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.

Railway Claims – Untoward Incident – Accidental Fall from Running Train – Sections 123(c) and 124-A, Railways Act, 1989 – Deceased purchased a valid journey ticket on 07.02.2018 for travel from Garhi Harsaru to Hathras Junction – On 08.02.2018, after alighting at Aligarh for change of train, he boarded Train No. 54462 (Bareilly-Bandikui Passenger) and fell from the running train near Pora, dying on the spot – Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim holding the incident to be a "run-over" and not an untoward incident, without returning any finding on bona fide travel – Held: Tribunal erred in elevating inference to proof – No eyewitness, no statement of guard/driver, and no medical opinion exclusively ruling out a fall from a running train – Post-mortem report attributed death to shock and haemorrhage and did not negate a fall – Absence of material pointing to trespass or crossing of track – Accidental fall from a running train squarely falls within Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Act – Once foundational facts are established, liability of Railways is strict and the claim cannot be defeated on speculative reasoning – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for assessment of compensation [Paras 7–19].

Bona Fide Passenger – Recovery of Journey Ticket – Burden of Proof – Valid journey ticket bearing No. L-78484240 was recovered from the person of the deceased and duly recorded in the railway's own DRM report and inquest material – Respondent did not dispute the recovery – Held: Recovery of a valid journey ticket constitutes strong and direct evidence of bona fide travel – Once foundational facts of bona fide travel are established, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the same – Respondent failed to dislodge the presumption – The sequence of travel as disclosed in the claim application, including purchase of ticket, boarding, change at Aligarh, and onward journey by Train No. 54462, is consistent with the place of recovery of the body near Pora on the route to Hathras Junction – Claims under Section 124-A are to be adjudicated on preponderance of probabilities and contemporaneous record, not on strict proof as in criminal trials [Paras 12–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 05.12.2019 set aside – Matter remanded to the Tribunal to assess compensation payable and disburse the same within two months from receipt of copy of order – Matter listed before Tribunal on 12.05.2026.

Tender Law – Cancellation of Work Order – False Affidavit – Suppression of Prior Debarment – Petitioner secured work order by submitting a notarized affidavit dated 27.08.2025 categorically stating it had never been debarred, blacklisted, or declared a defaulter by any government department, hospital, or authority — Respondent JDA discovered that the petitioner had been debarred by Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur for six months from 09.12.2024 to 06.06.2025 — Petitioner contended it was not actively debarred at the time of submission of the bid and acted under a bona fide belief — Held: Code of Integrity under the Tender Document expressly mandated disclosure of any previous transgressions within the last three years, regardless of whether the debarment period had expired — petitioner cannot escape liability by pleading that it was not actively debarred at the time of submission of bid — suppression of prior debarment constitutes a fraudulent practice — cancellation of work order, forfeiture of bank guarantee, and debarment for six months justified — writ petition dismissed [Paras 5–20].

Fraud in Tender Process – Public Policy – Commercial Contracts – If the seeds of a commercial relationship between a private entity and the State are planted in fraud, every subsequent offshoot including the work order, the contract, and the work done thereunder is fatally infected with fraud — a product of fraud is fundamentally in conflict with the public policy of India and basic notions of morality and justice — a tender-issuing authority is entirely justified in terminating a contract the moment it is established that the successful bidder relied on a false representation to cross the threshold of technical eligibility [Para 19].

Affidavit – Sanctity – False Affidavit – Fraudulent Practice – Non-disclosure or omission of material facts including suppression of prior debarment constitutes a "fraudulent practice" aimed at influencing the bidding process — sanctity of affidavits must be preserved and protected — filing of false affidavits to secure commercial contracts is strongly deprecated [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — No interference warranted in the cancellation order dated 18.03.2026 — Pending applications disposed of — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Murder – Acquittal – Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain – Appellant not named in FIR – Prosecution rested entirely on circumstantial evidence including recovery of kurta of deceased, pistol, ransom money and identification parade – Held: Chain of circumstances far from complete in absence of recorded disclosure statement for recovery of kurta, failure to link recovered currency notes to ransom, inconclusive FSL report, non-examination of independent witnesses to recovery and vitiated identification parade – Conviction unsustainable – Appellant acquitted [Paras 12, 21-22].

