NDPS – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 – Alleged recovery of 1,37,11,610 tablets weighing 5772.584 kg (with strips) – Petitioners alleged to be part of organised chain involving manufacture, marketing and diversion of NRx medicines through licensed and fictitious firms – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Twin conditions cumulative and mandatory – No reasonable grounds shown to believe petitioners are not guilty – Bail declined [Paras 7, 10].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope and Application – Court reiterated that conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are in addition to general bail principles and both conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively – Satisfaction regarding “not guilty” requires prima facie assessment without conducting mini-trial – Condition regarding likelihood of re-offending to be assessed from entire factual matrix including role and antecedents – No case made out to dilute statutory embargo [Paras 7, 10].

Organised Diversion of Pharmaceutical Drugs – Licensed Entities as Facade – Petitioners contended that they were directors/proprietors of licensed pharmaceutical firms and transactions were lawful – Prosecution alleged large-scale diversion of NRx medicines through shell/fictitious firms and cancellation of licences – Held: Mere existence of licences or corporate structure does not ipso facto negate prima facie inference of organised illegal diversion – Commercial sophistication cannot shield criminal accountability at bail stage [Paras 9-9.2].

Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntary Statements – Prima Facie Consideration – Statements under Section 67, disclosures regarding sale of crores of tablets to fictitious/inactive firms and coordination in supply chain placed on record – At bail stage, Court not to conclusively adjudicate admissibility or evidentiary value but may consider surrounding circumstances for limited purpose of Section 37 satisfaction [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Long Incarceration – Trial Delay – Effect under NDPS – Petitioners in custody ranging from December 2024 to May 2025 – 50 prosecution witnesses cited, none examined till date – Held: In view of seriousness of allegations, magnitude of recovery and organised nature of offence, incarceration period not such as to dilute statutory rigour under Section 37 – No case of inordinate delay attributable to prosecution so as to invoke Article 21 exception [Paras 7, 10].

Gravity of Offence – Societal Impact – Court took note of Supreme Court precedents emphasising menace of drug abuse and organised trafficking – Held: Alleged offence involves large-scale commercial quantity affecting public health and youth – Discretion in bail to be exercised with heightened caution in such cases [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: All eight petitions dismissed – No ground made out to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Observations not to be construed as opinion on merits – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Writ Jurisdiction – Hiring of Hotel for Protected Persons – Non-Payment of Verified Dues – Hotel hired by Divisional Commissioner and later by Deputy Commissioner for accommodation of protected political persons and security forces – Bills raised for boarding and lodging – Government constituted Bill Verification Committee which drastically reduced claim and released nominal amount – Held: Where hiring and occupation are admitted and premises remained under control of protectees and security forces, respondents cannot dispute liability at belated stage – Committee proceedings vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Petition allowed [Paras 21-23, 28-33].

Pleadings – Specific Denial – Admission by Non-Traverse – First Claim Period – Respondents failed to specifically deny hiring of petitioner Hotel for period w.e.f. 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021 – In terms of Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC, absence of specific denial amounts to admission – Admission is substantive evidence and need not be proved in view of Section 58 Evidence Act – Held: Petitioner entitled to relief for first claim period [Paras 23-25].

Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admission – Court empowered to pass appropriate order where admission of fact is evident from pleadings or circumstances – Reliance placed on Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279 – Held: Admitted hiring and occupation justify grant of relief [Para 24].

Contractual / Pecuniary Claim – Maintainability in Writ – Though writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked for disputed contractual claims, where material facts regarding hiring, occupation and State control over premises are admitted and denial is arbitrary, writ court can intervene to prevent unjust withholding of legitimate dues [Paras 16-18, 28-32].

Bill Verification Committee – Distinction from Fact-Finding Committee – Principles of Natural Justice – Committee constituted months after de-hiring to verify bills – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to participate or justify claim – No indication of verification of petitioner’s occupancy records – Rejection/reduction of claim on ground of inflation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – Held: Ex parte report unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 30-32].

Occupation and Control of Premises – Effect – Hotel premises guarded round the clock by security forces – Two rooms under continuous occupation of security personnel – Keys remained with protectees – Petitioner had no control or liberty to commercially exploit premises otherwise – Held: Respondents cannot later contend that rooms were not in actual occupation or deny liability after benefiting from exclusive reservation of accommodation [Paras 28-29, 32].

