Forest Law – Mining – Extension of Forest Clearances – Applicability of 2023 Guidelines – Compensatory Afforestation for Pre-1980 Broken-Up Area – Petitioner holding Mining Lease Nos.2678 and 2679 (valid till 31.12.2033) sought extension of Forest Clearances (valid till 05.12.2026 and 10.12.2026) co-terminus with mining leases – State demanded CA charges of Rs.1,15,64,96,400/- and Rs.15,60,60,000/- respectively and directed identification of CA land of 629.90 Ha and 85.00 Ha for broken-up forest area prior to 1980 for which CA had not been provided – Petitioner contended that 2015 Communication deemed FCs co-terminus with mining leases and that 2023 Rules are inapplicable – Held: At the stage when extension of FCs falls due, prevailing statutory stipulations govern; 2023 Rules and Guidelines issued under Section 3C of the Amended Act, being in force from 01.12.2023, are applicable – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 44, 59, 64-65].

Forest Clearance – Deemed Extension – 2015 Communication vs. 2023 Rules – UOI's communication dated 01.04.2015 stipulated that FCs shall be deemed extended co-terminus with mining lease subject to payment of NPV – Petitioner claimed NPV and CA charges already paid pursuant to Supreme Court's order dated 30.11.2006 and demand notices of 2006 – Held: 2015 Communication was an executive communication; upon coming into force of 2023 Rules and Consolidated Guidelines issued under Section 3C of the Amended Act in suppression of all previous guidelines, extension of FCs must comply with prevailing requirements – Santhipriya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka distinguished on facts as the 2023 Rules had not come into force when that judgment was rendered [Paras 55-59].

Compensatory Afforestation – Broken-Up Forest Area Prior to 1980 – CA and NPV Distinguished – CA and NPV are two separate and distinct requirements – NPV compensates for intangible ecosystem goods and services lost upon diversion of forest land; CA compensates loss of "land by land" and "trees by trees" – Although petitioner had paid NPV and CA charges for fresh/virgin areas in 2006, CA for broken-up area prior to 1980 (629.90 Ha under ML No.2678 and 85.00 Ha under ML No.2679) had not been provided – 2023 Guidelines specifically clarify that CA provisions are applicable for broken-up forest area before commencement of the FC Act where CA has not been raised earlier – Demand justified [Paras 49-51, 61-64].

Environmental Restitution – Principle Applied – Granting reliefs sought by petitioner would result in permitting mining operations to continue without complying with CA stipulations for broken-up area – Supreme Court's principle of environmental restitution requires restoration of damaged ecological systems – Accepting petitioner's contention would permit mining without CA for broken-up area contrary to environmental restitution principles [Paras 52, 63-64].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to comply with demand for compensatory afforestation as demanded vide impugned communications dated 20.06.2025 for consideration of extension of Forest Clearances – All pending applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail — Second Petition — Maintainability — No Change in Circumstances — The petitioner filed a second petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS within ten days of dismissal of the first petition on 06.04.2026, without disclosing any substantial or drastic change in circumstances — Held: A successive anticipatory bail petition filed without material change in circumstances is not maintainable [Para 7].

Anticipatory Bail — Person Already on Bail — Addition of Graver Offence — Remedy — The petitioner had been granted regular bail by the trial Court on 05.08.2024 — During trial, charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were ordered to be framed on an application for alteration of charge — The petitioner apprehended arrest consequent to addition of Section 302 IPC and sought anticipatory bail — Held: A person already on bail is in constructive custody of law and an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest does not lie in such circumstances — The appropriate remedies available are: (i) surrender and apply for bail for newly added offences; (ii) the investigating agency may seek cancellation of bail or arrest order from the Court; (iii) the Court may direct arrest and commit to custody under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC after cancellation of earlier bail; (iv) the investigating agency may obtain an order of arrest from the Court that granted bail before arresting the accused on addition of a new offence [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Petition dismissed — No ground to allow anticipatory bail.

Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – International Parental Relocation – Minor's welfare paramount – Petitioner-father sought a writ of habeas corpus directing return of minor son 'N' to the UK pursuant to orders of the High Court of Justice, Family Division, England, which had declared 'N' a ward of that Court and directed Respondent No.2-mother to return him to the jurisdiction of England and Wales – Respondent No.2 had left UK in July 2023 after her visa was revoked by the UK Home Office following the Petitioner's intimation of marital separation – Court interviewed the minor on 08.04.2026 in chambers without parties or counsel present and found the child desirous of continuing to stay in India with his mother – Held: Custody of a minor child with his biological mother is presumed lawful; in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus will not lie to transfer such custody – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 4, 19, 31, 38].

Best Interest of Child – Foreign Court Orders – Comity of Courts – Limits of Enforcement – Orders of the UK Family Court directing return of 'N' did not render his custody with the Respondent No.2-mother unlawful per se – The Court distinguished the facts of cited Supreme Court precedents wherein return to the country of citizenship was directed because both parents could independently reside there; in the present case, neither parent holds employment or residency entitlement in USA (country of the child's citizenship), and the Respondent No.2 had no assured legal right of residence in UK without the Petitioner's active cooperation – Sending 'N' to UK would, in all probability, result in the child being separated from his mother for an indefinite period, which would not serve his best interest – Petitioner's ability to visit India and maintain contact was noted as a viable alternative [Paras 24, 29, 30, 31, 33].

Conduct of Petitioner – Non-Cooperation in Passport Renewal – NOC for USA Passport – Petitioner's refusal to grant NOC for renewal of minor 'N's USA passport, thereby creating legal hurdles in obtaining OCI Card and regularising the child's stay in India, was held to be conduct demonstrating that the Petitioner was not acting in the child's best interest – Such conduct furnished an additional reason for declining the writ [Para 32].

Parental Alienation Syndrome – Child's Preference – Limited Weight – Court acknowledged the submission that the child's stated preference for staying with the mother may be influenced by parental alienation, having regard to the principle in Vivek Singh – However, the Court found it necessary to interact with the child to at least elicit his desire, and took his wish as one of the relevant factors alongside the practical difficulties faced by the Respondent No.2 [Paras 27, 28].

Remedy – Family Court Proceedings – Parties Directed to Family Court – Respondent No.2 had filed a petition for divorce, maintenance and custody before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai – Held: The Family Court is the appropriate forum where both parties have equal opportunity to lead evidence; questions of access, interim custody and visitation shall be decided by the Family Court in accordance with law, without being influenced by observations in the present order [Paras 36, 37].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Custody of minor 'N' with Respondent No.2-mother upheld – Petitioner directed to participate in Family Court proceedings – Family Court to decide custody, access and maintenance in accordance with law.

Criminal Law - MPID Act – Attached Property – Release in Favour of Owner – No Statutory Provision – Appellant, accused No. 59 in NSEL-related MPID Special Case, sought release of his property attached under the MPID Act, offering to deposit the differential amount up to the reserve/bid price of Rs. 48 lakhs – Held: The MPID Act contains no provision for release of property in favour of the owner after an order permitting auction has been passed – Appellant cannot be permitted to bid for the said property merely because it remained unsold despite three auction attempts [Para 6].

Valuation – Conflicting Reports – Commercial vs. Agricultural Land – Auction Reserve Price – The appellant relied on a valuation of Rs. 48 lakhs by HDFC Quicker Realty, which was based on classification of the property as agricultural land – Respondent No. 4 placed on record a valuation of Rs. 12,55,56,352/- by Notiyal and Associates treating it as commercial land – Held: There is no reason to disbelieve the higher valuation, and the Trial Court was right in rejecting the application to secure release at Rs. 48 lakhs when the actual value was Rs. 12,55,56,352/- [Paras 4, 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 16.10.2024 of the Special Judge, MPID, rejecting Misc. Application No. 1444 of 2023 in Spl. Case No. 1 of 2014 upheld.

