Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].

Criminal Law – Rape – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix – FIR lodged after delay of one day, allegedly after husband’s consent – Medical examination showed ruptured hymen but no external injuries – Neighbours, husband, and key witnesses not examined – Held: In absence of corroboration and amid glaring contradictions regarding the occurrence, identification of accused, sleeping arrangement, and presence of weapon, conviction cannot be sustained – Sole testimony not inspiring confidence [Paras 10–16, 18–21].

Criminal Evidence – Delay in FIR – Victim lodged complaint one day after incident citing need for husband’s permission – Husband not examined to corroborate – No neighbour examined despite claim that one informed husband – Delay and absence of explanation create serious doubt on authenticity of allegation [Paras 11–13].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Doctor found only ruptured hymen, no external injuries or marks of violence – Victim a married woman with three children – Held: Medical findings inconsistent with allegation of forcible rape; rupture of hymen not conclusive of sexual assault [Paras 14–15].

Defective Investigation – Investigation found to be perfunctory – Failure to seize mat, weapon, or clothing – No site sketch or verification of call records – No examination of key witnesses – Held: Though defective investigation alone not ground for acquittal, when coupled with unreliable and inconsistent evidence, prosecution case collapses [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion cannot substitute proof – Major inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances warrant benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Trial court erred in relying solely on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix despite serious contradictions and lack of evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 22–23].

Criminal Law – Seizure of Vehicle – Prohibition Offence – Interim Custody – Vehicle seized under FIR for carrying liquor in violation of Gujarat Prohibition Act – No confiscation proceedings initiated under amended Section 98(2) of Prohibition Act despite seizure exceeding 20 litres – Vehicle lying idle in police custody – Held: In absence of confiscation action and to prevent deterioration of vehicle, release of vehicle ordered with stringent conditions – Power under Article 226 rightly exercised [Paras 1–8].

Confiscation – Non-Initiation of Proceedings – Despite mandatory nature of amended Section 98(2), no steps taken by prosecution for confiscation or approaching Magistrate – Held: Delay defeats purpose – Following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, vehicle must be released to registered owner with safeguards – Mere pendency of FIR does not justify continued seizure indefinitely [Paras 7–8].

Article 226 – Powers of High Court – High Court has wide jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to direct release of property when delay or inaction by authorities causes prejudice – Held: No bar under Section 98 in current facts where no action for confiscation was taken – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Para 8].

Direction for Release – Vehicle to be released to registered owner (Ahir Enterprise) through Power of Attorney holder on furnishing solvent surety and undertakings – Future confiscation proceedings not barred – Magistrate can still initiate action under Section 98(2) if warranted – Police to photograph vehicle and prepare panchanama before release [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Vehicle Ashok Leyland Ltd UM4220/66 H CC (Goods Carrier) bearing registration No. GJ-16-AV-9994 to be released to petitioner on strict conditions – Rule made absolute – Direct service permitted [Paras 9–13].

Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Allegations that petitioners received ₹3.86 crore under subcontract agreement but diverted construction material and failed to complete work – Specific allegations of dishonest intention and misappropriation of funds from inception of contract found in complaint – Petitioners allegedly shifted materials to personal project and retained valuable equipment – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC made out – FIR not liable to be quashed merely because of existence of arbitration clause or civil nature of dispute – Delay in lodging FIR explained – Limitation under Section 468 CrPC not a bar to investigation of offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment [Paras 2–4, 8–11, 16–21].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Lifting of Corporate Veil – Petitioners being Managing Director and Director accused of personal misuse of company funds and materials – Specific allegations of active involvement in acts of misappropriation – Held: When individuals controlling company are accused of dishonest acts, they cannot seek shelter under corporate veil – Sufficient averments to continue criminal proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Place of Cause of Action – Petitioners contended that no part of offence took place in Hyderabad – Held: Transfer of misappropriated funds occurred in Hyderabad; company offices located in Hyderabad – Investigation can proceed even if jurisdiction questionable – As per Section 156(2) CrPC and Satvinder Kaur judgment, police can investigate offence irrespective of territorial jurisdiction at this stage [Paras 4.6, 28–29].

