Land Acquisition – Fraud on Statute – Eminent Domain – Non-Existent Entity – CBI Investigation Ordered – Acquisition Quashed – State Government acquired approximately 53 acres and 26 guntas of land in Hebbal and Hebbal Ammanikere Villages under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act by Final Notification dated 11.05.2004 purportedly for M/s Lakeview Tourism Corporation, an entity that did not exist at the time of application (filed in 2000) and was incorporated only on 04.01.2011 – The entity's financial statement for 2022-23 disclosed net worth of Rs. -8,60,686/- with zero income, having never commenced operations – The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions; Division Bench on appeal finds the entire acquisition to be a monumental fraud committed by State authorities in criminal conspiracy with private individuals – Held: Acquisition quashed; CBI directed to register and investigate criminal case; costs of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on Respondent No. 4 payable to Army Battle Casualties Welfare Fund [Paras 1–65].

Object of KIAD Act – Public Purpose – Acquisition for Individual/Private Entity – The KIAD Act is enacted for orderly establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in the State – Suitable industrial areas are to be identified by the State/KIADB and not by private individuals – The Act does not contemplate acquisition of land to create private wealth for an individual entity – Acquiring land on the behest of a non-existent private entity to transfer valuable land at throwaway prices does not constitute public purpose within the meaning of the KIAD Act – Such acquisition is a statutory and constitutional fraud by State Authorities – Held: Public purpose is the touchstone for validity of any land acquisition and in its absence, the exercise of eminent domain is colourable, mala fide and unconstitutional [Paras 30–35, 58–60].

Right to Property – Article 300A – Seven Sub-Rights – The right to property under Article 300A is not merely confined to twin components of public purpose and compensation but encompasses seven sub-rights: right to notice, right to be heard, right to a reasoned decision, duty to acquire only for public purpose, right to fair compensation/restitution, right to efficient and expeditious process, and right of conclusion – Non-compliance with these sub-rights amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law – Any law depriving persons of property for private interest, even if incidentally beneficial to the public, is unlawful and amenable to judicial review – Held: Landowners' constitutional rights under Article 300A were violated by the acquisition in the present case [Paras 39–45].

Fraud – Vitiates Judicial and Government Decisions – Finality No Bar – It is settled law that fraud vitiates every judicial act, and a judgment or order obtained by fraud is a nullity – The principle of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent that it becomes an engine of fraud – Courts and Tribunals have inherent power to recall or set aside their own orders obtained by fraud, even when statutory review has been exhausted or the matter has attained finality – Prior decisions of this Court in W.A. No. 333/2013 and dismissal of the review petition in R.P. No. 363/2015 do not bar the present proceedings since the fraud was not detected in the earlier proceedings – Held: Earlier judgments do not come in the way of declaring the acquisition null and void ab initio [Paras 50–57].

Fraud on Eminent Domain Power – Criminal Conspiracy – CBI Investigation – The application filed on 23.06.2000 by a non-existent entity was incomplete and bereft of details; the High Level Committee met within five days of receiving the application and recommended acquisition, reflecting undue haste and collusion – The entity was incorporated only 10½ years after the application and its promoters had no connection with those who filed the original application – Land use was subsequently changed in 2023 from a tourism/hospitality project to an integrated township with real estate development – The entire exercise was a device to transfer valuable agricultural land to real estate developers at pittance – Held: State instrumentality was itself involved in the criminal conspiracy; independent investigation by CBI is necessary; CBI directed to register a criminal case [Paras 19–26, 61–64].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Entire acquisition made by the State Government for M/s Lakeview Tourism Corporation quashed – Respondent No. 4 directed to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Army Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks – CBI directed to register and investigate criminal case against Government officials and private individuals involved in the fraud – Pending IAs disposed of.

Income Tax – Pre-Operative Period – Interest on Bank Deposits – Capital Receipt or Income from Other Sources – Inextricable Link Test – Appellant company incorporated in 1992 for manufacture of ecological brake-shoes – Raised loans from Directors and deposited unutilised funds in bank pending deployment for purchase of plant and machinery and payment of balance technical know-how fee – Earned interest of Rs. 1,33,151/- and Rs. 2,37,770/- for AYs 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively – Interest adjusted against pre-operative expenses – AO on reassessment treated interest as income from other sources relying on Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – ITAT upheld reassessment – Held: Funds were not surplus but earmarked for meeting committed project obligations and were inextricably linked to setting up of business – Ratio of Bokaro Steel Ltd. applicable and not Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – Question of law (2) answered in favour of appellant – ITAT order set aside [Paras 48–57].

