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]

Criminal Law – Conjoint Hearing of Applications and Main Appeal – Criminal writ petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa directing conjoint hearing of applications under Sections 311, 310, and 319 Cr.P.C. along with the main appeal – Petitioner contends that adverse decisions on applications would merge with the decision on the main appeal, preventing effective legal recourse – Held, order for conjoint hearing quashed – Applications to be decided before the main appeal – Petition disposed of.

Conjoint Hearing – Analysis – Held – The ordering of conjoint hearings on applications under Sections 311, 310, and 319 Cr.P.C. along with the main appeal is quashed. To ensure decisions on applications are made prior to the main appeal, avoiding any merger of adverse decisions which would limit legal remedies available to the petitioner.

[Para 4-5]

Decision – Quashing of Conjoint Hearing Order – The impugned order directing conjoint hearing is quashed. Applications under Sections 311, 310, and 319 Cr.P.C. are to be decided first, allowing appropriate legal challenges if necessary. The main appeal to be heard subsequently. The petition is disposed of.

[Para 6]

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence - Narcotics - Application for suspension of sentence by convict under Section 21 NDPS Act involving possession of 220 grams of heroin - Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act not applicable as quantity is less than commercial - Consideration of alternatives to cash or surety for bail - Held, use of fixed deposit or electronic transfer in lieu of cash or surety likely to improve attendance - Applicant to be released on bail subject to personal bond and sureties. [Paras 1-14]

Bail Conditions - Use of Fixed Deposits - Analysis - Held - Fixed deposit or electronic transfer as an alternative to cash or surety enhances the likelihood of compliance and attendance by the accused - Such alternatives align with the legislative intention under Section 445 Cr.P.C. - Applicant to provide a personal bond of Rs. One Lakh and two sureties of Rs. Five Lakhs each. [Paras 15-25]

Decision - Suspension of Sentence - Court allows suspension of sentence - Applicant to furnish a personal bond and sureties as stipulated - Emphasis on compliance through fixed deposits or electronic transfers to ensure attendance and avoid forfeiture. [Para 26-37]

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act, Service of Proclamation - Quashing of FIR and Proceedings - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against Magistrate's order for the registration of FIR under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner contended non-residence in the country at the time notice was served - Held, the Magistrate did not ensure the actual residence status of the petitioner before issuing the proclamation - Service of notice invalid - Order to register FIR and initiate proceedings quashed - Petitioner directed to surrender before the Magistrate within a week - No coercive steps to be taken until surrender. [Paras 1-9]

Service of Proclamation - Invalid Service - Analysis - Held - The Magistrate failed to ascertain whether the petitioner was residing at his abode as per the memo of parties before issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Non-residence of petitioner in the country at the relevant time resulted in lack of valid service of the proclamation notice. [Para 3-7]

Decision - Quashing of FIR and Proclamation - Court quashes the order of the Magistrate to register FIR and issue proclamation against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate within a week. [Para 8-9]