PIL- Police Misconduct – Misbehaviour with Lawyers – Incident of SHO manhandling a practicing advocate inside police station in presence of his wife, also an advocate – Victim was a prosecutrix in a rape case – Video of incident taken on record – Court holds incident as serious breach of conduct and dignity of legal profession – Commissioner of Police appears in person and assures disciplinary proceedings – Held: Police and advocates are both essential limbs of justice delivery system and must function with mutual respect and coordination – Court expects strict departmental action and compliance report [Paras 1–4, 8].

Judicial Oversight – Institutional Coordination – Court reiterates need for Coordination Committees at district level for resolving grievances between lawyers and police – Refers to earlier directions in Bharat Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (2019 SCC OnLine Raj 782) – Finds that Coordination Committees have not been effectively implemented despite earlier orders – Orders formation of fresh Committees at each district level with participation of judiciary, police, and bar representatives – Directed that details be submitted to Court on next date [Paras 6–7].

Legal Profession – Protection of Advocates’ Rights – Court underscores that advocates performing their professional duties cannot be subjected to intimidation or unlawful confinement by police – Incident reflects need for sensitization and soft-skills training of police personnel dealing with victims and legal representatives – Commissioner directed to extend training not just to Jodhpur Police but across Rajasthan [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Petition registered on oral mention by Bar Associations – Court takes suo motu cognizance – Commissioner of Police directed to submit compliance report on departmental action – Fresh Coordination Committees to be constituted at district level – Case listed for further directions on 08/12/2025.

Criminal Law – Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Acquittal Upheld – Sole eyewitness was the mother of deceased who claimed to have witnessed the incident from close proximity – Trial Court disbelieved her version due to inconsistencies, absence of prompt statement, and lack of corroboration – High Court found no illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s reasoning – Held: Acquittal based on careful scrutiny of evidence and does not warrant interference [Paras 10–12, 31–34, 76–77].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Scope of Interference – Principles Reiterated – Court reiterated that appellate interference with acquittal is justified only in cases of manifest error, perversity, or material illegality – Mere alternative view not sufficient – In present case, Trial Court's findings were supported by evidence and reasonable view had been taken – Appeal dismissed [Paras 75–76].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – PCR Call Untraced – No PCR Officer Examined – Initial DD Entry pointed to different location (Parshu Ram Dharamshala), not linked to final site – No explanation offered as to how police reached house of eyewitness – Prosecution failed to clarify geographical link – Held: Gaps in investigation raised serious doubts over prosecution case [Paras 35–41].

Prosecution Witness – Sole Testimony of Mother – Delay in Statement – Contradictions and Implausibilities – PW-3 (Ved Mati), deceased’s mother, claimed to have witnessed shooting and taken her son to hospital – No record of her being at hospital – Police did not meet her until hours later – Statement allegedly made at 4–5 a.m. but not reflected in postmortem request – Site plan and photographs allegedly taken weeks later – Held: Her version unreliable and unsupported by record [Paras 44–48, 51–52, 56–57, 70–72].

Material Witness Withheld – Wife of Deceased Not Examined – Despite being first informant and person who admitted deceased to hospital, wife of deceased (Sushma) not cited or examined – DD entry suggested quarrel led to injury – Non-examination held to be serious lapse weakening prosecution case – Held: Withholding key witness was fatal [Paras 24, 62–64].

Crime Scene Evidence – Absence of Blood, Bullet, or Forensic Link – Crime team report not filed – No bullet, cartridge case, or blood stains recovered – Car used for transporting injured not examined for blood – No blood-stained clothing seized – Held: Forensic lapses rendered prosecution story doubtful [Paras 54–55, 61, 67–69].

Conduct of Other Witnesses – Behaviour Not Natural – PW-10 (Amrish Kumar) claimed to witness escape of assailants but left for village next day – Did not assist police or report incident – Conduct found unnatural and testimony disbelieved – Inconsistent statements on victim’s condition also noted [Paras 59, 66].

Juvenile Co-Accused – Already Acquitted – Proceedings against third accused (juvenile Bhura @ Sahid) were separated and resulted in acquittal – No appeal filed – Held: Finality of juvenile’s acquittal also relevant in assessing credibility of main prosecution witness [Para 74].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No perversity or illegality found in Trial Court’s acquittal of respondents – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court's findings held plausible and legally sustainable [Para 77].

Civil Law - Succession – Validity of Will – Genuineness and Attestation – Plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 Will dated 10.03.2000 executed by his mother bequeathing suit property – Trial Court decreed suit – First Appellate Court reversed decree citing suspicious circumstances and non-examination of second attesting witness – Held: Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate independent evidence of P.W.2, who proved execution and attestation of Ex.A-1 as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Suspicion regarding thumb impression alongside signature without basis – One attesting witness sufficient under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act when requirements of Section 63 are met [Paras 15-20, 26, 29, 43].

Will – Later Will Prevails – Plaintiff’s mother had earlier executed Ex.B-2 Will in 1995 – Plaintiff proved Ex.A-1 dated 10.03.2000 as her final testament – Held: Ex.A-1 being the later Will overrides Ex.B-2 – Sale by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 post testatrix’s death was void as Defendant No.1 had no title – Defendant No.2’s claim based on invalid transfer rejected [Paras 35-39, 43].