Reassessment – Section 147/148 – Change of Opinion – Assessment under Section 143(1) – Where original assessment is completed under Section 143(1) and no order under Section 143(3) is passed, the Assessing Officer cannot be said to have formed any opinion – Reassessment proceedings in such cases are not vitiated as change of opinion – Only requirement under new Section 147 (w.e.f. 01.04.1989) is that income has escaped assessment – Held: ITAT correctly upheld validity of reassessment – Question of law (1) answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 42–45].

ITAT Powers – Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 254 – ITAT has wide powers to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" on the subject matter of appeal – Powers not confined to grounds raised in memorandum of appeal – ITAT may decide any issue going to the root of the subject matter even if not specifically raised by either party, provided it falls within the confines of the subject matter of appeal – Revenue's failure to raise jurisdictional issue before ITAT did not preclude ITAT from deciding the same [Paras 46–47].

Tuticorin vs. Bokaro – Distinction – Interest on Surplus Funds vs. Inextricably Linked Funds – Where funds borrowed or raised are surplus and independently invested to generate interest, interest is taxable as income from other sources per Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – Where funds are inextricably linked to setting up of project and temporarily deposited pending deployment, interest earned is a capital receipt liable to be set off against pre-operative expenses per Bokaro Steel Ltd. – Test is not whether there was compulsion to deposit funds but whether the funds bore an inextricable nexus with the project [Paras 54–56].

Decision: Question of law (1) answered in favour of Revenue – Question of law (2) answered in favour of Appellant – Order of ITAT set aside – Appeals allowed [Para 57].

SC/ST (POA) Act – Anticipatory Bail – Bar Under Section 18 – Prima Facie Case – Appellants challenged order rejecting anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 352, 133, 115(2), 118(1), 351(1) read with Section 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act — Complaint alleged that on 08.02.2026 appellants intercepted, assaulted and abused complainant/Mahendra in the name of his caste near Mavalli Circle — Held: Where the complaint, on its face, does not make out a prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Act, the absolute bar under Section 18 does not operate and the Court retains discretion to grant anticipatory bail — Appellants granted anticipatory bail [Paras 9, 11, 17, 18].

SC/ST (POA) Act – Section 3(1)(s) – "Place Within Public View" – Essential Ingredient – Section 3(1)(s) requires that the caste-based abuse be uttered at a place within public view — Complaint reveals that only Shivaraj, son of Sureshappa Gouda, was present near the scene of the alleged offence — No prima facie averments disclosing presence of members of general public — Held: The ingredient of "place within public view" requires that the place be open where members of the public can witness or hear the utterance — Since only a single connected individual was present and there is no allegation of public witnessing, complaint prima facie does not make out offence under Section 3(1)(s) [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Motivated Complaint – Property Dispute – Series of Litigations – Complaint subject matter of appeal is one in a series of civil and criminal litigations arising from a family property dispute over agricultural lands among descendants of one Puttappa Gouda — Complainant/Mahendra found to be working as tractor driver under Shivaraj, son of Sureshappa Gouda, who is defendant No. 3 in civil suit OS No. 11/2024 filed by the branch of appellants — Name of complainant also mentioned in Crime No. 1/2026 filed by the rival branch — Held: Complaint appears to be engineered in furtherance of prior disputes — Appellants are local agriculturalists with no criminal antecedents — Discretionary power exercised in favour of appellants [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed — Order dated 28.02.2026 of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl. Misc. No. 161/2026 set aside — Appellants granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties, obtaining regular bail within ten days, reporting to jurisdictional police once in every fifteen days until charge sheet is filed, regular appearance before Trial Court, non-tampering with witnesses and non-departure from jurisdiction without permission.

Customs Law – Import – Classification of Arecanuts – Provisional Release – Security – Respondent imported 54 metric tons of betel nuts from Indonesia, filing Bill of Entry describing goods as roasted arecanuts – ICAR–Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasaragod, in its report dated 16.06.2025, opined that samples had not undergone roasting but only partial drying – Single Judge directed release subject to 25% bank guarantee of invoice value – Revenue challenged the order contending that tariff value notified under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Notification No. 13/2025 at USD 8140 per metric ton should apply, making the value Rs. 3,85,93,368/- and warranting 100% duty deposit – Held: Whether goods are roasted or raw arecanuts is a matter for adjudication – Single Judge's order modified – Release permitted subject to deposit of 50% of Rs. 3,85,93,368/- and bank guarantee for 25% of said amount [Paras 4, 7.2, 8].

