Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Prolonged Incarceration – Successive Bail Petition – Petitioner apprehended on 22.04.2024 with 540 grams of heroin recovered from personal search – Co-accused found with 480 grams – Challan filed – No prosecution witness examined out of 17 total – Petitioner in custody for over two years and seven days – Second bail petition, previous having been dismissed as withdrawn on 27.08.2025 – State objected to maintainability of successive petition and urged rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act as bar – Held: An accused has a right to move successive bail applications and the Court must consider whether any fresh ground has been made out to take a different view – Every day spent in custody provides a fresh cause of action under certain circumstances and accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period – Grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial is not fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act given the imperative of Section 436A CrPC applicable to offences under the Act – Where prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 – Trial not likely to conclude in the near future – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner entitled to bail on ground of prolonged incarceration – Petition allowed [Paras 8–14].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate – Observations not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case and not to influence outcome of trial – Pending application rendered infructuous.

Writ Law - Encroachment on Public Road - Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Petitioner filed Writ of Mandamus against inaction of respondents regarding unauthorized sheds on a 33-foot layout road reducing effective width to 10-15 feet and obstructing access to petitioner’s plot - Respondent Commissioner suggested providing alternate sites to encroachers - High Court rejected this contention holding that such allotments would embolden encroachers and harm public interest - Court held private rights must yield to public interest and no one has a right to obstruct a public-way - Held - Writ Petition disposed of with directions to issue show cause notices and clear encroachments within five weeks using reasonable force if required - [Paras 1-7].

Writ Law - Natural Justice - Principles of Natural Justice - Procedure for removal of encroachment - Settled possession - High Court observed that while removal of recent encroachment may not require notice - settled possession for a long time necessitates a modicum of reasonable notice like two weeks or 10 days - Held - Respondents directed to issue show cause notices to encroachers to vacate within 10 days or two weeks to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice before using reasonable force for eviction - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directions issued to Respondent No. 3 to issue show cause notices and clear all encroachments on the subject road within a period of five weeks.

Criminal Law – Rape – Minor Victim – Consent Immaterial – Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Conviction Confirmed – Accused convicted by the trial court for kidnapping and rape of PW1, a minor girl aged 15 years and 6 months at the time of incident – Accused claimed consensual relationship – PW1's testimony established that sexual intercourse took place on multiple occasions (6 to 7 times) – Held: Since PW1 was a minor at the time of the offence, her consent is immaterial in law – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed [Paras 21–23, 25].

Kidnapping – Abduction – Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – PW1's testimony was contradictory and unsatisfactory regarding kidnapping and abduction — PW1 categorically admitted that she voluntarily accompanied the accused when her parents had gone to Mumbai, that her joining the accused was not under any threat or pressure, and that out of desperation (after being beaten by her brother) she herself called the accused and asked to accompany him to Rampur — PW1 further admitted no threat or coercion during stay at Rampur — Held: Prosecution case of abduction, kidnapping, threatening or inducing is doubtful — Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC set aside [Paras 20, 25].

Age Determination – Minor – Documentary Evidence – Birth Certificate – Section 94, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Date of birth of PW1 established as 22.07.1998 through birth certificate issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation (Ext. PW5/A) — Accused contended that menarche attained in 2007 indicated PW1 was 18 years at time of incident — Held: Onset of menarche varies from person to person and depends on biological and environmental factors — menarche cannot be a reliable or legally recognised method of age determination when documentary evidence is available — PW1 established as 15 years and 6 months old on date of incident [Paras 21, 25].

Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Use as Evidence – Accused's Section 313(1)(b) statement admitting consensual sexual intercourse read with PW1's testimony — Held: While Section 313 statement cannot be the sole basis of conviction, it can be read along with other evidence on record — Accused's own admission of sexual intercourse, coupled with established minority of PW1, renders consent immaterial — Conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed [Para 23].

