Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 482, 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought direction for concurrent running of sentences imposed in two separate NIA cases – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Held, offences committed by petitioner in two separate cases cannot be considered part of the “same transaction” – Maximum sentence not awarded by trial courts – Offences under UAPA are grave, impacting national security and societal harmony – Consecutive running of sentences upheld. [Paras 1-51]

Role of Petitioner in Criminal Conspiracy and Terrorist Activities – Convictions in separate cases for raising funds and conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks during Ardh Kumbh Mela and planning assassination of a political leader – Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges – Both cases involved distinct facts and separate trials – Petitioner found guilty of serious offences affecting national security. [Paras 24-29]

Guiding Principles for Exercise of Discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. – Consideration of separate transactions, totality of sentences, gravity of offences, and societal impact – Judicial discretion to be exercised judiciously, not mechanically – Concurrent running of sentences not favored in cases involving serious offences with wide societal impact. [Paras 20-23, 35-47]

Decision – Petition for concurrent running of sentences dismissed – Sentences in two NIA cases to run consecutively. [Para 51]

Criminal Law – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to impugned order rejecting deferment of hearing on charge – Accusations of criminal conspiracy and corruption in Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 – Petitioner contends investigation incomplete and seeks delay until supplementary chargesheet against co-accused is filed – Learned Trial Court dismissed application, stating arguments on charge can be halted if further incriminating evidence is filed – Held, maintaining the impugned order with instructions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents – Ensuring fair trial and speedy proceedings – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Fair Trial – Rights of Accused – Section 207 Cr.P.C. – Emphasizes the importance of providing accused with all material collected by the prosecution – Ensures preparation of defense and arguments on charge – Held, accused entitled to additional documents filed against co-accused – Arguments on charge may be revisited based on new evidence – Directions for prompt provision and scrutiny of supplementary chargesheets. [Paras 17-20]

Decision – Impugned order upheld – Directions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents to accused – Emphasis on fair trial and adherence to principles of natural justice – Petition disposed of with instructions for expeditious proceedings. [Paras 22-25]

Pre-Arrest Bail – Custodial Death Allegations – Seriousness of Offences – Petitioner, a police officer, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of wrongful confinement, assault, and custodial death of complainant’s mother. Judicial inquiry suggested suicide, but conflicting evidence, including post-mortem reports showing multiple injuries, led to the denial of bail – High Court emphasized severity of allegations and upheld judicial finding of prima facie case – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed [Paras 2-14].

Custodial Torture – Judicial Inquiry and Evidence – Inquiry by ACJM-II found evidence of suicide but complainant’s deposition and medical evidence indicated custodial torture – Court noted multiple anti-mortem injuries and contradictions in the inquiry report – Highlighted need for thorough investigation and accountability in custodial death cases [Paras 5-12].

Decision- Applications for pre-arrest bail are dismissed. Petitioners may seek regular bail upon surrender within four weeks, to be considered on merits without prejudice from this order [Para 16].

Administrative Law – Allotment of Government Accommodation – Writ of Mandamus – Petitioner, a National Political Party, sought a temporary housing unit from GPRA for office use until the allotment and construction of a permanent office. Respondents denied the request, citing acute shortage of GPRA accommodations and previous offers of alternate land. Held – National Political Parties are entitled to secure allotment of one housing unit from GPRA for a period of three years during which they are to construct a permanent office. Respondents directed to reconsider the request of the Petitioner and provide a detailed order within six weeks. [Paras 1-15]

Right to Temporary Office Space for National Political Parties – Analysis – Petitioner recognized as a National Party and thus entitled to temporary accommodation under the Compendium of the Allotment of Government Residences Rules. Previous offers of non-central land not relevant to temporary accommodation entitlement. The acute shortage of GPRA cannot be sole reason for denial. [Paras 12-14]

Decision – Grant of Temporary Accommodation – Court directed Respondents to reconsider and decide the Petitioner’s request for temporary office accommodation from GPRA within six weeks, ensuring detailed reasons are provided if denied. [Paras 14-15]

Criminal Law – Murder and Common Intention – Sections 341, 302, 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Prosecution’s case that accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Baiju due to a prior altercation – Trial court convicted A1, A2, and A3 while A4 was acquitted – High Court finds evidence insufficient to prove common intention by A2 and A3 – Conviction of A1 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction of A2 and A3 set aside, they are acquitted. [Paras 1-25]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Consistency – PWs 1, 2, and 3 consistently identified A1 as the assailant who inflicted the fatal stab wound – Minor discrepancies in their testimonies regarding ancillary details do not discredit core allegations – Held, evidence credible and reliable in implicating A1 – Insufficient evidence to prove that A2 and A3 shared the common intention to commit the murder. [Paras 10-13, 18-23]

