Criminal Law – Rape Conviction: The appellant was convicted of rape and penetrative sexual assault of his minor cousin, resulting in pregnancy. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and 7 years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction due to serious doubts about the prosecution’s story, unexplained delay in FIR, and conflicting evidence regarding the biological father of the victim’s child [Paras 1-38].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Delay in FIR: The victim’s testimony was scrutinized for inconsistencies and unexplained delay in reporting the incident. The court emphasized the need for the victim’s testimony to be of high quality and consistent to be accepted without corroboration. The nine-month delay in lodging the FIR raised suspicions of fabrication, particularly given the strained relations between the victim’s and appellant’s families [Paras 13-16, 24-27].

DNA Evidence: DNA profiling revealed that the appellant’s younger brother, not the appellant, was the biological father of the victim’s child. This crucial evidence undermined the prosecution’s case and supported the appellant’s claim of innocence [Paras 22, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, with directions for the preparation of a release warrant and provision for personal bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Paras 38-39].

Narcotics Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition to quash FIR and arrest memo in narcotics case – Seizure of LSD and ganja gummies through controlled delivery – Petitioner claimed possession for self-consumption, disputing invocation of Sections 22(c) and 28 of NDPS Act – Court found prima facie case and upheld investigation citing proper procedure and pending qualitative and quantitative analysis [Paras 1-34].

Commercial Quantity – Definition and Interpretation – Dispute over LSD quantity as small or commercial – Court emphasized importance of forensic analysis for determining drug content – Rejected argument based on assumptions of drug quantity per blotter paper – Followed Supreme Court precedents affirming consideration of total weight including carrier material for commercial quantity assessment [Paras 8-26].

Judicial Restraint – Interference in Investigation – Reiterated principles for limited exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Emphasized need for thorough investigation before final judicial determination – Petition dismissed to allow due process [Paras 27-34].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Court upheld ongoing investigation and rejected petitioner's claims due to substantial material indicating commercial quantity of LSD and ganja gummies.

Criminal Law – Parole Application – Denial Based on Conviction and Foreign National Status – High Court examines statutory provisions and case facts – Orders release on parole with conditions – [Paras 1-15].

Parole and Reformative Process – Relevance of Good Conduct – Court recognizes petitioner’s good conduct and long incarceration – Emphasizes parole as a reformative measure – [Paras 7-10].

Application of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Assessment of Convict’s Parole Eligibility – High Court reviews rule 1211 exceptions and special circumstances – Grants parole with specified conditions – [Paras 6-12].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Parole Granted – Conditions Imposed:

Personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

Weekly reporting to local SHO.

Provision of an active contact number.

Restriction from leaving Delhi NCR.

Surrender to Jail Superintendent post-parole period.

Anticipatory Bail – Criminal History – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of collecting money on behalf of jail officials through illegal means – State opposed bail citing petitioner’s prior criminal history, including a case under Section 302 IPC – Court observed that despite the availability of evidence, the petitioner had not been arrested earlier, suggesting a lack of intent by the police to arrest – Similarly placed co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-6].

Role of Criminal History in Bail Decisions – Court emphasized the importance of a reasoned approach in considering criminal history – Distinguished between cases resulting in conviction and those pending or acquitted – Stressed the need for a balanced judgment between individual liberty and public safety [Paras 7-10].

Conditions for Bail – Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Petitioner required to furnish a personal bond and surety, or provide a fixed deposit in favor of the Chief Judicial Magistrate [Paras 11-18].

Final Opportunity for Reformation – Court noted that the petitioner was given a final opportunity to correct his behavior, warning that future offenses would impact the assessment in subsequent bail applications [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Bail granted under strict conditions with a warning of severe consequences for any future criminal behavior.

Service Law – Regularization and Seniority – Petitioners’ initial appointments on a contractual basis – Claimed regularization from the date of initial appointment and counting of contract service period towards seniority – High Court held that initial appointments were valid, and petitioners were entitled to have their contract service counted towards seniority and other benefits – Orders rejecting such claims were quashed [Paras 1-50].