Non-Compliance – Section 232 CrPC – Non-compliance of Section 232 CrPC does not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless it results in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused — Accused raised no such claim of prejudice [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed — Conviction and sentence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC set aside — Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed — Pending applications closed.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Defendant/revisionist sought rejection of plaint filed by a registered society through its Vice President on grounds of no cause of action, lack of authority of the person instituting the suit, bar under the Societies Registration Act and undervaluation — Trial court rejected the application holding all grounds to involve disputed questions of fact or curable defects — Held: For rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), only the averments in the plaint are to be read; defence of the defendant is irrelevant at this stage; no ground made out for rejection — Revision dismissed [Paras 18–25].

Societies Registration Act – Section 6 – Authority to Institute Suit – Vice President filing suit as Acting President in the absence of President — Defendant contending that no resolution was passed and the person was not authorised under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act — Held: The question of authority of the Vice President to institute the suit involves disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 6 of the Act does not, ex facie, establish that the suit is barred by any provision of law [Paras 5, 19, 21].

Undervaluation – Court Fees – Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) – Rejection of plaint for undervaluation is not automatic; the court must first form an opinion of undervaluation, direct the plaintiff to correct valuation and pay deficit court fees within a fixed time, and only upon non-compliance can the plaint be rejected — No such direction having been issued by the trial court, rejection on this ground was not tenable [Paras 22–23, 25].

Civil Revision – Section 115 CPC – Scope – Held: Interference under Section 115 CPC is warranted only where a jurisdictional error is made out; neither in the grounds nor in the arguments could the revisionist point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned order [Para 19].

Preliminary Issue – Liberty Granted – Defendant/revisionist granted liberty to raise a plea of tenability in the written statement, in which event a preliminary issue shall be framed and decided within two months of framing [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Civil Revision No. 46 of 2026 dismissed — Liberty granted to the defendant/revisionist to raise plea of tenability as a preliminary issue in the written statement, to be decided within two months of framing — Observations in this order not to bear on adjudication of the preliminary issue.

Civil Writ - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, Sections 452 and 636 - Unauthorized Construction - Demolition - Inaction of Municipal Authorities - Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 combined two residential permits for Stilt + 2 floors to construct a single structure of Stilt + 4 floors without setbacks - Authorities failed to act on the complaint - Held, respondent authorities are vested with statutory powers under the GHMC Act to inspect properties, issue notices, and take appropriate action against unauthorized constructions after providing a fair opportunity of hearing. [Paras 1-9].

Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TGbPASS) Act, 2020, Section 7(6) - Public Participation - Reporting of Violations - Provisions encourage citizens to inform authorities about unauthorized constructions while maintaining confidentiality - Held, such cases must be examined within a week and appropriate action initiated. [Para 7].

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Planned Development - Violation of Town Planning Schemes - Reliance on Shanti Sports Club vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 and Esha Ekta Apartments vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai (2013) 5 SCC 357 - Held, no relief should be granted to violators of town planning schemes; authorities must not turn a blind eye to illegal constructions due to the influence of higher functionaries or extraneous reasons - Executive apparatus must stop supporting affluent builder lobbies. [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 3 directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026, put Respondent No. 4 on notice, provide a fair opportunity of personal hearing to both parties, verify sanctioned plans, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304 Part II IPC – Hostile Eyewitnesses – Conviction Affirmed – Circumstantial Evidence – Res Gestae – Conduct of Accused – PW-1 (real brother of accused and FIR lodger) and PW-2 (injured witness, mother of accused) turned hostile – PW-3 and PW-6 saw accused fleeing from place of occurrence with blood-stained spade at the very moment PW-1 was raising alarm naming accused – FIR lodged promptly by real brother with no enmity – Injury reports of deceased and PW-2 admitted under Section 294 CrPC – Accused gave general denial in Section 313 statement and failed to explain death of deceased inside his own house at night – Held: Contemporaneous alarm raised by PW-1 naming accused forms part of same transaction and admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of Evidence Act – Conduct of accused in fleeing with blood-stained weapon relevant under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act lies on accused to explain peculiar circumstances of death occurring inside his house – Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 16, 20-27, 35].