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 14 – Tariff Value – Transaction Value – When Board notifies tariff value under Section 14(2), duty is chargeable with reference to such notified value notwithstanding Section 14(1) – Notification No. 13/2025-Customs (N.T.) dated 13.03.2025 fixes tariff value of arecanuts under Tariff Heading 080280 at USD 8140 per metric ton – If imported goods are classified as raw arecanuts, the notified tariff value applies and direction for release on 25% of invoice value is erroneous – Final classification to be determined by competent authority in adjudication proceedings [Paras 4.1, 4.2, 7.2].

Customs – Adjudication – Inordinate Delay – Duty of Revenue – Goods seized since March 2025, ICAR report available since 16.06.2025, yet show cause notice not issued even after one year – Revenue justified non-initiation of adjudication by citing pendency of writ petition and appeal – Held: No interim order restrained Revenue from initiating adjudication – Inaction on part of Revenue for over one year is wholly unjustifiable and not appreciable – Revenue's lack of diligence ought not to prejudice the importer or place him at a disadvantage – Appellants directed to issue show cause notice within two weeks [Paras 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 8].

Financial Credibility of Importer – Bank Statement – Balance Sheet – During hearing, respondent directed to produce financial statements – Bank statement for period 01.04.2025 to 23.03.2026 shows balance consistently in a few thousands only – Cash in hand Rs. 28,090/- and cash at bank Rs. 26,369/- as on 31.03.2025 – Though receivables shown at Rs. 3,06,53,679/-, fixed assets not substantial – Held: Financial statements do not inspire confidence that Revenue interests are adequately safeguarded – Deposit of 50% of determined value along with 25% bank guarantee directed for provisional release [Paras 7.3, 7.4, 8].

Decision: Writ Appeal disposed of – Order of Single Judge dated 29.10.2025 in WP No. 24835/2025 modified – Appellants directed to issue show cause notice within two weeks – Respondent to file reply within three weeks – Competent authority to adjudicate within three weeks of reply – In the alternative, goods to be released on deposit of 50% of Rs. 3,85,93,368/- and bank guarantee for 25% of said amount.

Specific Performance – Ad-Interim Injunction – Oral Agreement for Sale – Proviso to Section 49, Registration Act – Admissibility – Defendant/appellant challenged an order of ad-interim injunction restraining him from transferring, alienating, encumbering or creating third party interest in the suit property – Contention was that the learned Trial Judge was debarred by law from passing such order on the basis of an unstamped and unregistered agreement for sale – Held: The agreement pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent being an oral one, the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act are not attracted, as both Acts operate on documents reduced to writing – There is no statute mandating every agreement for sale to be compulsorily in writing; Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act is wide enough to cover any reciprocal promises constituting a concluded contract without mandating writing – Ad-interim injunction upheld [Paras 13–14, 19–21].

Registration Act – Section 49 – Proviso – Specific Performance – Exception to Bar on Unregistered Documents – Section 49 of the Registration Act generally debars unregistered documents required to be registered under Section 17 from being received as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property – However, the proviso to Section 49 carves out a specific exception permitting an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act – Held: The bar under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act is not applicable to suits for specific performance in view of the express proviso – Distinguished: Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, 2016 (2) CHN (SC) 28 (arising from a partition suit, not specific performance) [Paras 5–8].

Stamp Act – Section 36 – Insufficiently Stamped Document – Stage of Ad-Interim Injunction – At the stage of grant of ad-interim injunction, the Court is only required to look into the pleadings of the plaint, the temporary injunction application and documents furnished therewith – The question of admissibility of a document for want of stamp or its impoundment under Section 35 arises only at the stage of production in evidence, which stage had not yet arrived – It would be premature to hold, at the ad-interim stage, that the plaintiff failed to cure a stamp defect – Distinguished: Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532; Bidyut Sarkar and Another v. Kanchilal Pal (dead) Through LRs. and Another, 2025 (1) ICC 534 (SC) [Paras 9–16].

Injunction – Ad-Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Test – At the stage of ex parte ad-interim injunction, the Court examines only whether a prima facie case is made out from the pleadings and documents furnished; it does not conduct a detailed trial on merits – Where the plaintiff has set up a sufficient prima facie case and the other legal tests for grant of ad-interim injunction are satisfied, the order of protection of the suit property cannot be interfered with in appeal – Held: Learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the ad-interim injunction [Paras 20–21].