Title and Possession – Defendant No.2’s Claim – Defendant No.2 relied on Ex.B-1 sale deed and possession certificate Ex.B-5 – Held: No specific evidence to establish possession of disputed Ac.1.05 cents of land – Revenue entries insufficient – Plaintiff established title through duly proved Ex.A-1 Will – Defendant No.1 had no legal right to convey [Paras 38, 40-41].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court held First Appellate Court’s interference was unwarranted – Findings contrary to established legal position and based on erroneous interpretation of law – Reappreciation of evidence showed that suspicious circumstances were neither material nor substantiated – Decree of trial court restored [Paras 14, 44].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 29.07.2013 in A.S. No.121 of 2012 set aside – Judgment and decree dated 07.08.2012 in O.S. No.205 of 2001 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner of the suit schedule property including Ac.1.05 cents in Item No.1 – Sale by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 declared invalid – No order as to costs in second appeal.

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Family Pension – Determination of Marital Status – Service Records Prevail – Respondent consistently recorded as wife/nominee in employee’s service register for entire career – No objection raised by department during lifetime of employee – Held: Service records are decisive for pension entitlement; criminal court findings in 498-A/494 IPC case not conclusive for determining marital status for pension purposes [Paras 19–23].

Bigamy Allegation – Effect of Criminal Case – Criminal Court’s observations in C.C. No.132/2006 were confined to charges under Sections 498-A & 494 IPC – Such findings do not constitute a binding civil declaration of marriage nor conclusively establish first/second wife status – Standard of proof differs – Department cannot rely solely on criminal case to deny pension [Paras 20–21].

Competing Marriage Claims – Burden on Department – Department failed to prove that respondent’s marriage was void or that she was the “second wife” during subsistence of earlier marriage – No civil court declaration produced – Long cohabitation (45 years) and three children raise presumption of valid marriage – Department’s reliance on executive circulars inapplicable absent proof of bigamy [Paras 17, 23–25].

Pension Rules – Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of 1980 Rules – Even in case of multiple widows, pension must be shared equally – After death of alleged first wife in 2014, respondent remained the only surviving widow at employee’s death in 2019 – Thus entitled to full family pension [Paras 14, 22].

Service Conduct Rules & Suppression – Allegation that employee suppressed first marriage in service records rejected – No disciplinary proceedings initiated during entire tenure – Department accepted respondent as wife for decades; cannot dispute after employee’s death [Paras 19(iii), 23].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge directing release of family pension to respondent upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 26–27].

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Live and Proximate Link – Delay Vitiates Detention – Alleged occurrence on 11.06.2025; arrest on 22.06.2025; detention order on 21.07.2025 – State failed to satisfactorily explain delay – Mere calendrical narration in affidavit insufficient – Applying Anand Prakash (AIR 1990 SC 516) and Sushanta Kumar Bainik (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333), Court holds live and proximate link snapped; detention vitiated [Paras 6–9].

Detaining Authority Must Consider Custody Status – Non-Application of Mind – Detaining authority failed to record that detenu was already in judicial custody at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on date of detention order; subjective satisfaction regarding imminent likelihood of release on bail absent – Violative of principles in Khudiram Das (1975) 2 SCC 81 and reaffirmed in Ameena Begum (2023) 9 SCC 587 – Detention unsustainable [Paras 10–11].

Subjective Satisfaction – Limited Judicial Review – Court reiterates Khudiram Das doctrine that subjective satisfaction is reviewable on grounds such as non-application of mind, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, incorrect factual assumptions – Detention order failed these tests as detaining authority ignored crucial factual data [Paras 10–11].

Distinction from Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) 20 SCC 609 – DH Dhakad applies where detaining authority considers custody and likelihood of bail but records no explicit finding – Present case more severe: detaining authority completely omitted fact of custody, hence order vitiated on a more fundamental ground [Para 11].

Default Bail – Impact on Preventive Detention Justification – Lone FIR forming basis of detention saw detenu granted default bail on 08.10.2025 due to State’s failure to file final report – Though not the sole ground for quashing, it underscores inconsistency in State sustaining preventive detention while allowing lapse in regular criminal process – Court notes Ram Manohar Lohia’s concentric circle principle distinguishing law and order, public order, security of State [Paras 12–13].

Detention Order Quashed – Procedural & Substantive Violations – Delay unexplained; custody status ignored; subjective satisfaction not in conformity with settled constitutional standards – Detention order, approval and confirmation all set aside – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 14].

Decision:

Writ of Habeas Corpus allowed – Preventive detention order dated 21.07.2025, its approval dated 31.07.2025 and confirmation dated 22.08.2025 quashed – Detenu Longjam Boy Singh @ Khaba directed to be released immediately, if not required in other case(s) – No order as to costs.

[Paras 14]

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Civil Law – Revenue Proceedings – Timely Disposal – Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code – Petitioner sought direction for early disposal of partition suit pending since 2022 – Held: Rule 109(10) mandates an endeavour to decide such suits within six months. The Presiding Officer is directed to decide the case within six months. [Para 9]

Legal Ethics – Lawyers' Strike – Contempt of Court – Held: Continuous strikes by Bar Associations causing delay in judicial proceedings affect the public, especially poor litigants. If a case is adjourned due to a strike, the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association will be liable for contempt of Court for violating the directions in Daya Shankar v. State of U.P.. Litigants are at liberty to file contempt proceedings against such office bearers. [Para 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 11]

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].