Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4) & 319(2) BNS - Impersonation in Public Examination – Extraordinary Nature of Relief – Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging that another person appeared in a recruitment examination on his behalf using his roll number and documents – CCTV footage and seizure of documents indicated impersonation – Held: Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of rule [Paras 8–12].

Cheating and Impersonation – Prima Facie Involvement – Roll number allotted to petitioner and admit card used by co-accused to appear in examination – Court held that such impersonation could not have occurred without petitioner’s complicity – Prima facie case of abetment made out against petitioner [Paras 13–14].

Public Examinations – Sanctity of Recruitment Process – Impersonation in employment examination undermines public confidence and fairness – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent holding that persons involved in cheating in public examinations are not entitled to bail – Public interest outweighs individual liberty at anticipatory bail stage [Paras 14–15, 17].

Parity – Distinction between Anticipatory Bail and Regular Bail – Co-accused granted regular bail – Held: Principle of parity not applicable as parameters for pre-arrest bail and regular bail are materially different [Para 16].

Investigation – Interference by Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail – Investigation at a continuing stage – Grant of anticipatory bail would hamper fair investigation – Petition dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail declined.

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Rights – Trial Not Likely to Conclude Soon – Petitioner alleged to be involved in laundering proceeds of cyber fraud committed against foreign national by providing bank accounts and documents for shell companies – Co-accused allegedly impersonated petitioner and used his documents – Petitioner in custody since 20.12.2023 – 31 witnesses and over 6000 pages of documents – Held: Continued incarceration without early trial violates right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted in line with V. Senthil Balaji v. ED and Manish Sisodia v. ED [Paras 16, 20–26].

PMLA – Section 45 – Twin Conditions – Harmonization with Article 21 – Not an Absolute Bar – Bail provisions under Section 45 PMLA impose twin conditions but must be balanced with the fundamental right to liberty – Where trial is unlikely to conclude and accused has clean antecedents, Constitutional Courts can grant bail despite statutory bar – Stringent bail provisions not meant to perpetuate pre-trial punishment [Paras 18, 19, 22–24].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Petitioner Similarly Placed – Co-accused granted bail by coordinate Bench – Petitioner entitled to bail on grounds of parity, prolonged custody and absence of recovery from his possession [Paras 10, 26].

Cyber Crime – Alleged Identity Misuse – Fake Companies – Bank Account Laundering – Allegations include use of petitioner’s ID to float shell companies and open bank accounts used for layering of foreign funds – Petitioner claimed he was unaware and documents were misused – Held: All such contentions to be evaluated during trial – Bail not to be withheld merely due to seriousness of offence [Paras 4–7, 25].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail in connection with Special Trial (P.M.L.A.) Case No. 12 of 2023 on furnishing bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties – Strict conditions imposed including no travel abroad, no interference with witnesses, and keeping mobile phone active – Court clarifies no opinion on merits of the case [Paras 27–29].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Bar Association – Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Body of private lawyers formed for welfare of its members – Does not discharge public functions – Not ‘State’ or instrumentality under Article 12 of Constitution – Held: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against Bar Association not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Mandamus – Preconditions – For issuance of mandamus, existence of statutory duty and failure to discharge such duty essential – Bar Association under no statutory obligation to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against its members – No mandamus can be issued to compel a private body to act in a particular manner [Paras 17–18].

Advocate Chamber – Permissive Possession – No Enforceable Right – Appellant advocate not allottee of chamber – Occupation based on permissive possession granted by allottee – No independent legal or enforceable right over chamber – Held: Absence of legal right disentitles petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 10–11].

Alleged Criminal Trespass – Alternative Remedies – Allegations of trespass, threats and dispossession amount to criminal offences – Remedy lies under Code of Criminal Procedure – High Court will not issue directions for registration of criminal case when statutory remedies available – Reliance placed on Sakiri Vasu and Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 11, 18].

Bar Council of Delhi – Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Bar Council is statutory body empowered to take disciplinary action against advocates – Appellant neither approached Bar Council nor impleaded it as a party – Held: Mandamus cannot be sought without first invoking jurisdiction of competent statutory authority [Paras 19–21].

Prayer Partly Not Pressed – Effect – Even though prayer for restoration of possession was not pressed subsequently, remaining prayer seeking action against advocates still not maintainable – Lack of public law element fatal to writ petition [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Intra-court appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition as not maintainable affirmed – Liberty reserved to appellant to pursue appropriate civil, criminal or disciplinary remedies in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].

