NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance with Article 22(1) – Search at Night – Inventory/Sampling – Section 37 Rigour – Held: Grounds of arrest duly communicated prior to remand; seizure indicates commercial quantity (31.78 g MDMA); quantitative test delay immaterial; Section 37 bar applies – Bail rejected [Paras 12–18].

NDPS Act – Bail – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Constitutional Requirement – Compliance Established – Arrest Not Vitiated – Petitioner contended that he was taken into custody at night without being informed the grounds of arrest – Relying on Ahmed Mansoor, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court reiterated constitutional mandate under Arts. 21 & 22(1) – Held, records show written grounds of arrest with petitioner’s signature/LTM furnished before production before Magistrate along with remand papers – Requirement under Mihir Rajesh Shah satisfied; arrest not illegal [Paras 7–14].

NDPS Act – Search Conducted After Sunset – Recording of Grounds of Belief – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Petitioner argued that search between 11:35 p.m. and 2:15 a.m. was illegal – Court held that mahazar contains recorded grounds of belief for conducting night search – Challenge unsustainable at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Inventory and Sampling – Stage of Investigation – Non-Consideration at Bail Stage – Petitioner relied on Bharat Aambale and Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga claiming inventory/sampling not done in his presence – Court held that no material produced regarding sampling process and investigation is ongoing; such objections cannot be adjudicated at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – FSL Report Available – Quantitative Test Pending – Effect Under Rule 14 of NDPS Rules, 2022 – FSL report shows sample weight before test 31.78 g and positive for MDMA – Held, this constitutes commercial quantity – Delay in quantitative analysis does not dilute seizure or quantity at this stage and does not defeat Section 37 bar [Paras 16–17].

NDPS Act – Rigour of Section 37 – Reasonable Grounds Not Established – Bail Denied – Court held that quantity seized being commercial, Section 37(1)(b) applies – No material to conclude petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to re-offend; possibility of tampering with investigation or witnesses exists – Bail rejected [Para 17].

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Punishment Extending up to 20 Years – Investigation in Progress – Nature of offence (commercial quantity MDMA) punishable with minimum 10 years and up to 20 years – Grant of bail would prejudice investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 18].

Service Law – BSF – Disciplinary Proceedings – Extra-marital Conduct – Officer engaged in intimate relationship with a female constable while being married – Compromising photographs leaked and circulated on social media – SCOI and ROE conducted – Disciplinary authority found conduct to be unbecoming of an officer in a disciplined force – Held: Relationship, though consensual, constituted grave misconduct warranting action under Rule 20(2) and 20(4)(c) of BSF Rules – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 2–6, 18–19, 38–39].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Disciplinary Action – High Court reiterates that Court cannot substitute its views unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, or perverse – Decision to treat holding of GSFC as "inexpedient" is valid if based on material facts and nature of misconduct – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice as officer was heard at multiple stages – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 21–22, 30–31, 34–40].

Interpretation – Rule 20(2) of BSF Rules – Meaning of "Inexpedient" – Court held term "inexpedient" has wider ambit than "not reasonably practicable" – Covers situations where holding GSFC may not be suitable or appropriate to achieve disciplinary objectives – Rule 20(2) intended to give discretion to competent authority in fit cases without mandatory GSFC – Held: Invocation of Rule 20(2) justified in facts of case [Paras 30–37].

Constitutional Law – Distinction from Article 311(2)(c) – Rule 20(2) BSF Rules operates independently and does not require satisfaction on grounds of “security of the State” unlike Article 311(2)(c) – Full Bench decision in Laishram Sushil Singh not applicable to BSF Rule 20(2) – Held: Provisions not pari materia and operate under different legal tests [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 20(4)(c) of the BSF Rules – Held: Decision to invoke Rule 20(2) based on seriousness of misconduct and nature of evidence was lawful – No ground for judicial interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India [Para 41].

Civil Law – Forensic Examination – Alleged Tampering of Sealed Documents – Mere Apprehension – No Foundational Basis – Administrative Enquiry Found No Tampering – Photocopies Identical to Originals – Article 227 Petition Dismissed with Costs [Paras 2, 5–8].

Evidence Act – Section 45 – Forensic Examination – Mere Apprehension Insufficient – Petitioner claimed that breaking of lac seal on envelope containing original documents indicated tampering; no concrete allegation or proof of actual manipulation inside the envelope – Held, mere apprehension cannot justify sending documents to a forensic expert; such a direction would unnecessarily delay trial [Paras 2, 5].

Court Records – Administrative Enquiry – Condition of Seal – Storage-Related Damage Not Indicative of Tampering – Trial court’s administrative enquiry found plastic tape intact and cracks in lac seal attributable to bulk storage of envelopes in Ahlmad rooms – Documents remained secure; no material supporting allegation of tampering [Paras 2–3, 6].

