Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Subsequent Events – Due Diligence – Petition against order of Appellate Authority rejecting amendment application – Petitioner sought to amend plaint to incorporate facts discovered during pendency of appeal based on Local Commissioner’s report showing new construction by respondent despite status quo order – Held: Test of due diligence satisfied as facts occurred after filing of suit and appeal – Amendment necessary to bring on record subsequent developments and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Appellate Authority erred in rejecting amendment by commenting on merits and credibility of Commissioner’s report – Order set aside; amendment allowed [Paras 6–11].

Civil Procedure – Role of Local Commissioner – Evidentiary Value – Local Commissioner appointed by Court had inspected site in presence of parties and reported fresh construction on suit land – Observations by Appellate Court doubting Commissioner’s competence were unwarranted – Objections, if any, to the report could be raised by respondent during trial; Court at amendment stage ought not to assess evidentiary worth of the report [Paras 7–8].

Amendment – Principles – Amendment of pleadings should be permitted if it helps determine the real controversy between parties and prevents multiplicity of proceedings – Where the amendment does not change the nature of the case but merely introduces subsequent events, it should ordinarily be allowed – Refusal to allow amendment in such circumstances amounts to miscarriage of justice [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 21.10.2022 set aside – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allowed – Amendment of plaint permitted; parties directed to appear before trial court on 10.11.2025 [Para 11].

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 8, 21, 29 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity – Procedural Lapses – Bail Granted – Petitioner arrested on 21.04.2023 for alleged possession of 50 bottles of Myberry (Codeine Phosphate) – Co-accused arrested based on petitioner's disclosure – Final report filed on 17.07.2023 – Trial delayed with less than half of 21 witnesses examined – Held: Petitioner in custody for over 2.5 years with no prior criminal history – Material contradictions in prosecution evidence – Mandatory procedural safeguards under NDPS Act found breached – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 1–9, 20]

Criminal Law – Reasonable Grounds under Section 37 NDPS Act – Interpretation – Court clarified that “reasonable grounds” for believing guilt under Section 37 require more than suspicion but less than proof – Held: No cogent evidence to support prima facie guilt of petitioner – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner stands on parity – No apprehension of tampering with evidence or absconding [Paras 9–10]

Bail Jurisprudence – Constitutional Safeguards – Liberty vs. Public Interest – Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Siddharam Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Court reiterated that bail is the rule, jail the exception – Long incarceration without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment – Denial of bail not justified solely by seriousness of charge in absence of risk of misuse of liberty [Paras 14–19]

Discretion in Grant of Bail – Judicial Principles – Court must consider gravity of offence, likelihood of conviction, potential for interference with justice, and balance individual liberty with societal interest – No blanket rule – Each bail decision must be context-specific and factually grounded [Paras 12–13, 18]

Decision:

Bail granted – Petitioner to be released upon furnishing personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each from relatives – Subject to compliance with conditions: (a) regular appearance at trial, (b) no tampering with evidence or witnesses, (c) no travel outside UT of J&K without court’s permission, (d) no repetition of offence – Trial court empowered to proceed under Sections 491 and 492 BNSS in case of breach of conditions.

Motor Accident Compensation – Dependency Units – Minor Dependents – Appeal by insurer challenging calculation of dependency on the ground that minor dependents should count as half unit under Rule 220-A(2) of UP Motor Vehicle Rules – Held: Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma lays down that each dependent, irrespective of age, is to be treated as one unit – Tribunal rightly followed binding precedent, ignoring contrary rule which offers lesser benefit to claimants [Paras 5–7].

Motor Accident Compensation – Consortium – Quantum – Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- each to widow, two minor children, and mother of deceased – Held: Award of individual consortium amounts to each dependent is justified and consistent with law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram – No illegality found [Paras 8–9].

Motor Accident Claims – Interpretation of Statutory Rule vs. Supreme Court Precedent – Held: When Supreme Court judgments provide more beneficial treatment to claimants, they prevail over subordinate statutory rules – Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma to apply over Rule 220-A(2)(iii) of UP Rules as being more advantageous and constitutionally affirmed [Para 6–7].

Motor Vehicles Act – Beneficial Legislation – Held: In view of the Act being a welfare legislation, interpretation favouring the claimants must prevail – Calculation method yielding higher compensation under binding precedent to be preferred [Paras 6–7].

Appeal – Maintainability – No Error Found – Where the Tribunal’s reasoning is based on binding precedent and awards fall within established norms, interference by appellate court is unwarranted – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Award of Rs. 23,98,774/- with interest @ 7% p.a. to claimants affirmed – Dependency unit calculation and consortium payments held valid as per binding Supreme Court judgments – Direction issued for return of statutory deposit [Paras 10–13].