Recruitment Rules – Statutory Interpretation – 1997 Rules did not bar contract appointments and did not specify the Public Service Commission as the recruiting agency – Regularization under 2004 Rules valid – Petitioners’ continuous service entitled them to seniority from initial appointments [Paras 27-38].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – State’s regularization of petitioners under 2004 Rules deemed acceptance of valid initial appointments – Petitioners not estopped from claiming seniority and other service benefits [Para 34].

Necessary Parties – Non-joinder – Petition maintained despite non-joinder of all affected parties – Private respondents adequately represented interests of others in the cadre – Procedural objections overruled [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Directed to consider contract service period for seniority and related benefits – Arrears to be paid within eight weeks [Paras 49-50].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Additional Evidence – Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity – Landlord sought to lead additional evidence by examining a Director of the company after initially closing its evidence – Tenant opposed, citing that this was an attempt to fill a lacuna – Rent Controller allowed the application, which was upheld by the High Court – Court ruled that additional evidence was necessary to determine the bona fide necessity of the landlord-company, and the tenant was duly compensated with costs [Paras 1-21].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Reopening of Evidence – Court emphasized that, although Order 18 Rule 17A was deleted, Section 151 CPC empowers the court to allow additional evidence in appropriate cases to ensure justice – Additional evidence was permitted as it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the landlord’s claim of personal necessity [Paras 7-13].

Legal Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings on the use of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence, highlighting that such powers should be used sparingly and only when necessary to clarify issues or achieve justice [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller, allowing the landlord to lead additional evidence, finding no illegality in the order.
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Fraud and Misappropriation: Petitioners accused of fraudulently securing a loan amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- using documents without the knowledge or consent of the defacto complainant’s husband – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail – Court emphasized necessity of custodial interrogation for thorough investigation – Bail denied considering gravity of allegations and potential impact on investigation [Paras 1-19].

Burden of Proof and Custodial Interrogation: Petitioners contended their innocence and improper framing of charges under Section 409 IPC – Court noted ongoing investigation and necessity for custodial interrogation to uncover material information – Pre-arrest bail considered inappropriate at this stage [Paras 6-16].

Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Exceptional Circumstances: Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where misuse of liberty is unlikely – Emphasized potential threats to witnesses and importance of detailed investigation [Paras 8-15].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – No relief of anticipatory bail granted – Court allowed for investigation to proceed without pre-arrest bail protections potentially hindering interrogation [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Section 326A IPC – Appellant accused of throwing acid on his wife during a matrimonial dispute – Injuries confirmed to be erythema with no burn injuries or loss of vision – Petitioner in judicial custody for 80 days – Investigation complete – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Principles – Reference to Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. – Emphasis on presumption of innocence and principle that bail is the rule, jail is the exception – Consideration of Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7-9].

Conditions of Bail – Directed to appear before Investigating Officer periodically – Restrictions on travel and contact with witnesses – Surrender of passport – Provision for cancellation of bail upon violation of conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Conditions imposed for periodic reporting to Investigating Officer, restrictions on travel, surrender of passport, and non-tampering of evidence.
 

Octroi Duty – Valuation Methodology – Petitioner challenges the levy of octroi based on MRP less ad hoc deductions as per Rule 2(7)(b) of Octroi Rules, 1965 – Argument that determination should be based on invoice value under Rule 2(7)(a) – Court finds Petitioner's protest against levy from 2001 and subsequent Small Causes Court appeals favoring Petitioner’s contentions – However, Petitioner's failure to protest from 1995 to 2001 without any reservation weakens the claim for retrospective relief – Relief sought for refund considered unjust enrichment due to burden likely passed to consumers – Petition dismissed but leaves open issues of law for future determinations [Paras 1-42].

Unjust Enrichment – Equity Considerations – Constitutional Bench precedents cited against refund of taxes or duties passed on to consumers – Principle applied to deny refund to Petitioner despite possible misapplication of valuation rules – Court emphasizes that equity prevents recovery of such refunds when it leads to unjust enrichment of the claimant [Paras 32-39].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Issues of law regarding valuation under clauses (a) or (b) of Rule 2(7) kept open for case-by-case determination – Interim relief vacated due to GST subsumption of octroi – No order as to costs [Paras 40-42].