Civil Law – Recall of Witness – Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Discretionary Power – Witness once discharged cannot be routinely recalled for cross-examination – Trial Court failed to ascertain if valid reasons existed for Defendant No.1’s failure to cross-examine at relevant stage – Held: Order recalling P.W.2 unsustainable – Power under Order XVIII Rule 17 must be exercised sparingly and not to fill evidentiary gaps – Impugned orders set aside [Paras 4–9, 12]

Judicial Discipline – Error in Trial Court Order – Inconsistencies in identifying parties and witnesses – Trial Court incorrectly described plaintiff as petitioner in recall application and misidentified P.W.2 as P.W.1 – Held: Orders reflect non-application of mind and lack of diligence – Duty of court to ensure accuracy and clarity in orders [Paras 10–11]

Procedural Law – Scope of Section 151 CPC – Inherent Powers – Can be invoked only when no express provision applies – Recall of witness not permissible merely on ground of potential prejudice or interest of justice unless supported by bona fide cause – Inherent power cannot override settled procedural safeguards [Paras 7–9]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Power under Article 227 – High Court interferes to prevent abuse of process – Trial Court failed to assess necessity, did not apply legal standard under Order XVIII Rule 17 – Held: Misuse of discretion – High Court justified in setting aside such order under Article 227 [Paras 6, 9, 12]

Decision: CMP allowed – Impugned orders dated 06.12.2023 and 24.01.2024 set aside – Trial Court’s order permitting Defendant No.1 to recall and cross-examine P.W.2 quashed – Court emphasises that recalling of witnesses is an exception, not the rule – Expresses appreciation for Amicus Curiae assistance [Paras 12–13]

Minority Educational Institutions – Unrecognized Madarsa – Power of Closure by State Authorities – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – District Minority Welfare Officer directed closure of the petitioner Madarsa on the ground that it was being run without recognition – Regulation 13 of the 2016 Regulations only provides consequence of non-recognition as denial of government grant – No provision empowering authorities to stop functioning of an unrecognized Madarsa – Held: Mere lack of recognition cannot justify closure of the institution [Paras 2–4, 7].

Constitution of India – Article 30(1) – Classification of Minority Educational Institutions – Reliance placed on Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 53 and In re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 – Minority institutions categorized into (i) those seeking neither aid nor recognition, (ii) those seeking aid, and (iii) those seeking recognition alone – Institutions falling in first category fully protected under Article 30(1) – Petitioner Madarsa neither seeking aid nor recognition – Held: Its functioning is constitutionally protected [Paras 5–6].

Administrative Law – Absence of Statutory Authority – Invalid Executive Action – State argued that unrecognized Madarsa may create complications for students – However, no statutory provision enabling closure on this ground – Executive order without authority of law held unsustainable [Paras 7, 9–10].

Relief – Quashing of Closure Order with Clarifications – Impugned order dated 01.05.2025 directing closure quashed – Clarified that unrecognized Madarsa not entitled to government grants – Madarsa Board not obliged to allow students to appear in examinations – Qualifications acquired not to confer any benefit vis-à-vis State Government – Directions issued to remove seal within 24 hours [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 01.05.2025 quashed – Seal on Madarsa directed to be opened within 24 hours subject to conditions stated.

Criminal Law – Murder and Rape – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC for alleged rape and murder of a young woman inside a house – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and alleged “last seen” circumstance – No direct eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 26–34, 53–55].

Circumstantial Evidence – Golden Principles – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Prosecution relied on recovery of articles, alleged presence of accused at spot and medical evidence – Circumstances neither conclusively proved nor inconsistent with innocence of accused – Possibility of alternative hypothesis not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained when circumstances fall short of the standard laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case [Paras 26–33].

Last Seen Theory – Limited Applicability – Accused allegedly seen leaving the house where deceased was found dead – Appellant not last seen together with deceased – Mere sighting of accused coming out of the house insufficient to complete chain of circumstances – Held: “Last seen” theory by itself cannot form basis of conviction without other clinching links [Paras 33–35].

Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Credibility and Cautious Scrutiny – Prosecution relied mainly on testimony of chance witnesses who were neither natural nor convincing in their presence at spot – Conduct of witnesses found unnatural – Failure to explain presence satisfactorily – Held: Testimony of chance witnesses unreliable and unsafe to base conviction upon [Paras 35–45].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injury – Weapon Not Established – Deceased sustained a deep, wide incised wound on neck severing vital structures – Alleged weapon was knife – Held: Injury of such magnitude could not be caused by ordinary knife – Prosecution failed to explain inconsistency between medical evidence and alleged weapon – Serious doubt created about prosecution story [Paras 47–49].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Ante-timing and Doubtful Recoveries – Delay in recording statements, unexplained overwriting in Panchayatnama, late dispatch of FIR, doubtful recovery of book and postcard without witness signatures – Held: Though lapses alone may not be fatal, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence such defects assume significance and weaken prosecution case [Paras 46, 50–52].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Possible – Evidence on record gave rise to more than one plausible hypothesis – Possibility of involvement of persons other than appellant not ruled out – Held: Where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be adopted [Paras 52–54].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Service Law – Recruitment – Age Relaxation – SEBC Candidate – Migration to Unreserved Category – Petitioner belonging to SEBC category applied for post of Management Trainee (HR) against unreserved vacancy – Advertisement prescribed maximum age of 32 years for UR candidates with age relaxation for reserved categories – No vacancy earmarked for SEBC category – Petitioner exceeded upper age limit for UR category – Held: In absence of express provision permitting migration with relaxation, reserved category candidate cannot claim age relaxation while competing for unreserved post [Paras 6–10, 12–13].