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Allegations by wife of physical torture, dowry demand, and attempted strangulation by husband – Delay of one month in lodging complaint not explained contemporaneously – Complainant failed to mention serious allegations like throttling and paternity denial in FIR – Introduced new accusations only during trial – Held: Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt – Serious inconsistencies in dates, medical evidence, and testimonies created doubt as to veracity of prosecution story – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC set aside [Paras 5, 10-12, 22-23, 25]

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Medical Evidence Contradictions – FIR alleged head injury from iron rod and bleeding, but medical report did not confirm injury – Doctor admitted she could not confirm source of bleeding or strangulation – Carbon copy of injury report had inconsistent date – Held: Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version – Serious doubt cast on occurrence and severity of assault [Paras 11, 22]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Inordinate Delay – FIR lodged nearly one month after incident dated 15.02.2010 – Explanation of illness raised only during trial without corroboration – No supporting medical records or witness testimony to justify delay – Held: Inordinate delay unexplained and undermines prosecution case [Paras 9, 24]

Misuse of Section 498-A – Matrimonial Disputes – Multiple Cases Filed by Complainant – All resulted in acquittals – Complaint in present case also contained vague and exaggerated allegations – Held: In light of Supreme Court's caution against misuse of Section 498-A in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, and Achin Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, prosecution version required strict scrutiny – No clear prima facie case made out against appellant [Paras 24]

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, contradictions with documentary evidence, failure to produce Panchayat records or resolution, and no evidence of prior incidents of cruelty – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 18-21, 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of – Urgent certified copy to be issued on compliance with formalities.

Property Law – Easement of Grant – Boundary Description – Appellant claimed right of pathway over ‘B’ Schedule property described as “common battai” in sale deed of 09.06.1964 – Contended that mention of pathway as boundary conferred easementary right – Held: Mere reference to a “pathway” as boundary does not amount to an express or implied grant of right of way unless clearly intended by the grantor – Courts below rightly found no evidence of grant or usage by public or adjoining owners – ‘B’ Schedule property being private land of respondents’ family, not a poramboke or public path – No easementary right accrued [Paras 13–21, 23].

Easement – Necessity and Prescription – Proof and Burden – No evidence of easement of necessity since appellant had alternative access through own ridges – No proof of uninterrupted use “as of right” for statutory period – Burden lies on claimant to prove continuous, open, and as-of-right user, which was not discharged – Physical features showed ‘B’ Schedule land 4 feet above level of appellant’s property, inconsistent with plea of necessity [Paras 18–22].

Boundary Description – No Presumption of Right – Description of “common battai” in boundary of sale deed cannot, by itself, confer or presume easementary right unless coupled with clear evidence of grant or usage – Section 28 of Easements Act restricts easement of necessity to extent of actual necessity existing at the time of creation – Held, mentioning boundary as battai insufficient to imply easementary right [Paras 19–23].

Distinction from Precedent – Precedent Kuppakkal v. Mathan Chettiar, AIR 1924 Mad 834 distinguished – In that case, right of access existed to street or public road; present case involves private property of defendants, not public pathway – Hence, principle in Kuppakkal not applicable [Paras 14–20, 24].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld – No easementary right proved over ‘B’ Schedule property – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 24–25].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Trial Concluded – Plaintiff sought to amend plaint to correct typographical errors, add omitted Khasra numbers and names of co-sharers – Amendment allowed despite trial having concluded – Held: Amendments were minor, clarificatory, and necessary for complete adjudication of the partition suit – Procedural law should not obstruct substantive justice – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC not an absolute bar where amendment is bona fide and avoids multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 3, 4, 10, 12-14]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court allowed impleadment of legal heirs of deceased co-sharer and one omitted necessary party – Held: In a partition suit, all co-sharers are necessary parties – Impleadment essential to ensure binding and executable decree – Trial court correctly exercised discretion to avoid piecemeal litigation [Paras 4, 6, 11-14]

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order allowing amendment and impleadment – Held: Discretion exercised by trial court was judicial, reasoned and not perverse – No interference warranted under supervisory jurisdiction of High Court [Paras 13-15]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned composite order dated 25.09.2025 upheld – Amendment and impleadment rightly allowed in the interest of complete adjudication and justice.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Appellants convicted under Sections 120B, 302, 364, 404 & 201 IPC for kidnapping, murdering, dismembering, and disposing of body in river – Trial court imposed concurrent life sentences – On appeal, High Court found major inconsistencies and missing links in chain of circumstantial evidence – Extra-judicial confession (Ex.P3) held doubtful as signatures differed; confession sent belatedly to Magistrate; sole witness (VAO) present at all recoveries – Recovery of van, knives, jewels, and dead body not corroborated by forensic evidence or serology reports – Call records for 18.12.2014 showing deceased’s phone activity ignored by Investigating Officer – No bloodstains recovered from alleged crime vehicle or location – Motive proved but not sufficient for conviction without complete chain of evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 18–49].

Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility – Court found serious doubts regarding voluntariness and authenticity of confession made by A2 before VAO (P.W.4) – Delay in forwarding confession, variance in signatures, and VAO’s continuous presence during all confessions and recoveries reduced reliability – Following Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) 3 SCC 565 – Extra-judicial confession being weak evidence cannot solely sustain conviction [Paras 29–33].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Last Seen Theory – Evidence of witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.11 inconsistent – No identification parade conducted – Time gap between last seen and recovery of body too wide – Call records indicated deceased alive after alleged abduction – Court held that prosecution failed to establish complete and unbroken chain of circumstances [Paras 23–28, 47–48].

Forensic Evidence – Failure of Investigation – No effort to collect or analyze blood samples from van, rock, or knives; absence of FSL and serology reports weakened prosecution case – Forensic corroboration crucial in circumstantial cases – Investigation held perfunctory [Paras 35–37, 47].

Motive – Land Dispute – Double-Edged Factor – Prior enmity and civil dispute between deceased and A1 established – But motive alone cannot establish guilt when chain of evidence incomplete – Citing Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma v. State of Bihar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2623) and Subhash Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025) 8 SCC 440 [Paras 22, 45–46].

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal Revision Petition for enhancement dismissed [Para 50].

Land Revenue – Khatedari Rights – Urban Land – Waiver – UIT challenged orders of RAA and BOR (2003) conferring khatedari rights on Girdhari – Court held that UIT had accepted and acted upon those orders by issuing pattas under Section 90-B and granting construction permissions – Held: UIT, having waived its right and acted in acquiescence, was estopped from reasserting ownership claim [Paras 6–15].

Estoppel – Settlement by Legal Heir – Khatedari Rights – Respondent Koyali earlier withdrew her claim over Khasra Nos. 83 and 104 and gave written no-objection to UIT for pattas – Later sought declaration of khatedari rights on same land – Held: Not maintainable – Having accepted benefit of settlement, Koyali was estopped from reasserting rights over land she had relinquished [Paras B(6)–B(13)].

Joint Cultivation – Khatedari Entitlement – Widow’s Rights – Girdhari and his brother Bhera Ram were admitted joint cultivators – Widow Koyali, as sole legal heir of Bhera Ram, entitled to 50% share in Khasra No. 108 – RAA’s 2005 order declaring shared tenancy affirmed – Held: Koyali entitled only to half share in Khasra No. 108 [Paras B(14)–B(15)].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Review – Will Not Proved – Hanuman Ram, son of Girdhari, sought recall of ex parte order claiming rights under an unproven Will – Court found notices were refused by him and he had acted in acquiescence – Held: BOR erred in allowing his appeal – Reversal of BOR’s 2018 order to extent of Hanuman’s claim [Paras B(16)–B(21)].

Urban Development – Pattas under Section 90-B – Validity – Judgment in Rem – Divisional Commissioner’s 2007 cancellation of pattas issued by UIT was quashed in Writ Petition No. 42/2008 – Court reaffirmed that the quashing was a judgment in rem – No relief possible based on cancelled order – Connected writ petitions dismissed or disposed of accordingly [Paras C(1)–C(6), D(1)–D(4)].

Decision: Petition by UIT dismissed – Orders dated 28.06.2003 and 03.09.2003 upheld – Koyali not entitled to khatedari rights over Khasras 83 and 104 due to waiver – Entitled to 50% share in Khasra No. 108 – Hanuman Ram’s claims dismissed – Connected writ petitions dismissed or disposed of in view of finality of earlier orders or pending special appeals.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Stringent conditions – Petitioner, a foreign national, caught with 416 grams of MDMA (commercial quantity) – Bail sought on ground that grounds of arrest not communicated in writing as required under Article 22(1), Section 47 BNSS and Section 52(1) NDPS Act – Held: Arrest memo signed and explained in English; communication to friend also made – No demonstrable prejudice shown – Procedural irregularity, if any, is curable – Restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act apply – Bail denied [Paras 6–24].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance – Communication need not always be in writing if substantial compliance is made – If grounds are explained and understood, requirement is fulfilled – No violation shown in present case [Paras 17–20].

BNSS – Section 47 – NDPS Act – Section 52 – Grounds of arrest – Substantial compliance sufficient – Presence of arrest memo, explanation in English, and early legal representation indicate awareness of charges – Custody not rendered illegal [Paras 18–23].

Distinction – Applicability of Pankaj Bansal line of cases – Held: Stringent interpretation in Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar not applicable where there is no demonstrable prejudice and NDPS conditions under Section 37 prevail – Facts distinguishable – No automatic bail for procedural lapse [Paras 14–19, 22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail denied – Court finds compliance with mandatory requirements – Section 37 NDPS Act limitations not satisfied – No violation of constitutional or statutory rights demonstrated.