Criminal Law - Bail  – Allegation of Foreign Nationality – illegal entry into India - Prima Facie Case of Identity Fraud – Bail Rejected – The applicant was found in possession of digital documents indicating Bangladeshi origin and is accused of forging Indian identity documents to claim citizenship – Held: In absence of verified proof of Indian citizenship and pending verification from UIDAI and other authorities, the application for bail is rejected [Paras 1-5, 22-26, 30-31].

Citizenship Determination – Documentary Evidence – Mere Possession of Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID Not Conclusive – The applicant relied on Indian identity documents to assert citizenship – Held: These documents do not override statutory requirements of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Verification of issuance and authenticity is necessary before relying on them for legal status [Paras 18-20, 29].

Illegal Migration – Burden of Proof – Section 9 of the Foreigners Act – When prima facie evidence of foreign origin is presented by the State, the burden shifts to the accused – Held: The applicant has failed to discharge this burden by not producing any verified document of Indian citizenship [Paras 21, 29].

Forensic Evidence – Digital Birth Certificates Found – Bangladeshi Origin Suspected – Digital documents retrieved from the applicant’s phone include birth certificates showing Bangladeshi place of birth – Held: The explanation offered by the applicant at this stage is insufficient – Investigation needed to verify source and authenticity [Paras 3, 7, 23-25].

National Security Concerns – Real Risk of Absconding or Tampering with Evidence – Seriousness of Charges Considered – Allegations involve misuse of national identification systems and potential links to wider illegal immigration networks – Held: Given seriousness of offences and applicant’s capability to recreate false identity, bail at this stage would pose serious risk to investigation and national interest [Paras 27-28, 30].

Investigation Pending – UIDAI and Government Authorities Yet to Verify Documents – Ongoing Investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS – The Court noted that identity verification and forensic analysis are still in progress – Held: Bail cannot be granted until crucial investigative steps are completed [Paras 4, 26, 30].

Decision – Bail Denied – Liberty to Apply Again – Regular bail application rejected – However, liberty granted to revive the request if the trial does not conclude within one year [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law – Non-Bailable Warrant and Proclamation – Simultaneous Issuance Impermissible – Orders Quashed – Trial Court issued NBWA and proclamation against petitioner without prior proof of absconding or service of summons – Held: Such simultaneous issuance violates Sections 82 and 87 CrPC – Proclamation must follow failed execution of warrant based on material satisfaction – Orders set aside [Paras 9–10, 17].

Absconding Accused – Legal Requirements for Declaration – No Proof of Knowledge – Action Unjustified - Court held that before issuing proclamation, evidence must exist showing that the accused knew of the warrant and still absconded – No such material existed in this case – Action under Section 82 CrPC not sustainable [Para 10].

Issuance of NBWA – Must Be Based on Material Satisfaction – Absent in Record - Trial Court did not demonstrate satisfaction that petitioner was evading summons or that summons were duly served – No proof police visited correct address – Issuance of NBWA found to be mechanical and in violation of judicial standards laid in Inder Mohan Goswami and Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin – [Paras 11–14].

Procedural Impropriety – Consequential Proceedings Also Invalid – Fundamental Rule - Court reiterated that if initial action is void in law, all subsequent steps fall through – All orders post 23.02.2023 held to be vitiated and quashed [Para 15].

Voluntary Appearance – Liberty Balanced with Compliance – Relief Granted - Petitioner expressed willingness to appear and submit to jurisdiction – Court directed appearance before Trial Court by 31.08.2025 and held NBWA should not obstruct such voluntary appearance – Bail to be considered on merits [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law - Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Fresh Evidence Not Mandatory – Application Allowed Based on PW1’s Testimony – The petitioners were previously declared innocent by SIT and placed in Column 2 of the challan – Held: Trial court rightly exercised discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on examination-in-chief of complainant (PW1) implicating the petitioners – No need for cross-examination at this stage – Summoning valid [Paras 2, 4, 7-9].

Investigative Finding – Not Binding on Court – SIT's Declaration of Innocence Does Not Preclude Summoning – The SIT had declared six accused including the petitioners as innocent relying on alibi supported by CCTV and CDRs – Held: Investigative findings are not final and cannot override the power of the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon persons named in evidence [Paras 3, 7-9].

Alibi – To Be Decided at Trial – Petitioners' Plea of Alibi Based on CCTV and CDRs – Held: Such plea is a matter of trial – Cannot bar summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. where eye-witnesses have implicated the petitioners in direct testimony – Trial court rightly summoned petitioners to face trial along with co-accused [Paras 4, 8-9].

Dismissal of Prior Application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – No Bar to Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Earlier application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. had been rejected and confirmed in revision – Held: Rejection under Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not preclude fresh summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on evidence adduced during trial [Paras 3-4, 8].