Forensic Request Limited to Envelope – Not Maintainable – Prayer to send only the envelope for forensic examination held irrelevant to the lis and outside scope of dispute – No forensic purpose demonstrated [Para 6].

Comparison With Photocopies – No Discrepancy Found – Photocopies earlier filed by petitioner matched originals retrieved from sealed cover, negating suspicion of manipulation [Para 7].

Reliance on Precedent Misplaced – Thiruvengadam Pillai Distinguished – Precedent encouraging expert comparison of handwriting irrelevant since present case did not concern disputed handwriting but alleged tampering of sealed documents [Para 4].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – No Perverse Error – Petition Frivolous – Trial court order found reasoned and justified; no illegality or perversity warranting interference – Petition dismissed as frivolous with cost of Rs.10,000 to be deposited with DHCLSC within one week [Paras 8–9].

Direction to Trial Court – Trial court to ensure compliance regarding deposit of costs [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Speaking to Minutes – Finality of Judgment – Section 362 CrPC bar – No power to modify or alter sentence after appellate and Supreme Court affirmations – Concurrent running of sentences cannot be inserted subsequently – Application for speaking to minutes cannot substitute review or modification – Application rejected [Paras 16–23, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Speaking to Minutes – Scope and Limits – Application seeking insertion of direction that sentences run concurrently – Held: Speaking to minutes is confined to correction of clerical or typographical mistakes and cannot be used to modify, review or alter substantive findings or directions in a judgment – Any such attempt amounts to impermissible review under Section 362 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Application not maintainable [Paras 4, 19–23].

Sentence – Concurrent vs. Consecutive – Section 31 CrPC – Trial court did not direct concurrent running of sentences and appellate court also confirmed conviction without such direction – In absence of explicit direction, sentences run consecutively – Principle that sentences in a single transaction must run concurrently is not absolute; depends on nature and gravity of offence – Heinous offence of gang rape, threats, children kept hostage – Trial court rightly refrained from granting concurrency – No ground to alter sentencing mode post-finality [Paras 7, 10–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Limits – High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to modify a concluded judgment when CrPC expressly bars review and alteration – Inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions – Only clerical/arithmetical errors may be corrected – Present request is for substantive modification and hence barred [Paras 14–16, 22].

Finality of Criminal Judgments – Section 362 CrPC – Once appellate and Supreme Court have affirmed conviction and sentence, the High Court becomes functus officio – No power to revisit or modify operative portion – Any change to sentencing mode (concurrent vs. consecutive) constitutes substantive alteration and is prohibited – No exception applicable (fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of hearing etc.) [Paras 17–21].

Delay and Conduct – Applicant never raised plea of concurrency before Trial Court, Appellate Court, or Supreme Court – Raised for first time after many years – No explanation for delay – Plea barred both on law and conduct [Paras 2.6, 3, 17–18, 24].

Held – Sentences imposed under Sections 376(g) and 506 r/w 34 IPC to run consecutively by default – No jurisdiction to insert concurrency after judgment reached finality – Application for speaking to minutes rejected – No direction for release – No costs [Paras 25].

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Interim Stay Order – Wilful Disobedience – Despite being served with the High Court’s stay order dated 07.10.2025 restraining action on the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC), the respondent-contemnor initiated fresh proceedings under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act and issued an order dated 24.10.2025 for closure of the petrol pump – Held: This amounted to wilful disobedience and circumvention of the Court’s order – Civil contempt established under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Subsequent order quashed [Paras 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 32, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48].

Disaster Management Act – Section 34 – Jurisdictional Overreach – Action taken under Disaster Management Act was based on the same reports already forming basis of earlier NOC cancellation order, which had been stayed – Held: The respondent-contemnor acted in excess of statutory powers and bypassed the judicial stay order – Such conduct amounts to colourable exercise of power and is legally unsustainable [Paras 20, 28, 33, 36].

Power of High Court – Article 215 – Setting Aside Executive Action Resulting from Contempt – In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the High Court can nullify an executive order passed in wilful disobedience of its directions – Court not restricted to punishing contempt alone but can undo the resulting harm to uphold rule of law [Paras 41-47].

Precedent – A Party Cannot Benefit From Breach of Court Order – Reiterated that contemnors should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of contempt – Order passed in breach of a court’s directive cannot be sustained – Relief under contempt jurisdiction includes restoration of status quo ante [Paras 43-45].

Decision: Contempt petition allowed – Respondent found guilty of wilful disobedience of interim order dated 07.10.2025 – Order dated 24.10.2025 passed under Section 34 of Disaster Management Act quashed – Respondent directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the petitioner within 15 days.