Delay in Constitution of Committee – Afterthought – Premises de-hired on 01.06.2022 – Committee constituted on 05.11.2022 and report submitted on 02.02.2023 – Held: Belated verification without associating petitioner and without examining whether accommodation was reserved exclusively for State protectees renders report arbitrary [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 05.11.2022 constituting Bill Verification Committee and ex parte report dated 10.02.2023 quashed – Respondents directed to liquidate petitioner’s claims within eight weeks – In default, interest @ 6% per annum payable.

Remission – Premature Release – Section 432(2) CrPC – Competence of Presiding Judge – Life convict’s prayer for premature release recommended by State Sentence Review Board – Judicial Department rejected release based on negative opinion of Chief Judge, City Sessions Court as successor to convicting Bench which ceased to exist – Held: In absence of original presiding Judge, Chief Judge competent to render opinion under Section 432(2) by virtue of Section 5 of City Sessions Court Act and Section 35 CrPC – Provision cannot be rendered unworkable – Question answered in affirmative [Paras 31-39].

Remission – Opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC – Requirement of Reasons – Chief Judge’s opinion primarily reiterated gravity of offence without adequate consideration of post-conviction factors – Relevant parameters in Laxman Naskar and Ram Chander not properly addressed – Mechanical and stereotype reasoning insufficient – Opinion must consider potential for reformation, chance of recurrence, socio-economic condition and purpose of further incarceration – Held: Opinion legally deficient and non-compliant with statutory mandate [Paras 40-45].

Remission – Role of State Government – Whether Presiding Judge’s opinion binding – Judicial Secretary treated negative opinion as sine qua non and mechanically accepted it – Held: Though opinion under Section 432(2) is mandatory procedural safeguard, it is not binding – State must not mechanically follow judicial opinion and must independently assess compliance with statutory requirements – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 46-49].

Administrative Directions – Effect of Earlier Writ Order directing consideration “in line with SSRB recommendation” – Whether binding mandate to grant release – Held: SSRB recommendation subject to approval of State Government – Earlier order required sincere consideration, not automatic release – Statutory scheme not supplanted – Judicial Secretary not precluded from independent decision [Paras 50-55].

Constitutional Jurisdiction – Power of High Court to Direct Premature Release – Scope under Article 226 – Though constitutional courts may in compelling circumstances grant remission directly, such power to be exercised sparingly – In present case insufficient material regarding reformation, conduct, and comparative parameters – Not appropriate to assume executive function at this stage – Matter remitted for fresh opinion and reconsideration [Paras 56-69].

Parity – Co-accused granted premature release – Whether automatic entitlement – Held: Parity not absolute right in remission matters – Must establish equivalence in behavioural and statutory parameters – Insufficient material regarding co-accused – Claim rejected [Para 70].

Decision: Impugned order dated 24.12.2024 set aside – Chief Judge, City Sessions Court directed to render fresh reasoned opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC within one month considering factors in Laxman Naskar, Ram Chander and Bilkis Yakub Rasool – State Government to take fresh decision within one month thereafter without mechanically relying on judicial opinion – Writ petition disposed of – No costs [Paras 73-75].

Rent Control – Repossession – Failure to Enter Written Tenancy Agreement – Section 21(2)(a) TNRRRL Act – Landlord sought repossession on ground of absence of written agreement – Tenant contended that in absence of written rental agreement, petition itself not maintainable – Core issue held to be purely legal and capable of decision on arguments without additional evidence – Held, additional documents unnecessary [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Civil Procedure – Production of Additional Documents – Application filed after filing counter – Trial Court dismissed petitions seeking to receive documents not filed along with counter – High Court held that Rent Court need not receive documents which are irrelevant to core issue – No enabling provision under the Act permitting belated production of documents after pleadings – No error in Trial Court’s order – Revision dismissed [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Relevancy of Documents – Arbitral Order – Police Complaint – FIR – Municipal Notice – Order passed in arbitral proceedings need not be marked and can be relied upon without formal proof – Documents such as police complaint, FIR direction and notice to Corporation not relevant to legal issue involved in main RLTOPs – Production rightly refused [Para 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Interference warranted only in case of patent illegality or serious error – No serious error found in impugned orders of Rent Court – Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 6, 7].

