Anticipatory Bail – Complaint Case – Issuance of Summons – Section 482 BNSS – Application Not Maintainable – The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case alleging a non-bailable offence on the ground that summons had been issued against him – The Court examined the scope of Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the meaning of “reason to believe” under Section 2(29) BNS, and the distinction between arrest and custody – Held: Mere issuance of summons in a complaint case does not create a reasonable apprehension of arrest by police without warrant, and hence anticipatory bail is not maintainable – Apprehension under Section 482 BNSS must relate to arbitrary or unwanted arrest by police or prosecuting agencies, not custody taken by the court on appearance – Application rejected [Paras 1–3, 27–33].

Bailable Warrant in Complaint Case – Section 482 BNSS – Not Maintainable – In complaint cases where bailable warrant is issued, the accused is entitled to bail upon readiness to furnish it – Hence, no apprehension of arrest or detention arises to sustain anticipatory bail [Para 32(ii)].

Non-Bailable Warrant/Proclamation – Exception – Section 482 BNSS – Ordinarily Not Maintainable – Following Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 202), anticipatory bail can be granted in such cases only in extreme, exceptional circumstances in the interest of justice [Para 32(iii)].

Decision – Present case involved only issuance of summons dated 23.08.2022 without any bailable/non-bailable warrant – Held: Anticipatory bail application dismissed as not maintainable – Applicant permitted to seek regular bail within 15 days [Paras 33–35].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Dowry Prohibition Offences – Scope of Section 199 BNSS – Complaint Maintainable at Place of Temporary Residence – The Magistrate returned the complaint filed under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that the alleged acts occurred at Thiruvalla, not Mavelikkara – Held: Under Section 199 BNSS (analogous to Section 179 CrPC), the court at the place where the victim temporarily resides and suffers mental trauma has jurisdiction – Complaint filed at Mavelikkara by the estranged wife residing there was maintainable – Magistrate’s order returning the complaint found legally unsustainable and was set aside [Paras 2, 4].

Interpretation of Jurisdiction – Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Section 498A IPC Analogous – Principles in Rupali Devi and Priya Indoria Cases Applied – The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka to hold that offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, like Section 498A IPC, are continuing offences – Jurisdiction extends to the place where the woman takes shelter after matrimonial cruelty – Such principles apply equally to dowry-related offences aimed at protecting women from systemic abuse [Para 4].

Decision – Magistrate’s Order Set Aside – Complaint to be Proceeded With – The High Court allowed the original petition, quashed the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, and directed the Magistrate at Mavelikkara to accept the complaint and proceed in accordance with law – Reaffirmed that victims of dowry-related offences may seek redress at the place they have taken refuge and temporarily reside [Final Para].

Civil Law - Design Piracy – Section 2(d), 10(4), 11, 19, and 22 of the Designs Act - Registered Design of Travel Pillow – Interim Injunction Confirmed – Plaintiffs alleged piracy of their registered “Tranquility Neck Pillow” design by Defendants using nearly identical shape, configuration, and colour combinations – Court held the Plaintiff’s design was visually distinctive and not dictated solely by function – Registration was valid and enforceable – Interim injunction continued to prevent further infringement [Paras 16–23, 45–47].

Functionality vs Aesthetic – Shape and Configuration Found Registrable – Defendants argued the design was functional and not registrable – Court held mere existence of functional elements does not exclude aesthetic design from protection – As long as other design alternatives exist for achieving similar function, the defence of functionality must fail – Plaintiff’s design satisfied the criteria under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 [Paras 19–23, 40–45].

Prior Art – International Designs Insufficient for Cancellation – Defendants relied on international registrations to argue prior publication – Court held that absent evidence of Indian registration or publication, no valid ground under Section 19 of the Designs Act was made out – Prima facie case of novelty upheld [Paras 24–25].

Passing-Off – Visual Imitation Likely to Cause Confusion – Plaintiff demonstrated goodwill through sales and marketing – Court held that visual similarity of rival pillows was likely to mislead consumers despite different branding – Defendant’s late market entry and similarity to Plaintiff’s product indicated dishonest adoption – Passing-off action maintainable [Paras 48–49].

Suppression of Facts – Allegation Unfounded – Defendant alleged Plaintiffs suppressed facts about the design’s functionality and prior art – Court found all relevant material was disclosed and evaluated during final hearing – Suppression argument rejected [Para 46].

Interim Relief – Injunction Granted – Balance of Convenience in Plaintiff’s Favour – Plaintiffs made out strong prima facie case – Court restrained Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or promoting infringing products and ordered takedown of listings from online platforms – Interim relief granted in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c) [Paras 47–50].

Arbitral Award – Scope of Challenge under Section 34 – Award Not Interfered – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged award rejecting claims for additional compensation, arguing misinterpretation of contract and failure to consider relevant evidence – Held: Court does not sit in appeal over arbitral award – Arbitrator acted within jurisdiction, assessed evidence, and gave plausible construction of contract terms – Interference not warranted [Paras 7, 14, 21-23].