Criminal Law – Section 294 CrPC – Admission of Documents – Substantive Evidence – Injury report of deceased Chhotey Lal and injured witness PW-2 Shanti Devi admitted by accused under Section 294 CrPC – Trial court failed to properly appreciate the injury reports and post-mortem report – Held: Where genuineness of a document is admitted under Section 294 CrPC, the same becomes substantive evidence – Expression "read in evidence" implies such document can be relied upon for proving facts in issue – Following Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Saddiq and Others v. State [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Section 307 IPC – Fine Mandatory – Omission by Trial Court – Trial court failed to impose fine while convicting accused under Section 307 IPC – Held: Imposition of fine under Section 307 IPC is mandatory and trial court does not possess discretion to waive the same – Though in an appeal against conviction the court cannot enhance substantive sentence, it is well within jurisdiction to modify or alter the sentence – Fine constitutes an integral part of the sentence under Section 307 IPC – Fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed in addition to sentence of three years RI already awarded – In default, simple imprisonment for three months [Paras 28-30, 36-37].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Conversion from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II – No Cogent Reasons – Trial Court Error – Trial court converted conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC without assigning specific and cogent reasons for the absence of intention so as to exclude Section 302 – Held: Such conversion is not supported by any cogent reasoning and is difficult to accept having accepted testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 – However, in absence of State's appeal or enhancement proceedings, this Court cannot alter conviction to Section 302 IPC under Section 386 CrPC [Paras 20-21, 28].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 307 IPC affirmed – Sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC of three years RI confirmed – Sentence under Section 307 IPC of three years RI confirmed with modification: fine of Rs.10,000/- additionally imposed; in default, three months' simple imprisonment – Accused directed to appear before trial court forthwith to serve sentence – Trial court to take coercive steps if accused fails to appear.

Writ Law - Passport Issuance - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Single Mother Entitlement - Petitioner-mother applied for passport for minor daughter Ayra Mulla - Respondent-authorities orally insisted on production of divorce decree or judicial separation orders from the husband as father’s signature was missing - Petitioner was living separately since 2022 due to matrimonial disputes and had filed criminal cases under Sections 420 and 498A IPC - Petitioner submitted declarations in Annexure C and D as per Passport Rules 1980 stating she is a single parent - Respondents contended that consent of both parents is mandatory and application was kept on hold for lack of supporting legal documents - High Court observed that right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 - Passport Rules 1980 and Guidelines provide for situations where a single parent with exclusive custody can apply without the consent of the other parent by furnishing a sworn affidavit - Insistence on divorce papers held arbitrary and contrary to statutory rules - Held - Writ petition allowed - Passport authorities directed to process the application and issue the passport without insisting on father's consent - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Fundamental Rights - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Travel - Right of minor to obtain passport - Authorities denied passport processing based on domestic disputes between parents - High Court relied on Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India to hold that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of the right to travel must be fair just and reasonable - Mechanical approach by Passport Authority in denying passport to a minor staying with a single mother causes irreparable harm and cannot be countenanced - Held - Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and cannot be scuttled merely because one parent refuses consent due to matrimonial disputes - [Paras 8-11].