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 363 377 and 506 - POCSO Act 2012 - Section 4 - Kidnapping and Unnatural Sex - Identification of Accused - Victim admitted it was dark at the time of the incident and he did not know the accused from before - No Test Identification Parade was conducted - Held - Prosecution failed to explain how the accused was named in the FIR when the victim had no opportunity to identify him in the dark - Dock identification after one year is unreliable and case is bad from the inception - [Paras 23-27 33-36]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 313 - Evidence - FSL Report - DNA Analysis - Accused was not confronted with the conclusions of the FSL report regarding matching DNA during his examination under Section 313 CrPC - Held - Conclusions of an FSL report cannot be relied upon for conviction if they are not presented to the accused for an explanation - [Paras 28 37]

POCSO Act 2012 - Section 4 - Medical Evidence - Chain of Custody - Accused alleged police obtained semen samples through custodial coercion and physical force - Medical report showed accused had bathed and changed clothes yet semen was allegedly found on his underwear - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the underwear worn at the time of the incident - FSL report dated 15-11-2018 cannot be read against the accused - [Paras 21 37]

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 13-01-2020 is set aside - Appellant acquitted of all charges - Direction for immediate release upon furnishing personal bond and sureties under Section 437A CrPC.

Service Law – Termination – Forged Educational Certificates – No Departmental Inquiry Required – Appellants were appointed as Excise Constables upon submission of certificates of 'Adhikari Pariksha' (High School) – 2008 issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan – Inquiry revealed that no academic activities or examinations were conducted by the University during the relevant period, no Registrar was appointed, and the documents produced were not issued by the University – Held: Appointment obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated documents is no appointment in law; termination without holding a full-fledged departmental inquiry is valid and justified [Paras 14–19, 22].

Fraud – Appointment – Article 311 of the Constitution – Not Attracted – Where appointment to a civil post is procured by fraud, forgery, or deceit, Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted and the protection thereunder cannot be claimed – The very entry into civil service being vitiated by fraud bars the cloak of constitutional protection – Relied upon: R. Vishwantha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 [Paras 22–23].

Fraud – Settled Principle – Fraud Vitiates Everything – Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment are voidable at the option of the employer and can be recalled – Continued service on the basis of fraudulently obtained employment creates no equity in favour of the employee and raises no estoppel against the employer – Relied upon: Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 [Para 21].

Forged Document – Selection Process – Intention Irrelevant – Production of a fake document in a selection process is sufficient to invoke action against the candidate, notwithstanding the intention of the applicant – Relied upon: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486 [Para 23].

Equivalence of Qualification – Becomes Irrelevant – Once appointment is found to have been secured on forged and fabricated certificates, the question of equivalence of 'Adhikari Pariksha' with High School examination of the U.P. Board of Secondary Education becomes irrelevant and need not be gone into [Para 25].

Decision: All three special appeals dismissed – Orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ A Nos. 54819/2013, 54821/2013, and 3689/2014 upheld – Termination of services of appellants confirmed.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - Inherent Powers of High Court - Maintainability vs. Alternative Remedy - Preliminary objection by State that petitioner has alternative remedy of seeking discharge before Trial Court. Held, existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS if continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process or results in a miscarriage of justice. [Para 10].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 61(2) - Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence - Call Detail Records (CDRs) - Implication of petitioner based solely on telephonic contact with informer and co-accused. Held, CDRs merely establish that calls were exchanged but do not disclose the contents of communication. In the absence of transcripts, recordings, or messages demonstrating a prior meeting of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act, mere telephonic contact cannot constitute criminal conspiracy. Official communication between police officials cannot be elevated to incriminating evidence without material indicating unlawful intent. [Paras 12-15, 21].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 126(2), 140(3) and 310(2) - Wrongful Restraint, Kidnapping and Dacoity - Absence of overt acts - Petitioner not a member of the raiding party and not present at the spot. Held, where no witness attributes any overt act to the petitioner and his role is remote/disconnected from the actual commission of the offence, the essential ingredients of the offences are not made out. [Paras 11, 16].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 238(b) - Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information - Sharing of YouTube link - Allegation that petitioner shared a video on concealing items in vehicles and subsequently deleted it. Held, sharing an informational video intended for operational awareness regarding techniques used in hawala transactions, without criminal intent, does not attract the provision. No adverse inference can be drawn in the absence of corroborative material linking the video to the commission of the offence. [Para 17].