Interpretation of Contract – Change in Scope of Work – Arbitrator’s Findings Upheld – Petitioner alleged additional work was outside original contract scope, meriting extra compensation – Arbitrator held work was within scope and no additional payment was due – Held: Findings based on contract interpretation are within arbitrator’s domain and immune from judicial interference unless patently illegal – No such illegality found [Paras 10, 18-19].

Reasoned Award – Compliance with Section 31(3) of Arbitration Act – Award Upheld – Petitioner argued award lacked reasoning for rejecting key claims – Held: Arbitrator provided reasoning that enables parties to understand basis of decision – Reasoning, though brief, met statutory requirement and reflected application of mind [Paras 20-21].

Public Policy – Patent Illegality – No Violation Found – Petitioner contended award violated public policy by ignoring documentary evidence and applicable contractual provisions – Held: None of the grounds under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) or 34(2A) made out – Award passed reasonable scrutiny and was not patently illegal or unjust [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Arbitral Award Sustained – Delhi High Court upheld arbitral award in favour of DMRC – Reiterated limited scope of judicial review under Section 34 – No ground made out to set aside award [Para 24].

Motor Accident Claim – Definition of Accident – Saree Entanglement Causing Fall – Death Held Accidental – Tribunal’s View Reversed - Deceased died due to saree getting entangled in rear wheel of insured motorcycle causing it to skid – Tribunal dismissed claim stating it wasn’t a motor accident – Held: Accident includes slipping or overturning of vehicle even without collision – Such incident is an “accident” under law – Insurance company liable [Paras 4–5].

Insurance Law – Four Persons on Two-Wheeler – No Fundamental Breach – Compensation Awarded - Although four persons rode the motorcycle, two were minor children – Court held presence of children with parents not a fundamental breach of insurance policy – Liability of insurer upheld [Para 5].

Loss of Income – Milk Business Proven – Tribunal Ignored Evidence – Income Assessed - Claimants proved deceased earned through milk supply using documentary and witness evidence – Tribunal wrongly disregarded it – Court assessed monthly income at Rs.2,000/- based on evidence [Para 5].

Compensation – Multiplier Method Applied – Future Prospects Added – Quantum Enhanced - Court applied 40% future prospects and multiplier of 18 – Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,32,800/- with 7.5% interest from date of petition till realization – Tribunal’s award of Rs.50,000/- set aside [Para 5–6].

Final Relief – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced – Directions Issued - Appeal allowed – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced compensation within eight weeks – Claimants permitted to withdraw the amount on payment of deficit court fees [Para 6].

Criminal Law - Regular Bail – Money Laundering – Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA – Bail Application Rejected - The applicant, a senior journalist, sought bail in an ECIR based on two FIRs alleging extortion and cheating totaling Rs. 68.68 lakhs – The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged additional unexplained cash transactions of Rs. 50 lakhs, raising the proceeds of crime to Rs. 1.18 crores – Held: Bail denied due to satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and applicant’s failure to explain contradictory statements regarding source of Rs. 20 lakhs seized and Rs. 30 lakhs cash payment – Applicant’s antecedents and risk of influencing witnesses also considered [Paras 6-22].

Proceeds of Crime – Predicate Offence Not Registered – Section 2(u) and Section 66(2) of the PMLA – Predicate Offence Registration Not Mandatory – The applicant argued that in the absence of FIR for the alleged Rs. 50 lakhs, it could not be considered proceeds of crime – Held: Even without FIR, ED can treat the money as proceeds of crime under Section 2(u) based on communication to jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) and Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary – Provisional attachment valid [Paras 14-18].

Contradictory Statements – Seizure of Rs. 20 Lakhs – Statements by Applicant, Wife, and Sister-in-law – Discrepancies Found - The applicant, his wife, and sister-in-law provided conflicting explanations regarding the source of Rs. 20 lakhs seized during a search – Held: Inconsistencies in statements raised suspicion of illegal origin – Affidavit retraction filed post-facto deemed orchestrated and not credible [Paras 9-10, 22].

Cash Transactions – Undisclosed Sources – Link to Money Laundering – Cash payments of Rs. 30 lakhs to Milan Mehta and additional unexplained transfers observed in accounts of applicant, wife, and father – Held: Absence of valid explanation or income support in tax records indicated possible laundering of crime proceeds [Paras 11-12, 21].

Influence and Witness Tampering – Retraction of Statements – Applicant’s Conduct in Custody – Affidavit from Naina Langa retracting earlier statement viewed as influenced – Other witnesses also avoided ED summons – Held: Applicant’s conduct indicated witness tampering, undermining claim for bail [Para 22].

Application of Twin Conditions – Section 45 of the PMLA – Threshold Crossed – Conditions Not Satisfied – The applicant’s assertion that Rs. 1 crore threshold not met was rejected – Court held that once threshold is crossed, twin conditions apply and were not satisfied by the applicant – Bail refused [Paras 20, 23-26].

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Section 45 of PMLA – Presumption of Innocence Not Absolute – Despite filing of prosecution complaint, court found no reasonable ground to believe applicant is not guilty – Seriousness of offence, antecedents and potential to commit further offence weighed – Bail declined [Paras 23-27].

