Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appeal by State against acquittal of accused under Section 302/34 IPC for alleged murder of Vijay Kumar by head injury inflicted during a drunken altercation over unpaid debt – Prosecution relied on oral dying declarations made to family members – Medical evidence (PW2, PW3, PW6) confirmed deceased had 276.79 mg% blood alcohol and was incapable of coherent speech at the time of alleged statements – Held: Dying declaration unreliable – Contradictions between PW-1 (brother) and FIR by father Ajit Singh regarding identity of accused and sequence of events – Witnesses PW-8, PW-9, and PW-10 (Panchayat members) turned hostile – PW-7 (relative) failed to identify accused and admitted poor visibility – Investigating Officer failed to examine 10-15 persons present at ‘jagrata’ despite recording their names – Recovery of blood-stained clothing lacked credibility due to conflicting testimony of seizure witnesses – FSL report showing blood group 'B' held inconclusive in absence of DNA or ownership linkage – Trial Court’s view found to be plausible – No perversity or legal error established [Paras 16, 17, 23, 24, 48-54, 56-62, 63-67].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – No interference warranted under limited scope of appellate jurisdiction in acquittal appeals.

Criminal Law – Permission to Travel Abroad – Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 – Parameters for Judicial Discretion – Petitioner, facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380, and 34 IPC, sought permission to travel abroad for business purposes – Earlier permissions granted in 2023 and 2024 were duly complied with – Trial Court rejected latest application fearing abscondence – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restriction thereon must satisfy procedure established by law which is just, fair and reasonable – Courts must balance liberty of the accused with the administration of justice, ensuring presence during trial [Paras 7–10, 13].

Flight Risk – Interpretation of “Likely to Abscond” – Predictive Standard – The term “likely” must denote a reasonable or palpable probability, not a speculative possibility – Courts cannot deny liberty based on conjectural fears – Determination of flight risk must rest on tangible and cogent material [Para 11].

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Grant of Permission to Travel Abroad – Courts must consider gravity of allegations, antecedents, bona fides of travel, and safeguards ensuring return – No rigid formula can be laid down – Discretion must be exercised with fairness, equity, and good conscience [Paras 12–13].

Procedural Justice – Hypertechnical Approach Decried – Petitioner’s earlier itinerary had lapsed; remitting matter to trial court would serve no purpose – Procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its mistress – High Court permitted travel directly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to travel abroad as per itinerary (15.10.2025–03.12.2025) subject to conditions imposed by trial court including furnishing of ₹10 lakh bank guarantee – Guarantee liable to forfeiture in case of non-return or violation of conditions [Para 15].

Service Law – Recruitment Cancellation – Prospective Candidate’s Right – Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 invited applications for Assistant Professors – Petitioner No.2 appeared for interview and was found selected – Chancellor annulled process citing UGC amendments and ongoing litigation – Held: Cancellation was arbitrary since the amendments were prospective and did not alter eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) – Factual findings in meeting dated 27.10.2017 were erroneous – Selection had only been pending for 13 months, not two years – Writ petition maintainable despite being filed by a prospective candidate [Paras 4-6, 13-16]

Administrative Law – Breach of Government Order – Quashing of Chancellor’s and Vice-Chancellor’s Orders – Government Order dated 08.04.2017 explicitly protected ongoing advertisements from the impact of UGC Regulation amendments – Respondents’ reliance on amended norms to cancel selection was in breach of binding directive – Impugned orders dated 27.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 quashed [Paras 13-16]

Judicial Precedent – Applicability – Distinguished Earlier Judgment – Judgment in Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla v. Chancellor (2019) held not binding as it related to a different advertisement (No. 1/2016) and did not consider Supreme Court ruling in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India – Petition held maintainable – Right of prospective candidate to challenge arbitrary withdrawal of selection upheld [Paras 9-12]

Relief – Appointment Direction – Sealed Cover Result Confirmed Selection – Petitioner no. 2’s name found in sealed result as selected candidate – No appointment made due to interim protection – Court directed University to appoint petitioner no. 2 to the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) within 30 days [Paras 17-19]

Decision: Writ petition allowed in part – Orders dated 27.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 quashed – Subsequent advertisements modified to this extent – University directed to appoint petitioner no. 2 after completing formalities within 30 days.

