Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Forged Certificates – Parity with Co-Accused – Bail Granted till Police Report – The applicants were accused of submitting forged documents for pharmacist registration – Held: Since co-accused similarly placed had been granted anticipatory bail and no distinguishing factor emerged, applicants are entitled to same protection – Bail granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 5, 8–10].

Prolonged Investigation – Applicants Cooperating – No Custodial Interrogation Needed – Investigation pending for over 3 years and applicants had cooperated – Held: Arrest not warranted in absence of necessity for custodial interrogation; protection from arrest justified [Paras 6, 9].

Judicial Discretion – Limited Protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court Guidelines Followed – Court relied on Nathu Singh v. State of U.P., 2021(6) SCC 64 – Held: Interim protection till filing of charge sheet permissible under settled law [Para 9].

Judgment – Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions – Application disposed of – Court directed that in case of arrest before filing of charge sheet, applicants be released on bail on furnishing bonds and sureties – Conditions imposed regarding cooperation, non-inducement of witnesses, and travel restrictions [Paras 10–11].

Bail – Rape – Promise to Marry – Absence of Misconception of Fact – The petitioner was accused of repeatedly engaging in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant under the pretext of marriage and later refusing to marry her – The Court examined whether the alleged act constituted rape due to vitiation of consent – Held: In light of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921], sexual relations based on a promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it can be shown that the promise was false from the outset and was the sole reason for consent – Bail granted [Paras 8-9].

Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated the well-established principle that bail should be granted unless there are strong reasons to deny it – Referring to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870] and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Court emphasized that denying bail in deserving cases would violate Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and there were no compelling reasons to continue detention [Paras 10-11].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Against Witness Intimidation and Flight Risk – The Court imposed stringent conditions, including restrictions on travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with the investigation – Held: Bail granted subject to strict compliance with conditions [Paras 12].

Decision: Bail granted. The petitioner shall be released on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, non-interference with witnesses, restriction on foreign travel, and prohibition from committing similar offences. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to seek cancellation of bail in case of any violation of the conditions.

Matrimonial Law - Interim Maintenance – Financial Independence of Wife – Rejection Justified – The petitioner, a highly qualified woman with a Master’s degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, sought interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC – The Family Court denied maintenance, citing her previous employment history, LinkedIn profile, and WhatsApp conversations indicating a deliberate effort to remain unemployed for financial benefits – Held: A qualified wife with a proven employment record cannot claim maintenance solely based on unemployment, especially if there is evidence suggesting intentional avoidance of work [Paras 28-31] – Decision: The Family Court's decision rejecting interim maintenance was upheld, as the petitioner failed to prove genuine financial hardship.

Interim Maintenance – Prima Facie Assessment – Judicial Discretion – The Court examined WhatsApp chats where the petitioner and her mother allegedly discussed avoiding employment to claim maintenance – The Family Court's reliance on these messages, along with her employment history, was upheld – Held: While WhatsApp conversations need detailed scrutiny at trial, they can be considered at the interim stage if they prima facie suggest mala fides in claiming maintenance [Paras 32-33, 43] – Decision: The Court found no error in the Family Court’s reliance on prima facie evidence to deny interim maintenance.

Legal Principles – Capable of Earning vs. Actual Earning – The petitioner argued that mere capability to earn does not bar maintenance – The Court distinguished between cases where wives are unable to earn and cases where they intentionally avoid employment – Held: If a wife is qualified and has a history of gainful employment, she cannot remain idle and claim maintenance merely on the basis of unemployment [Paras 36-38, 46] – Decision: The petitioner’s plea was rejected as there was sufficient evidence of her previous employment and deliberate avoidance of work.

Husband’s Financial Status – Relevance in Maintenance Claims – The petitioner contended that the respondent, despite claiming unemployment, had undisclosed income – The respondent produced a termination letter to substantiate his lack of earnings – Held: A husband’s financial status is relevant but does not override the requirement that the wife must demonstrate genuine financial need for maintenance [Paras 45, 47] – Decision: The petitioner failed to establish a financial necessity for interim maintenance, and the claim was dismissed.

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order under the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court – The Court reaffirmed that revisional power is limited to cases of palpable error or arbitrary exercise of discretion – Held: The Family Court’s order was based on sound reasoning and did not warrant interference [Paras 33, 50-51] – Decision: The High Court refused to interfere, upholding the Family Court’s findings and dismissing the revision petition.
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Allegation of Venereal Disease – No Medical Evidence – Divorce Denied – Appellant alleged that respondent suffered from a communicable venereal disease but failed to provide diagnostic reports or subject her to medical examination – Ayurvedic records held insufficient – Held: Mere suspicion or stigma not enough; strict proof required under Section 13(1)(v) – No case made out for divorce on this ground [Paras 5–8].

