier and general damages – No interference warranted in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimants [Paras 3, 4, 6.1].

Just and Fair Compensation – Powers of Tribunal – The Motor Vehicles Act prioritizes ‘just and fair’ compensation for accident victims – The Tribunal awarded more than the claimed amount considering the just nature of the claim and the concept of ‘just compensation’ under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Held: Tribunals have the discretion to award compensation beyond the claimed amount to fulfill the principle of fair compensation, even if the claimed amount is lower [Para 5].

Multiplier and Deductions – Calculation Errors – The Tribunal applied a 17 multiplier instead of 18 and erroneously considered a 50% increase in prospective income instead of 40% – However, since no cross-appeal was filed by the claimants, enhancing the award would not be appropriate – Held: The calculation errors did not substantially affect the justice of the award, and no enhancement was made [Paras 4, 6.1].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal upheld – Insurance company directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest within six weeks if not already deposited [Para 8].

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC – Revision petition filed challenging the acceptance of a written statement beyond the stipulated 90 days – Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in allowing the written statement without a formal application for condonation of delay – Held: The court cannot extend time for filing the written statement on its own, and an application for condonation is mandatory – Written statement filed after 30 days requires a valid application explaining the delay, in accordance with judicial precedents such as Salem Advocate Bar Association and Kailash v. Nanhku [Paras 6, 10, 12].

Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Written Statement Filing – Defendant filed the written statement late without seeking condonation of delay – The trial court accepted the written statement without recording reasons – Held: The trial court’s acceptance of the written statement without a condonation application violates Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, and the defendant must file an application explaining the delay [Paras 9, 10, 12].

Inherent Power of the Court – Article 227 of the Constitution – Plaintiff invoked Article 227 seeking judicial intervention against the trial court’s procedural lapses – Held: The inherent power of the Court under Article 227 allows rectification of procedural errors, and the trial court’s failure to follow due process in accepting the late written statement justifies interference [Paras 8, 11, 12].

Decision: Allowed – The order of the trial court dated 02.08.2023 accepting the written statement set aside – The respondent is granted liberty to file a written statement along with an application for condonation of delay – CRP(MD)No.1853 of 2024 closed as infructuous [Paras 13, 14].

Family Law – Maintenance – Revision Application – Compliance with Guidelines – The petitioner contended that the maintenance order awarded by the Family Court was harsh and not based on legal evidence – The trial court did not properly assess his financial capacity and failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is unemployed – The petitioner also claimed that the trial court ignored the fact that respondent No.1 is employed and earns ₹10,000 per month – Held: The High Court found that the Family Court did not comply with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which requires parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets – Consequently, the maintenance order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives [Paras 7, 13].

Interlocutory Orders – Maintainability of Revision – The respondents argued that the revision petition against the maintenance order was not maintainable, as it was an interlocutory order – Held: The High Court, referring to judgments from various High Courts, found that an order of maintenance is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate or quasi-final order that can be challenged through a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – It was established that orders affecting substantial rights of a party are not considered interlocutory and are subject to revision [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – The order dated 06.01.2023 by the Family Court is set aside – The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh decision after ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha – Parties directed to appear before the trial court on 30th September 2024 [Para 13].

Section 295A of IPC – Outrage of Religious Feelings – Shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ in a Mosque – Not Outrageous – The petitioners were accused of entering a mosque and shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ with the intent of disrupting communal harmony. The court held that shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ does not constitute an insult or malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings under Section 295A of the IPC, particularly when there is no disruption of public order or deliberate insult to religious beliefs – Petitioners' actions did not meet the threshold for criminal offense under the said section [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Intimidation under Section 506 of IPC – Ingredients Not Established – The complaint alleged that the petitioners threatened the mosque members. However, the court found that the complaint did not specify any actionable threats or fear of harm that would amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506. The lack of specific allegations led the court to dismiss this charge [Paras 6-7].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of FIR – No Prima Facie Case – The court observed that none of the alleged acts committed by the petitioners met the essential ingredients required for the offenses under Sections 447, 295A, 505, or 506 IPC. Continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. – The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings in Crime No. 86 of 2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, were quashed.

Criminal Law – Transit Anticipatory Bail – Sought for offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – The petitioners filed for anticipatory bail in Karnataka while the case was registered in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Granted transit anticipatory bail for three weeks to enable petitioners to seek anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional court in Uttar Pradesh. Interim protection was necessary to allow the petitioners to apply for regular bail and to appear in the Habeas Corpus proceedings before the Allahabad High Court [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners granted transit anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks – Directed to execute a personal bond for ₹100,000 each with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer – Petitioners ordered not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Victim's Right to Appeal – The petitioner, a de facto complainant, challenged the acquittal of the accused under various sections of the IPC, arguing that as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, he had the right to appeal – The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner could not be termed a 'victim' – Held: The High Court observed that under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim has the right to appeal against an acquittal – The petitioner, having alleged loss, injury, and damage caused by the accused, falls within the definition of 'victim' and therefore had the right to appeal – [Paras 7, 10, 18, 22].

Criminal Law – Trial Procedure – Non-Examination under Section 313 CrPC – The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in not examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC – The trial court acquitted the accused without recording their statements – Held: The High Court found that the trial court did not err, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused that necessitated examination under Section 313 – Since the primary witnesses (PW1 and PW2) did not provide any evidence against the accused, the trial court's decision was upheld – [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Contempt of Court – Allegations Against Magistrate – The petitioner accused the trial magistrate of obtaining signatures on blank papers and of improper conduct – Held: The High Court found the allegations baseless and without substance – It was determined that such allegations could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The petitioner was directed to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him – [Paras 28, 29, 31].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – The High Court found no error in the trial court’s procedure or the acquittal of the accused – The petitioner was directed to show cause for allegations against the magistrate amounting to criminal contempt – [Paras 35, 37].

Criminal Procedure – Approver – Bail Granted – The petitioner, an approver in a case involving offenses under Section 302 IPC, sought bail after testifying in both the trial of the co-accused and a Court Martial – The trial court rejected the bail application based on Section 306(4)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates the detention of an approver until the termination of the trial – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has the jurisdiction to grant bail to an approver even before the culmination of the trial in exceptional cases – The petitioner had complied with the conditions of pardon by making full and true disclosure, and exceptional circumstances existed, including the petitioner’s health condition and the nearing completion of the trial – [Paras 17-25].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Treatment – Release of Approver – An approver who fulfills the conditions of pardon should not be kept in custody if it would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – The detention of the petitioner after making a complete disclosure was found to be unnecessary, especially given his health issues and the lack of any role beyond accompanying the main accused to the crime scene – Held: Detaining the petitioner further would be unjust, and therefore, he was granted bail – [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Petition allowed – The petitioner is admitted to bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of ₹1,00,000 – He must not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court and must not influence the prosecution witnesses – [Para 25].