Criminal Law – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellant/complainant alleged supply of export garments worth ₹24.20 lakhs to accused partnership firm – Two cheques (₹2,37,785/- total) issued by accused were dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 138 NI Act – Lower Appellate Court acquitted accused giving benefit of doubt – Held: Evidence produced by both parties self-serving with no proof of exchange or acknowledgment – Ex.P4/P5 invoices, delivery notes, and account statements produced by complainant lacked authentication or proof of service – Cheques bore overwritten dates, weakening reliability – Accused produced documents showing procurement of raw materials and communications with foreign buyers in their own name – Evidence revealed disputed commercial relationship and lack of clarity on liability – In criminal trial, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Appellate Court’s reversal not perverse or unreasonable – No ground to interfere under limited scope of appeal against acquittal [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Section 138 NI Act confirmed – No interference warranted with judgment of First Appellate Court.

Family Law – Visitation Rights – Natural Father and Grandparents – Petition under Section 151 CPC seeking visitation rights to meet infant son rejected by Family Court citing pending criminal cases and apprehension of harm – High Court finds rejection based on unsubstantiated fears – Allegations were from January 2024 with no material showing ongoing threat – Petitioner shown to be pursuing legal remedies and not attempting illegal access – Held: Visitation rights are crucial for child’s emotional development and cannot be denied merely on speculative grounds [Paras 1, 7, 10–10.3, 13, 20].

Visitation Rights – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Citing Supreme Court decision in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67, and its own ruling in Sanjay Sharma v. Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3736 – High Court affirms that child has a right to love and care of both parents – Denial of access found contrary to legal principles – Held: Supervised visitation ordered twice a month at High Court Mediation Centre, Cuttack – Structured visitation and virtual interaction schedule fixed until child turns five [Paras 11–12, 13, 18–22].

Contact Rights – Virtual Interaction – WhatsApp/Video Call – Court allows bi-monthly physical visitation and additional video calls on 2nd and 4th weekends and holidays – Father directed to provide a new Android phone with valid SIM to enable such contact – Grandparents also allowed to participate in virtual interactions – Cooperation from both parties mandated to preserve child’s welfare [Paras 22, Clauses XIII–XVI].

Custody and Guardianship – Role of Grandparents – Recognition of Grandparent Visitation – Referring to definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary and Indian legal principles – Court holds that affectionate relationship with grandparents benefits the child’s psychological development – Grandparents granted access during supervised visits and video calls – Denial without adverse evidence found unwarranted [Paras 14–17, 19].

Decision: Impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Family Court, Cuttack set aside – Writ petition allowed – Detailed visitation rights and contact schedule framed for father and grandparents – Arrangement to continue until the child attains five years – Liberty granted to seek stepped-up visitation thereafter [Paras 21–23].

Preventive Detention – Drug Offender – Validity of Detention under Section 3(2) of the Telangana PD Act – Detention Upheld – Detenu booked in three NDPS cases involving seizure of ganja (2.165 kg, 1.53 kg, and 20.5 kg respectively) – Court held that repeated involvement in narcotics peddling justifies invocation of preventive detention – Held: Preventive detention is not punitive but precautionary – Satisfied that detenu’s activities threaten public order and health, particularly among youth [Paras 1–4, 39–41, 45–47]

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Judicial Review – Scope Limited – Court reiterated that detention order based on subjective satisfaction of the authority can be interfered with only if arbitrary, lacking evidence, or vitiated by procedural irregularities – Held: No such infirmity found – Advisory Board affirmed detention after hearing detenu and family – Constitutional safeguards under Article 22 and statutory timelines under the Act complied with [Paras 36, 38, 48–50]

Preventive Detention – Conditional Bail – Detention Despite Bail Justified – Detenu had been granted conditional bail in some cases but continued in custody – Court held that preventive detention is not barred merely because detenu is on bail or under judicial custody – Past conduct and possibility of future offences justify detention [Paras 12–14, 30–31, 42–43]

Criminal Law – Confessional Statements by Co-accused – Not Sole Basis – Petitioner argued that detenu implicated only through confessions of others – Court held that seizure of contraband and involvement across multiple cases indicates pattern of illegal conduct – Not a case of single isolated offence [Paras 4, 15, 18–19]

Public Health and Order – Preventive Detention as Tool to Address Drug Menace – Reaffirmed that narcotic trade poses direct threat to public health and societal order – Detention serves not only to restrain but also to enable reform – Emphasised State’s constitutional duty under Articles 21 and 47 to protect citizens’ health [Paras 40–41, 46–47]

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Detention of Smt. Aruna Bai @ Anguri Bai under order dated 10.03.2025 upheld – Advisory Board’s confirmation and Government approval orders dated 15.03.2025 and 15.04.2025 found valid – No costs awarded.