Criminal Law – Motive – Evaluation – Motive for the crime established as an altercation between A1 and the deceased over the former’s conduct of making PW1 consume liquor – Evidence shows A1 had motive – Insufficient evidence to suggest motive or participation of A2 and A3 in the common intention. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Procedure – Juvenile Claim – Evaluation – A3’s claim of being a juvenile at the time of the crime found unnecessary to probe further as he was acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence regarding common intention. [Para 25]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence – Court upholds conviction and life sentence of A1 under Section 302 IPC – A2 and A3 acquitted due to lack of evidence of shared common intention – Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A2 and A3 shared a common intention with A1 to murder Baiju – Appeals by A2 and A3 allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 24-25]

Delay in Deciding Bail Application – Applicant argued undue delay in deciding bail application, alleging 40 listings without decision – Court found majority of delays due to multiple interim applications filed by the applicant for medical relief and treatment – No merit in argument attributing delay to court proceedings [Paras 20-31].

Principles Governing Grant of Bail – Reviewed legal principles for grant of bail, including factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, potential for evidence tampering, and threat to witnesses – Noted seriousness of economic offences and their impact on society [Paras 32-35].

Role of Applicant – Applicant was named in FIR and alleged to be part of criminal conspiracy involving framing and implementation of Excise Policy – Played key role in meetings and transactions facilitating the conspiracy – Issued additional credit notes without manufacturer's authorization, generating illicit funds [Paras 36-52].

Recovery of Incriminating Documents – Confidential documents related to policy formulation found in applicant’s possession during searches – Indicative of involvement in conspiracy [Paras 53-55].

Whistleblower Argument – Applicant claimed to be whistleblower – Court found no evidence supporting this claim – Statements of other witnesses and actions contradict the whistleblower narrative [Paras 56-60].

Triple Test for Bail – Considered flight risk, potential for evidence tampering, and influence on witnesses – Applicant involved in bribery case to influence investigation – Seriousness of allegations and potential impact on investigation justified denial of bail [Paras 61-67].

Decision:Bail application dismissed – Court found sufficient prima facie evidence supporting applicant’s involvement in conspiracy – Concerns over influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence reinforced decision – No grounds for bail at this stage [Paras 69-71].

Anticipatory Bail – Parity Principle – Applicant seeking anticipatory bail on grounds of parity with co-accused granted bail – Co-accused granted bail for similar offenses and under similar circumstances – Trial court failed to provide distinguishing reasons for denial of bail to applicant [Paras 5-8].

Consistency in Judicial Decisions – Judicial Officer’s failure to maintain consistency in orders concerning anticipatory bail – Subsequent orders must align with earlier orders in identical circumstances or provide sufficient reasons for deviation – Inconsistent orders undermine public confidence in judicial process [Paras 24-28, 35-36].

Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Applicability – Applicant not named in the FIR and no specific role assigned – Entitled to anticipatory bail considering absence of criminal antecedents, non-arrest during investigation, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents promoting bail as a matter of course where circumstances permit [Paras 10, 44-46].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Held – Applicant to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial upon fulfilling stipulated conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial processes [Paras 47-49].

Juvenile Justice – Bail Application – Applicant was a juvenile at the time of the incident – Challenged denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court – Court highlighted that the gravity of the offense is not a ground to refuse bail under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act – Bail granted [Paras 6-10].

Conditions for Bail under Juvenile Justice Act – Court must ensure that the release of the juvenile does not bring them into association with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Observations from the DPO report and the lack of criminal history supported bail – Court emphasized the need for a reasoned decision aligned with the statutory requirements [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Orders denying bail set aside – Applicant to be released on bail with conditions to ensure compliance and attendance in court [Para 10-11].

Discrepancies in Examination Results – Petitioner alleged that the NTA uploaded two different response sheets and scorecards for her JEE (Mains) exam, with significant differences in scores – High Court examined the validity of the claim and the procedural integrity of NTA's system [Paras 1-2, 14].

Validity of Scorecards – Petitioner claimed the first response sheet and scorecard, showing a 99.8493935 percentile score, were correct – NTA asserted these were fabricated, and the second set, showing a 74.5733907 percentile score, was accurate – High Court scrutinized the consistency and procedural integrity of the examination records [Paras 3-6, 16-19].

Disputed Facts in Writ Jurisdiction – High Court reiterated the principle that disputed questions of fact typically require evidence and are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 – Found no prima facie case to support the petitioner's claim and deemed the issue too factually dense for writ jurisdiction [Paras 22-36].

Conclusion – Court found the petitioner’s first scorecard and response sheet inconsistent with NTA’s records and procedures – Dismissed the petition, stating further investigation would necessitate a detailed factual inquiry inappropriate for writ proceedings [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – High Court did not find sufficient grounds to accept the petitioner’s assertion of two sets of response sheets and scorecards being issued by NTA – No orders as to costs [Para 37].