Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 of CrPC – Rejection by the High Court – No Material Change in Circumstances – The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with charges under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 506, and 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court had previously rejected their application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners renewed their application on the grounds of a change in circumstances, particularly the absence of an FIR filed against them in Mumbai as previously assumed. However, the High Court found that there was no material change in circumstances since the earlier rejection. The petitioners' reliance on RTI information showing no FIR in Mumbai did not alter the findings based on the case diary and previous submissions. The Court dismissed the renewed application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the ongoing investigation and the serious allegations against the petitioners. [Paras 1-22]

Evidence Evaluation – Credibility of Witness Statements and Case Diary – The Court carefully examined the case diary, including statements from the parents of the de facto complainant, which implicated the petitioners in demands for dowry and in the mental and physical torture of the complainant. Despite the petitioners' assertions that they were misled by the absence of an FIR in Mumbai, the Court found that the evidence in the case diary and the nature of the allegations required further investigation, and therefore, did not justify the granting of anticipatory bail. [Paras 12-16]

Decision – Dismissal of the Application – Held – The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances that would warrant a different decision from the earlier rejection. The need for ongoing investigation into the serious allegations was upheld, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail. [Para 23]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Fraud and Forgery Allegations – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy related to an alleged scheme to send the complainant's nephew abroad – The complainant alleged the petitioner’s involvement in defrauding him of Rs. 20,24,000 under the pretext of securing a visa – Held, after consideration of the circumstances, including a compromise reached between the parties, anticipatory bail granted – Petitioner directed to join the investigation and abide by conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of BNSS [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation.

Right to Education – Continuity of Education – Merger of School IDs – Petitioners, admitted to the Junior Wing of Holy Innocents Public School under the EWS/DG category, were denied admission to the Senior Wing due to different School IDs assigned by the Directorate of Education (DoE) – High Court directed the merger of School IDs of Junior and Senior Wings of schools run by the same educational society – Held that the distinction between School IDs should not hinder continuous education under the EWS/DG category – Court emphasized that the RTE Act mandates the provision of continuous education, and any such denial based on technical grounds violates the fundamental rights of children [Paras 1-53].

Ensuring Dignified Admissions – Appointment of Nodal Officer – High Court directed all private unaided recognized schools in Delhi to appoint a Nodal Officer responsible for overseeing the admission process for EWS/DG students – The Court also issued guidelines to address language barriers and ensure a respectful and accessible admission process, emphasizing that discrimination against EWS/DG category students in admission processes must be eradicated [Paras 54-59].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – The Court directed the DoE to merge the School IDs of Junior and Senior Wings of schools run by the same society within eight weeks, ensuring the continuous education of EWS/DG category students – Directions were also issued to regularize provisional admissions granted during the pendency of the case [Paras 52-68].

Criminal Law – Bail – Offenses under IPC and IT Act – The Gujarat High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused, Labhshankar Duryodhan Maheshwari, who was charged with serious offenses including conspiracy against the state and cybercrime. The Court emphasized that the evidence on record, including the use of a SIM card for illegal activities, the applicant's connection with Pakistan, and the alleged involvement in transmitting sensitive information, was sufficient to deny bail [Paras 6-7].

Bail Principles – Seriousness of Allegations – The Court acknowledged the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception but clarified that in cases involving national security and serious criminal conspiracy, the seriousness of the allegations cannot be overlooked in deciding bail [Paras 4-7].

Decision: Application dismissed. The Court found that the applicant's involvement in activities detrimental to national security, along with his connections to Pakistan, posed a significant risk, justifying the denial of bail.

Education Law – Admissions – Sanctity of Cut-Off Dates – Technical Snag – Petitioners sought relief for missing the deadline to upload documents and pay fees for nursing course admissions, citing a technical snag – PNRC contested the claim, stating that no technical issues were reported by other institutions and that the petitioners failed to take timely remedial action – Held, the sanctity of cut-off dates in the admission process is paramount, and the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence of a technical snag – Relief denied as the petitioners did not fulfill the necessary requirements within the prescribed timeline [Paras 3.1-4.2].

Decision:

Petitions dismissed – No grounds to interfere with the decision of PNRC as the petitioners failed to establish that their failure was due to a technical snag.

Civil Law – Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Plaintiff sought permanent injunction claiming ownership and possession of the suit property – Defendant denied plaintiff's possession, claiming possession of 1/3rd share and others holding 2/3rd share – Both lower courts dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide cogent and convincing evidence of possession – Held, the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to prove possession, justifying the dismissal of the suit – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-7].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the plaintiff failed to establish possession of the suit property.

Civil Law – Property Law – Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Common Passage – Plaintiffs sought injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing a common passage used by multiple property owners – Defendant claimed the passage as private property – Both lower courts found that the defendant failed to prove the passage was private property and upheld the passage as common – Held, the previous judgment, though not inter-parties, had persuasive value in establishing the passage as common – Defendant’s appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the disputed passage is a common passage, and the defendant had no right to obstruct it.

Recovery of Earnest Money – Competence of SPA to Depose – The appellant’s suit for recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/- along with interest was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds that the earnest money was rightly forfeited due to non-payment of the balance consideration – Appellant challenged the judgment arguing the inability of the respondent to produce title documents, which justified the refund of the earnest money – High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal, emphasizing that the appellant's Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, being merely a witness to the agreement and lacking personal knowledge of the transaction, was incompetent to depose on behalf of the appellant – It was held that only the principal, who has personal knowledge, could have competently testified to prove the facts of the case – The court relied on precedents asserting that the SPA holder can only testify about acts done in his capacity as SPA, not on matters outside his personal knowledge [Paras 18-27].

Adverse Presumption – Non-Appearance of Plaintiff – The High Court observed that the non-appearance of the plaintiff (appellant) to testify led to an adverse presumption against him, as established by precedent – The court reiterated that the plaintiff must stand on his own legs to prove his case and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case [Paras 28-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment and holding that the appellant’s father, who was the SPA holder, could not validly act as a witness for the plaintiff’s case due to lack of personal knowledge [Paras 36-37].

Civil Law – Property Law – Ancestral Property – Inheritance under Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff claimed co-parcenary rights in the suit land, alleging it to be ancestral property inherited from her grandfather – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence proving the ancestral nature of the property – Appellate Court held that the suit property was self-acquired by the father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act after the death of the grandfather in 1989 – Held, no cogent evidence was provided by the plaintiff to establish that the property was ancestral – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the property in question was not ancestral and therefore could not be claimed as co-parcenary property by the plaintiff.