Decision: Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – No order as to costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds of Arrest – Arrest memo merely mentioning crime number and sections without disclosing specific grounds – Separate sheet of “grounds of arrest” not forming part of arrest memo and not attested as required under Section 36 BNSS – Held: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (2026) 1 SCC 500 – Arrest and consequential remand rendered illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 20-26, 33-34].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Constitutional safeguard not a procedural formality – Grounds must be furnished in writing in a language understood by arrestee – Failure to supply written grounds within stipulated time vitiates arrest and remand – Remand order cannot cure foundational illegality of arrest – “Once the edifice goes, the superstructure collapses” [Paras 19-23, 27, 33].

Criminal Procedure – Remand under Section 187 BNSS – Mechanical Remand – Magistrate obliged to apply judicial mind to legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards – Failure to notice non-conformity of arrest memo and absence of duly attested written grounds – Remand held to be passed in a mechanical manner – Habeas corpus maintainable notwithstanding remand [Paras 28-30].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus after Judicial Remand – Writ lies where remand order suffers from absolute illegality or is passed mechanically – Distinction between judicial review remedies and writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus is writ of right granted ex debito justitiae in case of unlawful detention – Petition maintainable despite pendency of criminal proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Arrest of petitioner declared illegal – Remand order dated 29.01.2026 set aside – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

Mohammedan Law – Inheritance – Joint Family and Ancestral Property – Concepts of joint family property, coparcenary and ancestral property are wholly foreign to Mohammedan Law – Muslim succession is individual and heirs succeed as tenants-in-common in definite shares only on death – No right by birth and no presumption of joint family nucleus – Trial Court erred in granting injunction on premise of joint family/ancestral property – Such approach contrary to settled principles of Mohammedan Law – Order held perverse [Paras 11.7–11.18, 12–15, 27, 30].

Family Settlement – Validity under Mohammedan Law – Family arrangement executed during lifetime of deceased father recognizing shares of sons in immovable properties and providing monetary payment to daughters – Revenue entries mutated pursuant thereto and statements of plaintiff recorded – Settlement not specifically challenged – Prima facie binding and acted upon – Trial Court failed to give due weight at interim stage – Ignoring material document amounts to perversity [Paras 16–21, 27].

Acquiescence and Delay – Suit filed after nearly 37 years of father’s death and decades after mutation entries and multiple sale transactions – Plaintiff residing in same city and aware of transactions – Plea of continued assurances found to be clever drafting to avoid consequences of acquiescence – Conduct disentitles equitable relief of injunction – Principle of acquiescence attracted [Paras 22–23, 32–33].

Injunction – Interference by Appellate Court – Scope under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Appellate Court can interfere where discretion exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or in ignorance of settled principles – Failure to apply governing personal law and grant of relief beyond pleadings (based on affidavit Exh.79) held perverse – All three cardinal principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss not satisfied – Injunction order set aside [Paras 11.1–11.4, 24–30, 33].

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Suit for administration of estate and claim of exclusion – Limitation under Article 110 involves question when exclusion became known – Plaintiff pleaded denial upon recent development and sale – Issue of limitation held to be mixed question of law and fact – Not liable to be rejected at threshold – Civil Revision Applications dismissed [Paras 10.2–10.10].

Decision: Civil Revision Applications Nos. 48 of 2023 and 49 of 2023 dismissed – Appeal from Order Nos. 41, 42 and 43 of 2024 allowed – Order dated 02.02.2024 below Exh.5 granting temporary injunction quashed and set aside – Application Exh.5 dismissed – Observations tentative and not to influence trial – Interim protection in AOs continued for three weeks from date of judgment.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Wrong Quotation of Penal Provisions – Petitioner, a Director of company, sought quashing contending offences under Sections 415, 420, 472, 477A, 378 and 379 IPC not attracted – Held: Mere misquoting of penal provisions by investigating agency does not warrant quashing – Trial Court empowered to frame appropriate charges based on materials on record – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Company Director – Allegation of Misappropriation of Company Assets – Prosecution alleged petitioner purchased goods in name of company, diverted them to wife’s shop, manipulated computer data, removed company records and retained company car – Court observed that materials prima facie disclose offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC – Applicability of Sections 415 and 420 IPC to be examined at stage of charge – Proceedings cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Forgery and Use of Forged Documents – Incorrect Mention of Sections 472 and 477A IPC – Allegations indicate possible offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC – Held: If investigating agency wrongly invoked Sections 472 and 477A IPC, Magistrate can incorporate correct provisions while framing charges – No ground for quashment merely because specific sections may not strictly apply [Para 6].