Summoning Based on Examination-in-Chief – Permissible – No Requirement of Cross-examination – Citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab – Held: Examination-in-chief is valid basis for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; Evidence need not be tested by cross-examination at this stage [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – No Infirmity in Order of Trial Court – Petitioners failed to show legal perversity or arbitrariness in trial court’s exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order upheld – Revision petition dismissed [Para 9].

Quashing of FIR - Criminal Misconduct – Misappropriation of SGRY rice – Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) P.C. Act and Sections 465, 471, 409, 120B IPC – Quashment and discharge denied – Petitioners accused of conspiring with Panchayat Secretary to forge beneficiary committee minutes, create fictitious beneficiary lists, and obtain sanction for release of 46,573 kg of rice under SGRY project, later misappropriated without executing works – FSL report indicated forged signatures and handwriting attributable to 2nd petitioner – Court held prosecution materials disclose prima facie case warranting trial; quashing/discharge cannot be granted on conjectures or witness silence in 164 Cr.P.C. statements [Paras 6-7].

Role of Accused – FSL evidence – Handwriting match sufficient for prima facie case – Even if petitioner’s name absent in some annexures, evidence of his role as Standing Committee Chairman who obtained sanction and forged records links him to offence; individual participation in conspiracy need not be proved at pre-trial stage [Paras 9-15].

Decision – Petitions dismissed; interim order vacated; Special Court directed to conclude trial within four months [Paras 7-8].

Service Law - Transfer Policy – Mass Transfers at behest of Public Representatives – G.O.Ms.No.23 (15.05.2025) & G.O.Ms.No.5 (12.06.2025) – Partial Allowance/Remand – Common order on batch WPs challenging 2025 transfers; Court finds large-scale recommendations by MLAs/MPs fixed both transfer and posting, undermining executive instructions; directs fresh counselling strictly per G.O.Ms.No.23 & 5 for erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna; petitions from other districts dismissed; plea against DAO’s jurisdiction rejected [Paras 22–25, 26–32].

Judicial Review of Transfers – Scope – Guidelines vs. Public Interest – Courts’ Restraint – Reiterated that transfer orders made in public interest/administrative reasons are ordinarily immune to interference, absent breach of statutory mandate or mala fides – Shilpi Bose; Major General J.K. Bansal cited [Paras 13–16].

Public Representatives’ Recommendations – Permissible Limits – Recommendation per se does not vitiate transfer (Mohd. Masood Ahmad; Sri Pubi Lombi) – but mass-scale postings dictated by such letters, fixing both transfer and destination, dehors the policy, are impermissible – present record shows exceptionally high numbers in erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna; interference warranted [Paras 23–29].

Transparency & Seniority Handling – Counselling Exercise and Station Seniority – First transfer since 2019 DSC appointments required heightened transparency; Kurnool/ Krishna counselling taken manually; options invited on 28–30.06.2025; orders issued same day; lists based on date of birth used for inter se order; exercise held wanting vis-à-vis G.O.Ms.No.5/Clause 8 [Paras 21–22].

Jurisdiction of Issuing Authority – District Agricultural Officer / Joint Director of Agriculture – Objection overruled: by G.O.Ms.No.35 (30.01.2020) JDA made appointing authority; by G.O.Ms.No.31 (26.02.2022) “District Agricultural Officer” used as generic designation; impugned orders not without competence [Para 30].

Directions / Disposition – (i) WPs from erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna allowed; fresh counselling to be conducted strictly under G.O.Ms.No.23 (15.05.2025) and G.O.Ms.No.5 (12.06.2025); (ii) WPs from other districts dismissed; (iv) No costs [Para 32].*

Bail – NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) Default/Statutory Bail – 184 kg Ganja – Petition Allowed – Prosecution failed to file PP’s report seeking extension beyond 180 days; charge-sheet not filed; custody since 11.02.2025 – Held: Accused acquired indefeasible right to bail under Section 36A(4); enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 5–9].

Seizure & Allegations – Commercial Quantity – Non-bar to Default Bail – Recovery of 94 packets (184.00 kg) of ganja during raid on 11.02.2025; investigation largely completed; witnesses official – Gravity of offence no ground to defeat statutory right when extension not sought [Paras 2, 5–7].

Conditions of Bail – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Personal bond ₹50,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before SHO (Saturdays 10:00–17:00) till cognizance – Not to leave district without permission – No offences/inducement – Cooperate with investigation – Surrender passport/affidavit if none [Para 8].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.7 enlarged on bail on conditions stated [Para 9]

Electricity Law - Electricity Undertaking Acquisition – Depreciation on Consumer-Funded Assets – Section 7-A(2) of Indian Electricity Act – Claim Rejected – The petitioner Board sought deduction of depreciation on works constructed at consumer/local body expense – Held: Such assets not funded by the licensee are excluded from book value for compensation; thus, depreciation on them also cannot be claimed – In line with Pilibhit Electric Supply Co. and other precedents [Paras 4-10].