Precedent – Conflicting Single Judge Decisions – Calcutta High Court Division Bench Disagrees – A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held in Chamibai and Others v. Siddhnath and Others, (2025: MPHC-IND: 5866) that even at the stage of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance, the document is mandatorily required to be registered and stamped – Held: The said judgment does not lay down the correct proposition of law in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act [Para 17].

Decision: FMAT No.109 of 2026 dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC – CAN No.1 of 2026 consequentially disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].

Voyeurism — Section 354-C IPC — Essential Ingredients — Quashing of FIR — Applicant accused of staring at complainant's chest and insulting her during office meetings — FIR registered under Section 354-C IPC — Held: Section 354-C is a specific provision penalising watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a "private act" in circumstances where she would reasonably expect not to be observed — Unwanted staring at a woman's chest in an office setting, even if morally reprehensible, does not satisfy the narrow statutory ingredients of voyeurism — FIR quashed [Paras 8–15].

"Private Act" — Statutory Interpretation — Section 354-C IPC — Explanation to the section clarifies that a "private act" is confined to situations involving exposure of intimate body parts, use of a lavatory, or a sexual act not ordinarily done in public — The legislative intent is to penalise intrusion into bodily privacy in intimate or secluded settings, not to criminalise every offensive gaze or workplace misconduct — Mere staring in an office meeting does not bring the conduct within the ambit of the section [Paras 8–9].

Workplace Misconduct vis-à-vis Criminal Offence — Criminal law cannot be used to convert every workplace grievance into an offence of voyeurism — Allegations of staring, insulting behaviour, and workplace harassment may, at the highest, amount to misconduct or indecency — Such conduct does not fit the narrow mould of Section 354-C — To permit prosecution to continue on such facts would be to ignore the clear language of the statute [Para 13].

Internal Complaints Committee — Exoneration — Employer constituted Internal Complaints Committee under Vishaka guidelines and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 — Committee, after inquiry, exonerated the applicant — Held: Internal finding in applicant's favour adds support to his stand, but the primary ground for quashing is the absence of the statutory offence itself [Para 12].

Abuse of Process — Continuation of proceedings based solely on suspicion, general allegation, or moral disapproval — Without the essential ingredient of watching or recording a woman during a private act or dissemination of such image, FIR and supporting statements, even if accepted in full, do not make out the offence under Section 354-C — Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal Application allowed — FIR bearing Crime Register No. 177 of 2015 registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, under Section 354-C IPC quashed and set aside — All further proceedings including charge-sheet terminated — Rule made absolute — No order as to costs [Para 16].

Civil Law – Written Statement – Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Documents – Conflict Between Co-ordinate Benches – Reference to Larger Bench – Written Statement filed by Defendant/MCD on 25.09.2022 (within the 120-day outer limit) was kept in defect as it was not accompanied by the mandatory Affidavit of admission/denial of documents – Affidavit filed belatedly on 14.12.2022, beyond the 120-day period – Joint Registrar by Order dated 17.03.2023 refused to take the Written Statement on record – Co-ordinate Bench in Unilin Beheer B.V. held that a Written Statement unaccompanied by such Affidavit is non-est and cannot be taken on record – Three subsequent co-ordinate Benches in COSCO International, Neeraj Ahuja and Shefali Kohli took a contrary view holding that such filing is merely a curable defect – Held: Conflicting views of co-ordinate Benches require resolution by a Larger Bench; matter referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench [Paras 4–34].

Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 – Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter VII – Mandatory Nature of "Shall" – Rule 3 mandates that the Affidavit of admission/denial of documents shall be filed along with the Written Statement, without which the Written Statement shall not be taken on record – Rule 4 provides that failure to file such Affidavit results in deemed admission of Plaintiff's documents – Use of the word "shall" in Rule 3 is mandatory and cannot be read as "may" – Permitting a Written Statement without the Affidavit to be taken on record would render the word "shall" in Rule 3 wholly otiose, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation – Held: Every word used by the legislature must be given its due import; no part of a statute should be rendered surplusage [Paras 8–9, 23–25].

Judicial Discipline – Conflicting Judgments – Co-ordinate Benches – Reference Obligation – Where a Single Judge is inclined to disagree with a view of a co-ordinate Bench, judicial propriety and decorum require referral to a Larger Bench rather than adopting a contrary interpretation – Conflicting decisions by Benches of equal strength create uncertainty and confusion in law – Courts are bound to maintain judicial discipline and preserve certainty of law – Held: In view of directly conflicting judgments on the same question, the matter must be referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative and uniform pronouncement [Paras 28–34].