Civil vs Criminal Remedy – Arbitration Clause – Petitioners argued arbitration clause existed in contract – Held: Arbitration clause does not bar criminal prosecution if allegations make out prima facie offence – Allegations in FIR include dishonest intention and misappropriation from inception, which cannot be resolved merely by arbitration [Paras 4.4, 16, 19].

Power under Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Court reiterated that inherent power must be used sparingly – When FIR discloses cognizable offence and investigation is ongoing, courts should not interfere at threshold stage – Petitioners not entitled to quash FIR when disputed facts require investigation [Paras 20, 27, 30–31].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not quashed – Criminal proceedings to continue – Observations confined to decision on quashment and not to affect merits of investigation or trial [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Reversed – Appellant-husband convicted for abetting suicide of wife based on alleged cruelty and dowry demands – No specific instances of mental or physical cruelty proved – Alleged demand for sewing machine not supported by reliable evidence – Panch witness turned hostile – Held: Mere allegations of unhappiness and weeping insufficient to prove abetment – No evidence of instigation or active role in suicide – Missing report lodged by Appellant himself – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside. Acquittal [Paras 14–25]

Criminal Law – Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – No Material Particulars – Parents of deceased made general and vague allegations without specific incidents or unlawful demands – No neighbours examined – No reliable proof of harassment – Held: Mere emotional distress without clear evidence of cruelty insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish ingredients of Section 498-A beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8–10, 14]

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – Effect on Prosecution Case – Panch witness to seizure of sewing machine turned hostile – No corroborative evidence to establish illegal dowry demand – Held: Seizure panchnama cannot be relied upon – Ownership of sewing machine also doubtful – Demand not proved [Paras 11, 15–16]

Criminal Procedure – Burden on Prosecution – Allegations must be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: General and omnibus allegations unsupported by proximate events or reliable testimony insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Para 25]

Precedents – Instigation and Abetment – Reiterated that instigation requires direct or active act with intention to provoke suicide – Reliance placed on M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 – Held: No act or words of instigation proved in present case – No suicide note or proximate cause – Acquittal warranted [Paras 21–24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to furnish bond under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Paras 25–26]

Co-operative Societies – Recovery Certificate – Section 101, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners denied disbursement of loan and alleged fabrication of loan documents by the Bank – Deputy Registrar issued recovery certificate under Section 101 without deliberating on specific defences raised by petitioners – Held: Registrar is statutorily bound to consider the defence and render a reasoned judgment as mandated under Rules 86-A to 86-F of 1961 Rules – Failure to record reasons amounts to violation of principles of natural justice – Order unsustainable [Paras 11–16].

Alternate Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of remedy under Section 154(2)(A) of the Act not an absolute bar when impugned order is passed in breach of statutory procedure and natural justice – Writ maintainable [Para 9].

Scope of Inquiry under Section 101 – Registrar’s jurisdiction limited to verification of correctness of arrears – If bona fide dispute as to loan disbursement or fraud is raised, Registrar must refuse to issue certificate and direct parties to remedy under Section 91 – Registrar cannot decide disputed questions of fact in summary recovery proceedings [Paras 10–12].

Reasoned Orders – Quasi-Judicial Duty – Requirement of recording reasons inherent in Section 101 read with Rule 86-F – “Rubber-stamp” or mechanical orders vitiate decision-making process – Reiterated principles in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 applied [Para 15].

Decision: Writ Petitions partly allowed – Order dated 24.09.2024 of Deputy Registrar set aside – Matter remanded for de novo inquiry and fresh decision in accordance with Rules 86-A to 86-F within four weeks – Parties directed to appear on 17.11.2025 [Para 16].

Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 212 Days – Dismissed – Applicant filed criminal revision with 212-day delay challenging order granting probation to private respondents – Delay attributed to mistaken advice regarding remedy under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Explanation vague, lacking particulars, and unsupported by any material – No genuine, exceptional, or unavoidable circumstances shown – Application dismissed [Paras 6–7.1]

Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Liberal Approach Not Absolute – Legal Position Reiterated – Liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” cannot be stretched to condone unexplained or negligent delay – Condonation requires cogent, credible, and satisfactory explanation – Merits of case not a ground for condonation – Reliance placed on Deepak v. Noori (CRR(F)-1844-2023) and Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024 INSC 286) [Paras 4–5]

Procedural Law – Effect of Dismissal of Delay Application – Consequential Dismissal of Main Petition – Since delay was not condoned, the accompanying revision petition against probation order was also dismissed without consideration on merits [Para 8]

Decision: Application for condonation of 212-day delay dismissed – Criminal revision petition dismissed as a consequence – Pending applications, if any, also disposed.

Execution – Garnishee Proceedings – Warrant of Attachment – Continuing Liability – Appellant obtained ex parte money decree against Respondents – Warrant of attachment issued against Respondent No.3 (garnishee) prohibiting payments to judgment-debtor (Respondent No.1) – Garnishee allowed subsequent credits to be withdrawn despite subsisting attachment – Trial court held only balance on date of receipt of warrant (Rs.362) could be attached – Held: Garnishee bound by terms of attachment for entire validity period – Subsequent credits during currency of warrant liable to be attached – Order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice set aside [Paras 3, 10–15]

Civil Procedure – Attachment of Debtor’s Earnings – Post-attachment Credits – Interpretation of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC – Warrant of attachment remains effective until returned with execution details – Period granted in warrant (1 year) implies any funds credited within that time are liable for execution – Garnishee’s conduct in permitting withdrawals despite attachment is contrary to law – Inconsistent conduct of garnishee in depositing partial amounts further undermines defence – Attachment continues until modified or lifted by court order [Paras 10–14]

Execution – Conduct of Garnishee – Contradictory Stand – Garnishee deposited amounts post-attachment and later denied liability – Garnishee also filed affidavit agreeing to deposit more funds – Held: Such inconsistent conduct contradicts defence and affirms continuing obligation under attachment – Impugned order contrary to garnishee’s own actions [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice quashed – Trial court directed to give effect to attachment as per law – Civil application disposed [Paras 15–18]

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Section 43D(5) – Bail – Prima Facie True Test - Appellant, alleged active member of terror syndicate led by Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu, charged under UAPA, IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act for orchestrating the 18.12.2020 Tetariyakhad Colliery attack involving indiscriminate firing, arson of four trucks, and injuries to civilians – Recovery of country-made pistol from appellant – FSL report confirmed shells from the crime scene were fired from the appellant’s weapon – Protected witnesses identified the appellant as one of the armed attackers – Court reiterated that under Section 43D(5) UAPA, bail must be denied where accusations are prima facie true – National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 applied [Paras 33–37, 45–57, 69–73].

Bail – UAPA Offences – Delay in Trial – Applicability of Article 21 – Appellant in custody since 07.02.2021 – Trial commenced and witnesses under examination – Court held mere delay not ground for bail in serious terrorist offences; distinguished Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, as trial had progressed and constitutional violation not established – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 109) followed [Paras 64–65, 68].

Bail – Principle of Parity – Distinction Between Co-accused – Co-accused Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav granted bail based on long custody and minimal role – Present appellant identified as principal conspirator who directed co-accused Ajay Turi to write threatening pamphlets and participated in arson and firing – Court held parity cannot be mechanically applied; role-specific analysis required – Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Tarun Kumar v. Asst. Director, ED (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486) relied upon – Held: parity not available [Paras 66–73].

Bail – Restrictive Scope under UAPA – “Bail the Exception, Jail the Rule” – Court reaffirmed that conventional bail principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” does not apply under UAPA – Once prima facie satisfaction of involvement exists, bail must be rejected as a rule – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Watali (supra) reaffirmed [Paras 38–44, 53–57].

Result – Appellant failed to show change in circumstances or new grounds – Material on record shows active participation in terrorist act and recovery of incriminating weapons – Trial ongoing – Bail rejected – Appeal dismissed [Paras 63–75].