Criminal Jurisprudence - Suspicion vs. Proof - Quashing of proceedings. Held, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. While suspicion may justify investigation, it cannot form the basis of a charge-sheet in the absence of cogent, credible, and legally admissible evidence. Following the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where allegations and material collected do not prima facie constitute any offence, the High Court is justified in quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. [Paras 19-20, 23-26].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR bearing Crime No. 473/2025 (P.S. Lakhanwara) and all consequential criminal proceedings, including the charge-sheet, are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner.

Civil Procedure – Transfer of Suit – Section 24 CPC – Suppression of Material Facts – Unclean Hands – Petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.91 of 2014 (suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction filed by respondents before VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada) sought transfer of said suit to III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, to be tried along with O.S.No.26 of 2023 filed by the petitioner – Petitioner suppressed material fact that he had earlier filed O.S.No.549 of 2012 before the same VI Additional District and Sessions Judge for permanent injunction over the same property, and that the said suit was decreed granting permanent injunction subject to result of O.S.No.91 of 2014 – Petitioner also suppressed filing of memo in said suit – O.S.No.26 of 2023 sought the selfsame relief as the already decreed O.S.No.549 of 2012 – Held: Petitioner approached Court with unclean hands by suppressing real facts and is not entitled to transfer – Transfer petition dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Civil Procedure – Transfer – Prerequisites – Common Parties and Subject Matter – Parties in O.S.No.91 of 2014 and O.S.No.26 of 2023 are not identical — Plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.91 of 2014 is not a party in O.S.No.26 of 2023 and Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.26 of 2023 is not a party in O.S.No.91 of 2014 – Cause of action in both suits is also different – Mere pendency of two suits between substantially similar parties does not entitle transfer if parties and cause of action are not common [Para 6].

Decision: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications pending and interim order, if any, closed.

Contempt of Court — Special Appeal — Maintainability — Chapter VIII Rule 5, Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 — Section 19, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge disposing of a contempt application on the ground that proceedings under Section 379 BNSS (formerly Section 340 CrPC) were already pending before the trial court — Single Judge held that multiple proceedings on the same subject matter were not permissible and directed the appellant to pursue the pending application — Held: A Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 is maintainable against an order of the Contempt Court only when the Single Judge has overstepped its jurisdiction by deciding the merits of the original dispute — Where the contempt court merely declines to initiate contempt proceedings without entering into the merits of the dispute, neither an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act nor a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 is maintainable — The impugned order neither entered into the merits of the dispute nor affected any valuable rights of the parties — Special Appeal held not maintainable [Paras 10-22].

Contempt of Court — Jurisdiction of Contempt Court — Scope — The jurisdiction of the Contempt Court is confined to determining whether contempt has been committed and imposing appropriate sanctions — The merits of the original controversy are outside the domain of the Contempt Court — An intra-court Special Appeal would lie only if the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction by issuing directions or adjudicating on the merits of the original controversy — An observation discouraging multiplicity of proceedings, without deciding any substantive right, does not constitute adjudication on merits — Held: The Single Judge's observation that multiple proceedings should not be permitted and the direction to pursue the pending Section 379 BNSS application were not peripheral to the merits of the contempt petition [Paras 18-20].

Contempt Proceedings and Section 379 BNSS — Simultaneous Initiation — Not Mandatory — Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines — The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha laid down a general caution that irresponsible pleadings in maintenance proceedings may invite action under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS) or contempt of court — However, this does not mandate automatic initiation of both proceedings — While simultaneous invocation of both jurisdictions is permissible, courts are not bound to initiate action under both provisions — Held: The conjunction 'and' in the Supreme Court's guidelines does not compel the Contempt Court to initiate contempt proceedings where proceedings under Section 379 BNSS are already pending [Paras 15-16].

Appeal — Creation of Statute — Right of Appeal — No Appeal Against Refusal to Initiate Contempt — The right of appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is conferred only on a contemnor who has been punished — In all other contingencies, including an order declining to initiate contempt proceedings, no remedy of appeal is provided — What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly (quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum) — Held: Special Appeal not maintainable [Para 21].

Decision: Special Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.