Stores and Spare Parts – Independent Valuation Under Section 7-A(2)(iii) – Inclusion Justified – The Special Officer rightly considered value of spare parts separately based on physical verification and store records – Claim of double inclusion by Board not substantiated – No interference warranted [Para 11].

Advance Collections – Rs. 2,50,000 Collected Revenue Not Deductible – Amount was not an advance from Board to Ex-Licensee but revenue collected on its behalf – Properly excluded from deductions under Section 7-A(5)(a) – Board’s objection rejected [Para 12].

Railway Siding Charges – Challenge Not Pressed – Petitioner waived argument on this head – Findings of Special Officer on this issue upheld without detailed discussion [Para 13].

Consumer Advances – Claim of Rs. 8,75,393.59 – Already Reflected as Contribution – Amount adjusted in accounts as consumer contribution and excluded from book value – Not separately deductible – Special Officer’s finding upheld [Para 13].

Employee Dues – Gratuity, Leave, SC Awards – Not Payable Absent Actual Disbursement – Gratuity or leave encashment claims not substantiated with proof of payment – Special Officer correctly held no deferred liability existed at takeover date – Claim rightly disallowed [Paras 14-15].

Development Reserve – No Deduction When Utilized in Undertaking – Section 7-A(5)(h) – Special Officer found entire reserve invested in fixed assets transferred to Board – Nothing remained in balance with Ex-Licensee – No error in denying further deduction – Supported by SC precedent in Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. [Paras 16-17].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Challenge against specific components of Award dated 12.07.1982 found without merit – Award upheld – Petitioner directed to pay interest on principal amount as per statute within 6 months [Para 18].

Civil Law - Review – CPC Order 47 Rule 1 / Section 114 – “Innocuous” Direction Procured by Suppression – Recall Justified – Common order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 directed CMDA to consider petitioner’s representation without notice to the affected builder; review applicant showed that material facts (consents/agreements, EC minutes, pending civil suit) were concealed, and the order was misused through public notices – Held: Non-disclosure amounts to unclean hands; error apparent; order reviewed and recalled; writ petition dismissed [Paras 3, 5–7, 13–18].

Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Public Notices Misrepresenting Relief – Writ petitioner sought only consideration of representation; yet issued newspaper notices projecting challenge to planning/building permissions – Such concealment/misrepresentation condemned; sufficient to dismiss writ at threshold [Paras 13–16].

Contractual Consent & Association Resolutions – Clauses Permitting Reconstitution/Phase-II and EC Minutes Allowing Construction – Clause 20 of construction agreement authorised plan amendments/reconstitution with neighbouring property and additional FSI/TDR; handing-over agreement Clause 8 recorded ingress/egress to Phase II and common amenities; EC minutes (31.07.2021 & 29.08.2021) permitted continuation of Phase II Block-4 – Non-disclosure vitiated writ relief [Paras 8–10].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Pending Suit on Contractual Clauses – O.S. No. 74 of 2025 seeking declaration/injunction against access/amenities noted; had it been disclosed, parties would have been relegated to civil court – Another reason to review/recall [Paras 11–12, 15].

Process – No Prior Notice in Writ Due to Limited/“Innocuous” Prayer – Acceptable at admission stage; but once abuse surfaces, Court can correct course in review jurisdiction [Paras 3(ii)-(iii), 16–18].

Decision – Review allowed – Order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 reviewed and recalled – Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Connected WMPs closed [Para 18].*

Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order in prosecution under FSS Act – Dismissed – Petitioners, including Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., its nominees, Banaskantha District Co-op. Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., and CP Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd., sought quashing of summoning order dated 18.01.2021 in complaint for alleged sale of unsafe, sub-standard, and misbranded ‘Amul’ ghee – Petitioners claimed seized product was counterfeit, not supplied/manufactured by them, and proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Court held that invoices, internal records, and counterfeit allegations are private documents requiring proof at trial; not a ground for quashing at summoning stage – Commissioner validly extended limitation under proviso to Section 77 citing COVID-19 lockdown and delayed responses – No exceptional ground made out – Petitions dismissed; summoning order upheld [Paras 42-46, 47-48].

Counterfeit Product Allegation – Evidentiary burden lies at trial stage – Petitioners’ reliance on batch distribution records and prior complaint against distributor to show counterfeit nature of seized goods cannot be conclusively accepted at pre-trial stage – Determination of genuineness of product is a matter of evidence [Paras 42-43].

Limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Complaint within extended time – Though complaint filed beyond one year from seizure date (07.03.2019), Commissioner of Food Safety recorded reasons and granted extension up to three years under Section 77 proviso – Complaint filed on 03.09.2020 held within time [Paras 44-46].

Decision – No ground made out for quashing; petitions dismissed; summoning order dated 18.01.2021 sustained [Paras 47-48].