Sales Tax – Set-off – Interpretation of Rule 41D(3)(a) of Bombay Sales Tax Rules – Apportionment on Furnace Oil – Assessee claimed full set-off on purchase of furnace oil used in manufacture of goods, some of which were transferred to branches outside State – Tribunal applied pro-rata reduction of 6% under Rule 41D(3)(a) for such branch transfers – Revenue supported apportionment while assessee contended furnace oil should be equated with plant/machinery and exempt from apportionment – Held: Furnace oil is a consumable and not part of plant/machinery – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld – Set-off must be reduced by 6% of purchase price for branch transfers under Rule 41D(3)(a) [Paras 21, 22, 24, 27, 39, 40, 45].

Tax Law – Interpretation – Fiscal Statutes – Strict Construction – Assessee contended that strict construction must exclude furnace oil from reduction provision in Rule 41D(3)(a) – Court held that contextual interpretation of statute allows inclusion of furnace oil under the term “goods which are dispatched” as used in the Rule – Term must be read in conjunction with Sub-Rule 2(iii) – Full set-off not allowable [Paras 41, 51, 52].

Precedent – Larger Bench Decision of Tribunal – Tribunal’s Larger Bench ruling in M/s. Pudumjee Pulp affirmed – Held to have correctly classified furnace oil as consumable with nexus to goods dispatched – View settled by consistent Tribunal decisions – No grounds for High Court to interfere in reference jurisdiction absent perversity [Paras 35, 39, 50].

Assessment – Factual Finding – Apportionment of Set-off – Assessment officer had already done pro-rata apportionment between local sales and branch transfers – Assessee failed to demonstrate impossibility of such apportionment – High Court refused to reopen factual findings in reference jurisdiction [Paras 43–45].

Decision: Reference answered in favour of Revenue – Set-off under Rule 41D must be reduced by 6% for furnace oil used in goods transferred to branches outside the State.

Trademark Infringement – Territorial Jurisdiction – Assessment of Damages – LC Report – Burden of Proof – Arbitrary Quantification – Delhi High Court partially sets aside decree on damages for lack of evidence; territorial jurisdiction upheld; matter remanded for fresh determination of damages/account of profits [Paras 35–36, 39–43].

Trademark Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Interactive Website – Test Purchase – Sliding Scale and Effects Test – Banyan Tree Doctrine – Jurisdiction Upheld – Defendant’s website enabled actual commercial transactions into Delhi; invoice showing delivery to Bhajanpura constituted sufficient injurious effect – Plaintiff’s presence in forum state established – Held, District Court correctly assumed territorial jurisdiction under Sections 134(2) TM Act & 62(2) Copyright Act – Banyan Tree applied cumulatively (Sliding Scale + Effects test) [Paras 34–36].

Damages – Burden of Proof – Rule 20, DHC IPRD Rules, 2022 – Need for Foundational Facts – No Evidence Led – Damages Cannot Be Based on Speculation – Plaintiff led no evidence for computation of damages; quantification first introduced in written submissions and not subjected to cross-examination – Held, claimant must prove damages with documentary/oral evidence; principle “he who claims must prove” applies – Reliance on Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances reiterated that speculative claims cannot sustain a substantial award [Paras 39–41].

Damages – LC Report – Arbitrary Assumptions – No Basis to Treat Seized Stock as One Month’s Supply – No Evidence of Duration of Infringement – District Court assumed (i) seized stock represented one month’s quantity, (ii) defendant operated for two months prior to injunction, (iii) MRP of Rs. 45/- as selling price – Held, each assumption unsupported by evidence; LC report alone cannot justify hypothesized duration or scale of business; award of Rs. 48,35,610/- unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Trademark Remedies – Section 135 TM Act – Compensatory vs. Punitive Damages – Requirement of Evidentiary Bedrock – Quantum of damages must relate to actual loss or infringer’s profits; absence of rational basis risks unjust enrichment – District Court failed to follow benchmarks under Rule 20 (lost profits, infringer’s profits, duration, intentionality, mitigation, etc.) – Award set aside [Paras 37–38, 42].

Procedure – Appeal – Remand – Limited Remand for Damages – While infringement findings and injunction remain undisturbed, matter remanded solely for fresh adjudication on damages/account of profits; parties permitted to lead evidence; appellant allowed to withdraw deposited decretal amount [Paras 43, 46].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Territorial jurisdiction affirmed – Damages award set aside – Matter remanded for fresh determination of damages/account of profits – No order as to costs [Paras 36, 43–44].

False Promise to Marry – Quashing – Long-term Consensual Relationship – No Evidence of Deceitful Intention at Inception – Section 69 BNS Not Attracted – Criminal Intimidation Under Section 351(2) BNS Not Made Out – Criminal Law Not a Tool for Private Relationship Fallouts – Proceedings Quashed [Paras 8–17].