Question Referred: Whether a Written Statement filed within the statutory period under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, but unaccompanied by an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents, renders such filing non-est in law, or whether the absence of such Affidavit constitutes a curable defect permitting the Written Statement to be taken on record upon subsequent compliance [Para 32].

Decision: O.A. 43/2023 disposed of by reference – Matter placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench – In the event the Larger Bench holds the Written Statement can be taken on record, the matter shall stand remitted to the Joint Registrar for consideration of sufficiency of reasons for delay; if the Larger Bench holds otherwise, the impugned order of the Joint Registrar shall stand affirmed – I.A. 7780/2023 (condonation of delay in filing Chamber Appeal) allowed.

Anticipatory Bail – Impersonation of Advocate – Forged Documents – Custodial Interrogation Required – Applicant, an LL.B. final-semester student working as a junior intern, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR registered for offences under BNS, 2023 – During panchanama at applicant's husband's shop and residence, visiting cards, a fabricated Bar Council of Gujarat enrollment card, case registers, a board proclaiming applicant as an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, police station seals, and notarial seals were recovered – Statements of multiple other victims surfaced during investigation, with total alleged fraud amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- by all accused in connivance – Held: Prima facie case established; custodial interrogation necessary to uncover roots of offence, trace other victims, and determine involvement of other persons – Noble profession of advocacy cannot be permitted to be tarnished in such manner – Application rejected; stay of order also declined [Paras 4–6].

Anticipatory Bail – Principles – Constitution Bench – Case tested on the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, (1980) 2 SCC 665 – No exceptional ground found to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS [Para 5].

Decision: Application rejected – Rule discharged – Request for stay of order also rejected.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC challenged – Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence with no independent eyewitness – For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, of conclusive nature, and must exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved – Chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused – Trial Court convicted the appellant without enumerating the chain of circumstances – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 12–13, 30].

Last Seen Together – Singular Circumstance – Insufficient for Conviction – Appellant and co-accused last seen with deceased at 11.00 p.m. by PW 1 (mother) and PW 2 (brother) – Body found at 3.00–4.00 a.m. in injured condition – Wide time gap of approximately four hours between last seen and discovery of body – Possibility of third person intervening not ruled out – No evidence of events between 12 midnight and 3 a.m. connecting appellant to death – Last seen together is a singular piece of circumstantial evidence and does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that the accused committed the crime – Something more establishing connectivity between accused and crime is required – Mere non-explanation by accused cannot by itself lead to proof of guilt [Paras 19–23].

Eyewitness – Credibility – Got-up Witness – PW 3, watchman at Amrai and neighbour of deceased, claimed to have seen accused assaulting deceased with beer bottle at 12 midnight – Evidence of assault came by way of omission and not initial disclosure – PW 3 admitted he identified accused at the instance of police who told him these were the persons who assaulted – No TI Parade conducted – PW 3 went back to sleep after allegedly witnessing assault and made no attempt to inform the family or police – Conduct wholly unnatural – Witness found to be a got-up witness planted by prosecution – Evidence not inspiring confidence [Paras 20–21].

Motive – Not Conclusively Proved – Prosecution sought to establish motive through PW 1 and PW 2 deposing about quarrel between accused and deceased four to six months prior – No complaint was lodged about said quarrel – Investigating Officer admitted no evidence collected regarding prior quarrel – Deposition of PW 10 (police constable friend of deceased) about phone call at midnight at most shows quarrel ongoing but does not prove commission of murder – Motive in circumstantial evidence cases may create strong suspicion but suspicion however strong cannot be substitute for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 24–25].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Inconclusive – Chemical Analyser Report – PW 8 (panch witness) admitted in cross-examination that police did not show him the clothes and accused and had obtained signature on an already prepared panchnama – Chemical Analyser's report on blood grouping from clothes found inconclusive – No fingerprints found on beer bottles as per Fingerprint Expert report – Recovery of blood-stained stone also inconclusive – No forensic material connecting appellant to the crime [Paras 27, 21].

Call Detail Records – Corroborative Value Limited – CDRs proving three calls made by appellant to deceased after 10 p.m. on 26.05.2016 consistent with last seen theory – CDRs at most prove contact between appellant and deceased at around 11 p.m. – By themselves insufficient to connect appellant with the murder in the absence of other incriminating material [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide judgment dated 18.12.2019 in Sessions Case No. 823/2016 quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Appellant directed to execute PR Bond of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 481 BNSS, 2023 for appearance in event of appeal against acquittal [Para 31].