Recruitment Advertisement – Binding Nature – Eligibility Conditions – Recruitment governed strictly by terms of advertisement – Age limits and relaxations form part of employer’s policy domain – Court cannot rewrite or dilute conditions of advertisement – Online portal correctly rejected application as over-aged with reference to UR age criteria – Judicial interference unwarranted [Paras 10–11].

Reservation Law – Age Relaxation vis-à-vis Reservation – Distinction – Age relaxation is a category-based concession ancillary to reservation – Such concession cannot be availed independently when no post is reserved for the concerned category – Grant of such relaxation without reservation would result in hostile discrimination against unreserved candidates – Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11, 13, 15].

Precedent – Applicability – Union of India v. Sajib Roy – Supreme Court held that migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts with relaxations is not an inherent right – Such migration must be expressly authorized by recruitment rules or notification – Ratio applied to deny claim of SEBC candidate in absence of enabling clause in advertisement [Paras 9–10].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Policy – Limited Scope – Fixation of age limits, category-wise vacancies and relaxations fall within exclusive domain of employer – Courts to interfere only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or illegality – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rejection of petitioner’s application upheld – Interim orders vacated – No entitlement to age relaxation against unreserved post in absence of SEBC vacancy [Paras 14–15].

Civil Law – Order 41 Rule 21 CPC – Rehearing of Appeal – Ex-parte Judgment – Delay of 86 Days – Delay Condoned – Application for rehearing maintainable where sufficient cause shown for non-appearance of respondent when appeal was heard ex-parte [Paras 1–3].

Advocate’s Default – Litigant Not to Suffer – Respondents had engaged counsel who appeared initially but stopped appearing thereafter – No Special Process/Notice (SPC) issued by Court despite continuous absence of counsel – Applicants unaware of listing and hearing of appeal – Sufficient cause established for non-appearance [Paras 7, 11].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right of Hearing – Party having done everything expected by engaging counsel cannot be penalised for advocate’s lapse – Litigant not required to act as watchdog over advocate – Reliance placed on Rafiq v. Munshilal and Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad – Rehearing warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 8–9].

Knowledge of Ex-parte Decree – Irrelevant Consideration – Relevant factor is cause for absence on date of hearing and not subsequent knowledge of judgment – Participation in execution proceedings does not disentitle applicant from relief under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC [Para 10].

Delay and Conduct – Bona fide Explanation Accepted – No material to show deliberate avoidance of proceedings – Absence attributable to counsel’s failure to inform – Distinction drawn from cases where parties were negligent or relief discretionary [Paras 7, 11].

Costs – Balancing of Equities – Though rehearing allowed, applicants directed to compensate respondents – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed as condition for rehearing [Para 12].

Decision – Application Allowed – Delay Condoned – Ex-parte Judgment Dated 15.04.2025 Recalled – Second Appeal Directed to be Listed for Rehearing – MCC Disposed of [Paras 1, 11–12].

Civil Law - Will – Proof and Suspicious Circumstances – Burden on Propounder – Deceased owner Buddhsen admittedly left behind wife and children as natural heirs – Defendant No.1 claimed title on the basis of Will dated 18.09.1985 – When Will excludes wife and children and bequeaths entire property to a non-relative belonging to a different caste, strong suspicious circumstances arise – Burden lies heavily on propounder to dispel such suspicion – Failure to satisfactorily explain exclusion of natural heirs renders Will doubtful and unenforceable [Paras 11, 15–21].

Will – Attestation and Evidence – Interested and Unreliable Witnesses – Though formal attestation sought to be proved under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, evidence of attesting witnesses revealed inconsistencies and unnatural conduct – Witnesses closely connected with defendant and having doubtful credibility – Circumstances surrounding execution and alleged registration before Notary found improbable – Held: Mere formal proof insufficient when execution surrounded by grave suspicion [Paras 11–14, 19].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Natural Heirs – Will executed in favour of wealthy and influential person depriving poor testator’s wife and children of sole property – Reasons stated in Will found fabricated and unnatural – Testator owning no other property – Date gap between execution and verification of Will unexplained – Held: Suspicious circumstances not removed by propounder [Paras 16–21].

Letter Relied upon by Propounder – Fabrication – Letter dated 13.12.1985 (Ex.D-1) relied upon to justify Will – Typed document allegedly written by poor testator – Contents appeared self-serving and prepared to support Will – Held: Letter unreliable and confers no benefit on defendant [Para 15].

Mutation and Sale Deed – Effect – Mutation obtained on basis of doubtful Will – Subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 based on invalid title – Held: Mutation order and sale deed are null and void being derivative of invalid Will [Paras 2, 24].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Possession – Plaintiffs established themselves as legal heirs of deceased owner – Will not proved beyond suspicion – Trial Court rightly decreed suit declaring Will, mutation and sale deed null and void and directing restoration of possession – No perversity or legal infirmity found [Paras 24–25].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – Will dated 18.09.1985, mutation and sale deed declared null and void – Plaintiffs entitled to possession.