Theft – Company Vehicle – Defence that Car Surrendered to Financier – Petitioner contended that offences under Sections 378 and 379 IPC not attracted as vehicle returned to financier due to loan arrears – Held: Such factual defence to be considered by Trial Court at stage of framing of charge – Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC not to be invoked for premature evaluation of defence [Para 7].

Powers of Trial Court – Alteration of Charge – Court clarified that Magistrate may invoke powers under Section 216 CrPC (Section 239 BNSS, 2023) to alter or add charges if already framed – Observations in present order to be considered at stage of framing/alteration of charges [Final Order].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – No ground to quash proceedings – Trial Court to consider proper penal provisions at stage of framing or alteration of charges.

PIL - Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Scope of Interference – Petitioner challenged the closure of fresh registrations and the fixation of age-related eligibility criteria (21 to 60 years) under the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Art. 14 – Held: Judicial review of a policy decision is limited to examining its legality, not its wisdom. Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters. A policy decision can only be interfered with if it is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, or dehors the provisions of a statute. The fixation of the date for commencement and closure of a scheme, as well as the determination of the age of entitlement, falls squarely within the executive domain of the State. The court found no arbitrariness in the State’s exercise of discretion regarding the implementation and continuation of the policy. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Equality before Law – Hostile Discrimination – Allegation of arbitrary exclusion of newly eligible women from a welfare scheme – Held: The State has the discretion to decide the implementation period and the scope of beneficiaries for a welfare policy. Stoppage of fresh registrations from a specific date does not, per se, constitute hostile discrimination. The fixation of minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement is a policy matter within the domain of the State Government and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be manifestly arbitrary. [Paras 10, 11]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Locus Standi – Enhancement of Financial Benefits – Petitioner sought a direction to enhance the amount provided under the scheme as per alleged promises – Held: The petitioner is admittedly neither an aspirant nor a beneficiary of the scheme. Claims regarding the enhancement of financial benefits under a social welfare scheme cannot be entertained at the instance of a third party in a PIL. Such matters pertain to the discretionary executive functions of the State. [Para 12]

Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s power of judicial review over executive policy is restricted to assessing whether the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, or ultra vires the powers of the delegatee. The determination of eligibility criteria, including age limits and registration timelines for a welfare scheme, is a matter of administrative policy within the State's domain and does not attract judicial interference under Art. 226 unless it is demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary or malafide.

Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Motor Vehicles Act – Fatal Accident – Grievous Head Injuries – Death after prolonged treatment – Deceased sustained severe head injuries and multiple fractures and underwent three major surgeries – Continuous hospitalization till death – Held, death directly attributable to injuries sustained in accident and not due to intervening cause – Medical expenses rightly awarded and confirmed [Paras 12].

Contributory Negligence – Non-wearing of Helmet – Absence of Driving Licence – Vehicle without Registration and Insurance – Admissions by P.W.1 and Ex.A4 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report established violations – Though accident primarily caused by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, non-wearing of helmet had direct nexus with fatal head injuries – Fixing 25% contributory negligence on deceased held just and reasonable [Paras 13, 14].

Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Survival of Claim – Claims for pain, suffering and personal injuries do not survive upon death of injured – Award of Rs.2,00,000/- under said head set aside – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly [Para 15].

Quantum of Compensation – Loss of Income – Medical Bills – Filial Consortium – Funeral Expenses – Attender Charges – Tribunal’s assessment under various heads except pain and suffering confirmed – Total compensation reduced from Rs.33,57,696/- to Rs.31,57,696/- – After 25% deduction towards contributory negligence, compensation reduced from Rs.25,18,272/- to Rs.23,68,272/- [Para 16].

Appeal and Cross Objection – Insurer’s Appeal Partly Allowed – Award Modified – Cross objection seeking enhancement rejected – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly allowed – Award modified by deducting Rs.2,00,000/- granted towards pain and suffering – Total compensation payable fixed at Rs.23,68,272/- with applicable interest – Cross Objection dismissed – No order as to costs.