Final Decision – Bail Application Dismissed - Court refused to exercise discretion under Section 45 of the PMLA in favour of the applicant considering seriousness of offence, antecedents, unexplained funds, and threat to prosecution case – Bail application dismissed [Para 27].

Election Law – Corrupt Practices – Date of Candidature Crucial – Petition Rejected – Election of respondent to Davanagere Lok Sabha constituency was challenged alleging bribery and distribution of pressure cookers and cash on 06.04.2024 – Respondent filed nomination on 12.04.2024 – Held: For the purposes of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, a person becomes a “candidate” only upon filing nomination – Thus, actions before nomination cannot constitute corrupt practices – Petition dismissed for want of cause of action [Paras 1, 13-15].

Cause of Action – Pre-Nomination Acts Not Relevant – No Triable Issue – Allegations including cash distribution and inducements on 06.04.2024 were admitted to have occurred before the respondent became a candidate – Relying on Section 79(b) and Supreme Court rulings, Court held such allegations irrelevant – Petition held devoid of cause of action and rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC [Paras 8-15].

Interpretation – Section 79(b) & Section 123 – Candidate Status – Clarified – Under Section 79(b), a person becomes a candidate only upon nomination – Cited Supreme Court decisions in Subhash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao and Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba to reinforce proposition – Thus, only acts post-nomination can be scrutinized under Section 123 – Pre-nomination acts by respondent or her agents cannot form basis for setting aside election [Paras 11-13].

Final Decision – Election Petition Lacked Cause of Action – Dismissed – Since all acts alleged were prior to nomination, Court held no triable issue arises – IA under Order VII Rule 11(a) allowed – Election Petition dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Regular Bail – Sections 331(4), 305, 112, 317(2), 238 of the of the BNS - Minor Theft – Delay in FIR – Interim Bail Confirmed – Petitioner charged under BNS for theft of a bicycle and shoes – CCTV evidence relied upon – FIR lodged after 10 days – Bicycle recovered – Petitioner remained in custody for over three months – Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasized presumption of innocence – Interim bail granted earlier was confirmed as petitioner had complied with all conditions – Petition allowed [Paras 3-7, 39].

Recidivism – Effect on Bail – Scope of Magistrate’s Powers – Held: Even habitual offenders are entitled to bail consideration on merits – Criminal history is a factor but not an absolute bar – Courts must assess role in present offence, risk of absconding, and possibility of reoffending – Recidivism cannot by itself extinguish power of Magistrates to grant bail [Paras 14-18].

BNSS 2023 – Powers of Magistrates under Section 480 – Clarification – Magistrates have jurisdiction to grant bail in all cases triable by them, including non-bailable offences, except when punishable with death or life imprisonment unless special reasons/provisos apply – Discretion must be exercised based on prima facie case and reasonable grounds – Directions issued that Magistrates must not shy away from granting bail in appropriate cases, even for repeat offenders [Paras 19-21, 29-34].

Compromise and Bail – Effect of Settlement – Held: Where victims do not oppose bail or compromise is recorded, such factors are relevant for bail even in non-compoundable cases – In cases under Section 138 NI Act or proclamation proceedings under Section 174-A IPC/209 BNS, compromise in the main offence should allow bail despite proclamation [Paras 35-37].

Systemic Concern – Judicial Hesitancy in Granting Bail – Court observed widespread reluctance among Magistrates to grant bail in cases triable by them – Noted that fear and lack of institutional support often leads to unnecessary custody of poor accused – Directed registry to circulate judgment to all judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh [Paras 10-12, 38].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Interim bail made absolute – Directions issued clarifying powers of Magistrates under BNSS to ensure fair and consistent bail practice [Para 39].

RERA Appeal – Pre-deposit Requirement – Section 43(5) of RERA Act – Appeal Dismissed – The Appellant Welfare Society challenged the RERA Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of its appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit mandate, arguing that it was not a "promoter" under the Act – Held: Constitutional validity of Section 43(5) already upheld by the Supreme Court – Non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit justified dismissal of appeal [Paras 1-2, 26].

Definition of "Promoter" – Applicability to Welfare Societies – Section 2(zk) of RERA Act – Expansive Scope – The Court held that the definition of "promoter" is wide enough to include welfare societies, co-operative housing societies, and other juristic persons acquiring land for development of residential flats for members – Profit motive not essential – Legislative intent is to regulate construction and protect homebuyers, even where development is for members only [Paras 11-22].

Societies as Juristic Persons – Section 6 of Societies Registration Act – Welfare society is a "body corporate" capable of owning property, allotting land to members, and falling within the definition of "person" under Section 2(zg) of RERA Act – Thus, appellant society covered under "promoter" definition despite not yet constructing apartments [Paras 16-20, 23-24].

Precedent – Interim Orders – No Binding Effect – The appellant relied on an interim stay in a connected matter – Held: Interim orders do not have precedential value and cannot override statutory requirements [Para 25].

Decision – Appeal dismissed in limine for non-compliance with Section 43(5) and appellant held to be a "promoter" under RERA Act [Para 26].