False Promise to Marry – Section 69 BNS – Ingredients – Intention at Inception Essential – Court held that for an offence under Section 69 BNS, prosecution must establish that sexual intercourse was induced by deceit or a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil the same – Mere breach of promise without mala fide intent at inception is not an offence – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 [Paras 6–8, 12].

Prolonged Consensual Relationship – Criminal Liability Diluted – Relationship between parties spanned from 2020 to 2025; such long-term intimacy negates inference of deception – Cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 897, holding that prolonged physical relationship renders plea of misconception of fact implausible [Paras 9, 12].

Consensual Relationship Turning Sour – Not Criminal Conduct – Court reiterated that every failed or soured relationship cannot be given criminal colour – Cited Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 782, emphasising that misuse of criminal machinery must be curbed [Para 10].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Complaints After Relationship Breakdown – Court relied on Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 458, reiterating that retrospective branding of consensual relationships as deceitful constitutes abuse of process [Para 11].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 351(2) BNS – Not Attracted When Relationship Was Consensual – Allegation of threats rejected as parties were in a voluntary intimate relationship for several years – Cited Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 879 – No ingredients of criminal intimidation established [Para 13].

Court’s Observations on Contemporary Personal Relationships – Court observed that premarital intimacy between consenting adults is common; emotional discord cannot be converted into criminal litigation; criminal law is not a tool for moral policing or resolving personal fallouts [Paras 14–16].

Decision – Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process – No material to show deceitful intent at inception; allegations indicate only a breakdown of consensual relationship – Proceedings in PRC No.75/2025 quashed [Para 17].

Parole – Incapacitated Elderly Convict – Delhi Prison Rules 2018 – Clemency Delay – Premature Release under Rule 1246A – Humanitarian Relief – Home Confinement Directed Pending Decision on Premature Release; State Directed to Frame Rules for Such Situations [Paras 14–16, 21–25, 30–34].

Parole – Nature, Scope & Limits – Temporary Release Not a Right – Rules 1198, 1212 & 1212A, Delhi Prison Rules – Parole is a privilege facilitating social contact; not remission of sentence – Maximum permissible parole capped at 8 weeks + 8 weeks in emergent situations – Court cannot extend parole indefinitely under Article 226, as this would effectively rewrite statutory rules – Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan reiterated [Paras 16–19].

Elderly Bedridden Convict – Human Dignity – Inability to Surrender – Humanitarian Principles – Petitioner aged 81, bedridden, unable to move or return to jail – Court emphasises that conviction does not strip an inmate of dignity; prison system unable to provide round-the-clock assistance – Blind insistence on surrender would be inhumane [Paras 20, 23].

Rule 1246A – “Incapacitated Convict” – Premature Release – Feasibility to Be Explored – Rule 1246A (introduced in 2024) covers convicts aged 70+ unable to perform daily tasks and having served ≥50% of actual sentence – Petitioner is eligible – Authorities granted 4 weeks to evaluate case for premature release; however, interim custodial solution necessary because petitioner cannot surrender pending decision [Paras 11–12, 13.1–13.2, 21.1, 23].

Clemency Under Articles 72/161 – Mercy Petition Pending Since 2018 – Judicial Review of Delay – Court Declines to Intervene at This Stage – Though delay is reviewable per A.G. Perarivalan, High Court cannot exercise Article 142-type powers; clemency issue not raised by petitioner; Court declines to call for records or direct consideration of mercy plea at this stage [Paras 13.3–13.6, 22].

Home Confinement – Exceptional Measure for Terminally Ill / Incapacitated Convicts – Calcutta & Madras High Court Precedents – Citing Gautam Navlakha, In re: Overcrowding in Prisons (Calcutta HC), and M. Rajeshwari (Madras HC), Court notes precedent for substituting imprisonment with home confinement in extraordinary medical circumstances – Constitutes deprivation of liberty within supervised framework – Appropriate interim mechanism until premature release evaluation [Paras 13.7–13.8, 25–29].

Direction – Home Confinement Ordered Till Decision on Premature Release – Petitioner to remain confined at home under care of son; cannot leave home except for medical treatment – Personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties required – Jail Superintendent to supervise compliance [Para 30].

Direction to Authorities – Expeditious Decision on Premature Release – State directed to decide petitioner’s case under Rule 1246A within 4 weeks [Para 31].

Systemic Direction – Need for Amendments to Prison Rules – Court notes recurring situations where incapacitated convicts cannot surrender despite expiry of parole – Directs GNCTD to frame/amend rules to cover such exigencies, including prolonged medical incapacitation [Paras 32–34].

Amicus Appreciation – Court acknowledges assistance of amicus curiae; DHCLSC directed to pay fee as per rules [Paras 35–36].

Decision – Petition disposed of with directions for home confinement and expeditious consideration of premature release [Para 37].