Cruelty – Allegation of Watching Porn and Masturbation – No Proof – Divorce Denied – Appellant accused respondent of watching pornography and indulging in masturbation – Court held such conduct, unless proven to be directed towards petitioner or violating legal norms, does not constitute “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) – Also held: Self-pleasure falls within sexual autonomy and privacy of a spouse, not per se grounds for divorce [Paras 9–14].

Spousal Privacy and Autonomy – Progressive Interpretation – Individual Rights within Marriage Affirmed – Court emphasized that marriage does not extinguish individual sexual autonomy – Watching non-prohibited porn or indulging in private sexual behavior not inherently unlawful or cruel unless it harms the other spouse or the relationship directly [Paras 12–14].

False Allegations – Misuse of Grounds for Divorce – Allegations Not Substantiated – The appellant failed to prove that respondent’s conduct met the legal threshold of cruelty – Lack of corroboration, witnesses, or supporting evidence led to rejection of the case – Held: Divorce cannot be granted based on unverified accusations or moral judgment [Paras 10–11, 15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Divorce refused – Order of Family Court confirming restitution of conjugal rights upheld – Allegations found baseless and unsubstantiated – No costs; connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Para 15].
 

Prevention of Corruption – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – The trial court acquitted the respondent, a public servant, of bribery charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution contended that the accused was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and that there was sufficient evidence to convict him – Held: Since the prosecution raised substantial grounds, the Court granted leave to appeal and listed the case for final arguments [Paras 4-7].

Appreciation of Evidence – Alleged Failure by Trial Court – The State argued that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, including the complainant’s testimony, trap proceedings, and the validity of sanction – The Court found prima facie merit in the State’s contention that the acquittal required reconsideration – Held: The issue of evidentiary appreciation warranted full appellate scrutiny [Paras 4-5].

Sanction for Prosecution – Compliance with Legal Requirements – The prosecution submitted that proper sanction had been obtained before initiating proceedings – The Court noted that this aspect required a detailed examination in the appeal – Held: The question of whether the sanction was valid and properly considered by the trial court would be reviewed in the appeal [Para 5].

Decision: Leave to appeal granted. The matter was converted into a criminal appeal and listed for arguments on 24/03/2025.

Education Law - Grant-in-Aid – Repeal of GIA Order, 1994 – No Vested Right to Apply Post-Repeal – Tribunal Orders Partially Set Aside – Court held: In terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anup Kumar Senapati, no right to seek benefits under the repealed 1994 Order survives unless aid was already being received or the case was duly recommended before 01.01.2004 – Institutions merely eligible, without formal approval or recommendation prior to repeal, cannot claim relief [Paras 3.2, 4.2, 6.1, 6.3].

Recommendation Prior to Repeal – RTI Data Considered – Relief Permissible on Case-by-Case Basis – Where recommendations by Directorate of Secondary Education were made before repeal, claims held not barred – Held: These cases require verification; such claims may be allowed if eligibility and recommendation are confirmed [Paras 5.4–5.6, 6.1, 6.3].

Doctrine of Equality – Parity Claimed with Other Beneficiaries – Accepted – Citing Apex Court’s dismissal of SLPs and review petitions in identical cases, Court held that similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated against – Reference made to orders in Balaram Mohanta, Arnada Prasad Tripathy, Sucharita Jena, etc. [Paras 5.7–5.14, 6.2, 6.4].

Binding Precedent – Anup Kumar Senapati – Not Absolute Bar – Explained – Court clarified that Anup Kumar Senapati applies where claims arose post-repeal without earlier recommendations – Where recommendations existed or earlier orders were implemented, benefit cannot be denied [Paras 5.2, 5.19, 6.3].

Decision: Appeals by the State against orders granting benefit under GIA Order, 1994 – Dismissed where prior recommendations existed – Appeals by employees against rejection of claims – Allowed subject to verification of eligibility and recommendation prior to repeal of GIA Order – State directed to complete verification within 6 months [Paras 6.3–6.4, 7].

Criminal Law - Transition to BNSS – Interpretation of Section 531 – Date of Incident and FIR Crucial – Applications Maintainable Under CrPC Even If Filed After 01.07.2024 - High Court held that where the offence was committed and FIR registered prior to 01.07.2024, petitions filed under CrPC post this date are maintainable – Legislative intent and ejusdem generis rule support continuity of procedural remedies under repealed CrPC [Paras 1, 10, 19, 27, 35, 43(i)-(ii)].