Criminal Law – Section 27 Evidence Act – Disclosure Statement – Mandatory Requirement – Recovery of kurta of deceased relied upon as key link – No disclosure statement of appellant recorded before such recovery – Held: Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only specific information given by an accused that leads directly to the discovery of a fact is admissible – Without a recorded statement proving that appellant actually provided information leading to discovery, recovery becomes a simple recovery and is highly doubtful – Following Subramanya v. State of Karnataka and Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – FSL Report – Inconclusive Expert Opinion – Burden of Proof – Pistol recovered from appellant but FSL reports could not positively match pellets found in deceased's body to recovered pistol – Expert stated it was only "possible" that pellets were from the recovered pistol – Held: Vague or non-definite expert opinion cannot link the weapon to the murder and benefit of doubt must go to accused – Following Mahmood v. State of U.P. – Non-examination of independent witnesses to recovery (Anil Kumar Gupta and Jitendra Kumar Gupta) named in recovery memo created further doubt [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Currency Notes – Proof of Nexus with Crime – Rs.40,000/- recovered from appellant claimed to be ransom money – Currency notes are unidentifiable articles of common use – Prosecution did not prove that specific notes carried unique identification marks such as recorded serial numbers or distinctive stains matching the description of the ransom – Held: Recovery of unidentified currency notes without establishing nexus to the crime cannot be held to be ransom money [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Test Identification Parade – Vitiation – Accused Not Kept Veiled – Identification parade conducted but Investigating Officer (PW-7) completely failed to state that appellant was kept veiled (baparda) when taken on remand or while at police station – Prosecution failed to establish that witnesses had not seen accused before formal TIP – Held: Where accused shown to witnesses before identification parade, TIP evidence not admissible as valid evidence – TIP is not substantive evidence but only corroborative – Identification in court also becomes meaningless if TIP is conducted after witnesses see accused – Following Mulla v. State of U.P. and Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Pilibhit, convicting appellant under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act set aside – Appellant Ajai Pal acquitted of all charges – Bail bond discharged – Amicus Curiae Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal entitled to professional fee of Rs.15,000/-.

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Datum Line – Pre-1962 Structure Claim – Petitioners challenged BMC demolition notices and speaking orders in respect of an industrial shed comprising ground and mezzanine floors, asserting that the structure constituted a tolerated structure existing prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962 as supported by Tikka Sheets and BMC assessment records – BMC contended that Tikka Sheets clearly showed no structure on the plot prior to the datum line, and the City Survey MR plan marked the structures in red hatch indicating erection after the datum line – Held: The Tikka Sheets did not support the Petitioners but on the contrary supported BMC; the plot showed only a dotted boundary line and not a hatched structure; no document on record established the dimensions or existence of any structure prior to the datum line; petition dismissed [Paras 4, 6, 11].

Evidence – Assessment Records – Repair Permissions – Proof of Pre-Datum Structure – Insufficiency – Assessment bill dated 29th December 2012 and the communication of the Assistant Assessor dated 19th January 1993 were relied upon to show assessment since 1st April 1962 – Held: Production of an assessment invoice or receipt by itself does not prove that both land and building were assessed; the 1993 communication itself recorded that taxes were levied without reference to the details of the property – Repair permissions granted by BMC, including permission to construct a mezzanine floor, carry only a presumption of existence of a structure but cannot conclusively establish that the structure pre-dated the datum line without independent corroborating documents [Paras 12, 15, 16].

Municipal Officers – Grant of Repair Permission without Verifying Legality – Censured – Court noted that BMC officers who granted repair permissions without ascertaining the legality of the structure were responsible for rampant illegalities; such failure of officers cannot enure to the benefit of the wrongdoer; granting reliefs to Petitioners would encourage the perception that illegal constructions can be regularised by obtaining subsequent repair permissions, rendering the object of planned development under the MMC Act nugatory [Para 17].

Illegal Construction – Principle – Illegality is Incurable – It is settled law that an unauthorized structure cannot be tolerated or protected and is liable to be demolished – Illegality is incurable; unauthorized constructions pose a threat to life of occupants, affect resources such as electricity, ground water and roads, and derail planned development – State regularisation schemes must be exceptional and not a routine exercise – Courts must adopt a strict approach and should not engage in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions [Paras 9, 10, 10.1].

Show Cause Notice – Speaking Order – Scope – Petitioners contended that the speaking orders travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices issued under Section 351 MMC Act – Court rejected this contention upon finding that the impugned orders were well reasoned, duly considered the documents and contentions of the Petitioners, and were neither lacking in reasons nor perverse [Paras 3.1, 7, 8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Interim Application (L) No. 5806 of 2026 disposed of as not surviving – Request for extension of ad-interim relief for four weeks to approach the Supreme Court rejected in view of the palpably illegal nature of the structure.

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.

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.

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.

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.