Writ Law - Statutory Guidelines - Passports Act 1967 - Section 6 - Passport Rules 1980 - Rule 4.8 - Refusal of Passports - Ground for refusal not covered under Section 6 - Guidelines for filling passport application forms permit single parents to furnish a sworn affidavit under Annexure C in cases of separation without formal divorce - Position under the 1967 Act and 1980 Rules is clear that single parents can maintain applications for minor children - Any interpretation to the contrary is patently illegal - Held - Single parent is entitled to apply for minor child’s passport without other parent's consent subject to furnishing prescribed annexures - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent No. 2 directed to consider the application and issue the passport to the minor child within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 295 - Probate Proceedings - Contentious Matter - Procedure - Trial Court converted probate application into a regular civil suit and passed a decree - Held - Practice adopted by City Civil Court is unknown to the provisions of the Act - Section 295 mandates that contentious probate proceedings be conducted as nearly as may be in the form of a regular suit applying CPC provisions - [Para 13]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 222 - Grant of Probate - Appointed Executor - Trial Court granted probate to the plaintiff who was a beneficiary but not an appointed executor in the Will - Held - Probate can only be granted to an appointed executor - A beneficiary must seek Letters of Administration with Will annexed - Trial Court failed to distinguish between these legal statuses - [Paras 13-15]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Execution of Will - Suspicious Circumstances - Testator was suffering from advanced jaw and tongue cancer and died seven days after execution of the Will - Propounder claimed testator walked 10km alone to court for instructions - Contradictions in oral evidence of propounder and attesting witness regarding their presence at the time of execution - Date on Will was handwritten while body was typed - No signature on the first page - Only one property mentioned despite existence of others - Held - Accumulation of these factors constitutes real and germane suspicious circumstances - Propounder failed to satisfy the judicial conscience of the court - Trial Court order quashed - [Paras 26-43, 48-50]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Registration of Will - Posthumous Registration - Will registered on 09.11.1981 after testator’s death on 26.07.1981 - Held - Mere registration of a Will does not establish its genuineness or dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution - Registration must be subject to close examination to prove the testator knew the document was a Will disposing of his property - [Paras 42-43]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 16.03.1995 in Civil Suit No. 1601 of 1986 is quashed and set aside – Probate proceedings dismissed – Record and proceedings to be sent back to Trial Court.

Partnership Law – Dissolution – Receiver – Interim Injunction – Civil Revision – Parties held equal 50% shares in two partnership firms, M/s Indian Pressing and Turnings and M/s National Enterprises – Suits filed by petitioners for dissolution and rendition of accounts – Trial Court appointed receiver and granted injunction – First Appellate Court set aside receiver appointment and modified injunction – Held: First Appellate Court's orders are legally sound and do not warrant interference – Revisions CR-3305-2024 and CR-3352-2024 partly allowed with modification; CR-3590-2024 and CR-3592-2024 dismissed [Paras 1–20].

Appointment of Receiver – Discretionary Power – Appellate Interference – Order XL CPC – Appointment of receiver is an extreme remedy and should not be lightly ordered – Where the plaintiffs admittedly remained disengaged from partnership affairs for nearly thirty years and the defendants contended that business operations had ceased, no useful purpose served by appointment of a receiver – First Appellate Court's reasoning that receiver appointment handed over business reins to a stranger, affecting commercial credibility, found to be cogent – Held: Appellate Court rightly set aside receiver appointment; interference not warranted [Paras 12–13, 19].

Partnership – Dissolution at Will – Prima Facie Case – Prolonged Inaction – Plaintiff Ashok Kumar Bhatia admitted knowledge of dissolution deed since 1989 but filed suit only in 2019, a delay of approximately three decades – Partnership being one at will, dissolution upon communication of intention held prima facie valid – Prolonged silence and non-participation of plaintiffs operate to their detriment and render their claim prima facie implausible – Held: No basis to interfere with First Appellate Court's finding on prima facie dissolution [Paras 14–16].

Interim Injunction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Powers under Order XXXIX are discretionary; appellate court cannot substitute its view merely because an alternative view is possible – Interference warranted only on grounds of patent illegality, perversity, or manifest misapplication of law – Reliance placed on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 – First Appellate Court partly allowed injunction appeals, restraining alienation of immovable assets while permitting use of movable assets and bank accounts subject to final outcome – Held: Balanced and equitable interim arrangement does not call for interference [Paras 10, 17–18].

Modification of Impugned Orders – Since respondents have stopped business activities, revisions in CR-3305-2024 and CR-3352-2024 partly allowed to further modify that immovable property shall not even be used for firm's business – Records relating to movable property, funds, and banking accounts to be preserved for accounting at time of final adjudication, if it is proved that accounts between parties were not settled [Para 20].

Decision: Revisions CR-3305-2024 and CR-3352-2024 partly allowed with modification – Revisions CR-3590-2024 and CR-3592-2024 dismissed – Observations confined to interlocutory stage and not to be treated as expression of opinion on merits.