Pre-Arrest Bail – No Absolute Bar Under Section 438(4) CrPC for Offences under Sections 376(3), 376AB, etc. – Court Clarifies - Held: Section 438(4) does not impose a complete bar; court may grant bail if prima facie case is not made out – Interim protection granted in such cases is not void ab initio [Paras 4, 15, 43(i)].

Ejusdem Generis Rule – Applied to Savings Clause in Section 531 BNSS – Wider Interpretation Permissible - Court used ejusdem generis to interpret “appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending” to include applications filed after 01.07.2024 in cases where FIR was under IPC – Avoided narrow reading to preserve legislative intent [Paras 32-35].

Conflicting Judgments Resolved – Reference Answered – Earlier Decision in Abhishek Jain’s Case Overruled - Bench disagreed with view in CRM-M-31808-2024 (Abhishek Jain) that post-01.07.2024 CrPC applications are non-maintainable – Upheld view in CRM-34396-2024 favoring maintainability of CrPC applications for offences committed before BNSS came into force [Paras 6, 16, 42].

Decision – Reference Answered – CrPC Applications Maintainable If FIR Registered Before 01.07.2024 – High Court ruled that the date of incident and FIR are determinative for applying CrPC even after BNSS came into force – All judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh directed to apply this interpretation [Paras 42-45].

Bail in Murder Case – Change in Charges Justifies Bail Consideration – The petitioner was initially charged under Section 302 IPC but was later charged under Sections 304(1), 308, and 34 IPC – The Court noted that the trial court had already dropped the murder charge, indicating the absence of premeditation – Held: Since the allegations now pertain to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, bail considerations must be assessed accordingly [Paras 5-6].

Delay in Arrest – Weak Evidentiary Link – The petitioner was not named in the FIR or in the statements recorded immediately after the incident – His arrest was based on an eyewitness statement recorded more than two months after the event – Held: Unexplained delay in naming the accused raises concerns regarding reliability, warranting bail [Paras 11, 19].

CCTV Footage – No Direct Evidence of Assault – The prosecution argued that CCTV footage placed the petitioner at the crime scene, but the defense contended that he was merely a passerby – The Court found that while the petitioner was present, there was no clear evidence of him assaulting the deceased – Held: Mere presence at the scene does not establish guilt beyond doubt, making bail appropriate [Paras 8, 21].

Parity with Co-Accused – Consistency in Bail Decisions – The co-accused, Aqdas, was granted bail on 04/03/2025 based on the trial court’s finding that there was no premeditation – The Court held that the petitioner’s role was not significantly different from that of Aqdas – Held: Bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence when a similarly placed co-accused has been granted relief [Paras 12, 23].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Against Interference with Trial – Bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and regular police reporting – Held: Stringent conditions mitigate the risk of tampering with evidence or absconding [Para 24].

Decision: Bail granted. The petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including reporting to the police station weekly, restriction on travel, and prohibition from contacting prosecution witnesses.

Taxation Law – Transfer Pricing – International Transaction with Overseas Branches – Valid Reference to TPO – Petition Dismissed – Axis Bank contended that transactions between head office and foreign branches were not international transactions requiring ALP benchmarking – Held: In view of deeming fiction under Section 92F and judicial precedent, foreign branches treated as separate enterprises – Reference valid [Paras 37–44, 51].

CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 – Procedural Compliance – Satisfaction and Approval Found Proper – Petitioner claimed breach of Instruction due to lack of speaking order – Held: Assessing Officer passed detailed speaking order and recorded satisfaction regarding income impact – Principal Commissioner validly approved reference – No procedural breach [Paras 17–24, 30–35].

Natural Justice – Reasonable Opportunity Given – No Prejudice Shown – Petitioner alleged denial of hearing due to late-night notice – Court held: Petitioner submitted objections which were duly considered and addressed by a speaking order – No breach of natural justice [Paras 16, 24, 29–30].

Taxability – Global Income and Credit – Deeming Fiction Upheld – Petitioner argued no tax impact due to global income consolidation – Court rejected, holding: Tax credit mechanisms and differential tax rates may affect revenue; transactions must be benchmarked to avoid base erosion [Paras 40–44, 51].

Premature Challenge – Maintainability of Writ – Rejected – Respondent contended petition was premature since TPO had not yet passed final order – Court held that since all legal issues had been raised and heard, writ was maintainable though ultimately dismissed on merits [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Reference to TPO held valid – Transactions between Indian head office and overseas branches considered international transactions under Income Tax Act – Procedural and legal compliance affirmed – No costs awarded [Paras 51–53].