Civil Law – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Not Mandatory in Non-Commercial Disputes – Trial Court struck off defence for non-filing of written statement within 120 days – Held: Provision is directory in non-commercial suits – Delay not inordinate and was justified due to pending Section 8 application – Striking off of defence unsustainable [Paras 41–49].

Arbitration – Application under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Timing – Written Statement – Filing of application before submission of first substantive statement is valid – Mere delay in filing written statement during pendency of Section 8 application cannot be penalized – Appellate Court erred in holding written statement should have been filed irrespective of Section 8 application [Paras 38–40].

Civil Litigation – Fair Trial – Ex Parte Decree – Repercussions of Striking Off Defence – Trial Court passed decree of ₹15.69 Cr ex parte – Appellate Court reduced amount but upheld procedural bar – Held: Courts must prefer decision on merits, especially in matters involving public funds – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 49–55].

Civil Revision – Maintainability – When Trial Court Order Striking Off Defence is Erroneous – Revision against trial court order striking off defence dismissed relying on law applicable to commercial disputes – Held: Error apparent – SCG Contracts case applies only to commercial suits – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 45–46].

Remand – Suit Remitted to Trial Court – In absence of written statement, no adjudication on merits possible – Additional evidence cannot be allowed without pleadings – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh trial from stage of written statement – Trial to be concluded within one year [Paras 52–56].

Decision: RSA-305-2021 allowed – RSA-199-2021 dismissed – CR-4288-2019 disposed of – Judgments and decrees set aside – Order striking off defence quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh decision after permitting written statement [Paras 54–56].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Bank Fraud – Discharge – Opposite Party, a former bank manager, was discharged by Special CBI Court in a case involving ₹9.14 crore loan fraud – CBI challenged discharge, alleging conspiracy and irregularities in loan sanction – Held: Loan was sanctioned by General Manager based on multiple internal reports including technical and appraisal reports – Opposite Party’s role limited to forwarding proposal without sanctioning power – No prima facie evidence of conspiracy against Opposite Party – Discharge justified [Paras 2–11]

Criminal Procedure – Section 239 CrPC – Discharge – Judicial Review – High Court reaffirmed that in absence of specific, substantiated material pointing to active role or mens rea, trial court rightly exercised discretion under Section 239 to prevent harassment – Failure of CBI to reinvestigate, despite court direction, further weakens prosecution’s case – Observed that prosecution proceeded selectively without naming equally involved senior officials – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 10–12]

Criminal Investigation – Fair Trial – Selective Prosecution – Court noted systemic gaps in investigation, particularly omission of officials in Core Credit Group and higher management who played significant roles – CBI’s omission to include key sanctioning officers in chargesheet despite specific allegations raised in complaint found arbitrary – Cited State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai, stressing against pick-and-choose prosecution [Para 11]

Decision: Revisional Application Dismissed – Order of discharge dated 28/11/2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Kolkata in Special Case No. 16 of 2010 affirmed – Direction for reinvestigation by Special Judge not complied with – No prima facie case made out against Opposite Party – Allegations of negligence do not establish criminal conspiracy.

Motor Accident – Compensation – Enhancement of Award – Claimant, a government employee, sustained grievous injuries including facial disfigurement and loss of teeth in a motor vehicle accident involving a Tata Truck – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,27,160/- but granted only Rs. 2,160/- towards medical expenses despite documentary evidence of higher costs – On appeal, High Court found that medical bills and other heads of compensation were inadequately assessed – Held: Medical expenses enhanced based on admissible bills agreed upon by both parties – Compensation for pain and suffering, transportation, and diet also enhanced by consensus [Paras 2–9]

Motor Accident – Determination of Compensation – Judicial Review – Court noted that parties reached consensus on admissible medical bills and other heads – Award modified to grant enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,98,765/- in total – Interest awarded from the date of filing the claim with additional interest of 1% in case of delay in payment – Direction issued for insurer to deposit enhanced compensation within six weeks [Paras 10–12]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,98,765/- – Enhanced amount to carry interest from 03/11/2016 at FD bank rate – Additional 1% interest applicable if payment not made within stipulated time – Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount before Tribunal within six weeks.