Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 - Sections 3 and 4 - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120B and 384 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Petitioners Deepak and Pradeep arrested in 2021 for facilitating extortion of Rs 217 crores by an Organised Crime Syndicate led by Sukesh Chandra Shekhar while in judicial custody - Prosecution alleged Deepak managed hawala transfers and identified victims while Pradeep acted as a field agent for collection - Petitioners remained in custody for approximately 4 years and 10 months - Trial involved 23 accused and 403 witnesses with charges just recently framed - Court noted that the petitioners were operational facilitators rather than strategic architects of the crime - Held - Continued pre-trial incarceration would assume a punitive character incompatible with Article 21 - Statutory restrictions under Section 21 MCOCA and Section 45 PMLA must yield to constitutional guarantees where trial conclusion is not imminent and custody is prolonged - Bail granted - [Paras 1-36].

Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Interplay with Special Statutes - MCOCA and PMLA - Prolonged pre-trial detention - Court observed that while special statutes impose stringent twin conditions for bail - such restrictions do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III - Relying on K.A. Najeeb and Gulfisha Fatima - Court held that statutory rigours "melt down" where there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and period of incarceration already undergone is substantial - Held - The ground of prolonged incarceration must be considered as a constitutionally protected claim notwithstanding statutory embargoes - [Paras 14-24].

Criminal Law - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 45 - Statutory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 479 - Petitioner Deepak in PMLA case underwent custody of 4 years and 9 months - Maximum sentence under Section 4 PMLA is 7 years - Petitioner completed more than half of the maximum possible sentence - Court applied Section 479 BNSS (corresponding to Section 436A CrPC) - Held - Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the half-sentence rule despite the rigours of Section 45 PMLA - Parity also extended as 13 out of 18 co-accused were already enlarged on bail - [Paras 29-35].

Criminal Law - Evidence - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 - Section 18 - Confessional Statements - Retraction - Prosecution relied on confessional statements of petitioners and co-accused to oppose bail - Petitioners claimed statements were retracted at the first opportunity - Court held that while Section 18 statements cannot be disregarded at the bail stage - their probative value and the effect of retraction are matters for trial - Factual examination of roles revealed petitioners acted strictly on instructions of others without autonomous decision-making authority - Held - Associative proximity alone insufficient to justify indefinite pre-trial detention - [Paras 7, 10, 28, 45].

Decision: Bail applications allowed - Petitioners directed to be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs 2,50,000 each with two sureties - Conditions imposed regarding surrender of passports and non-tampering of evidence.

Criminal Law - Pre-arrest Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Petitioners A1 to A6 sought anticipatory bail in Crime No 70 of 2025 involving allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 316(5) 318(2) 351(3) and 61(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023 - Allegations stated that accused induced defacto complainant to invest Rs 3 crores through attractive promises but misappropriated funds for personal use and unlawfully mortgaged the complainants land - Petitioners contended the dispute was civil in nature citing pending suits O S No 91 of 2025 and O S No 14 of 2025 - Petitioner No 2 was the wife of A3 and others were relatives with no active role in the business transactions - Prosecution and defacto complainant opposed bail citing A1 as the kingpin and necessity of custodial interrogation - Court observed that while allegations against A1 as the principal accused were serious no substantial grounds existed to justify denial of bail to A2 to A6 - Held - Application partly allowed - Pre-arrest bail granted to A2 to A6 subject to execution of bail bonds of Rs 20000 each and cooperation with investigation - Petition dismissed regarding Petitioner No 1 - [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Law - Civil vs Criminal Liability - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 318(2) - Cheating - Pendency of civil suits regarding same subject matter - Determining entitlement to anticipatory bail for secondary accused - Held - When civil disputes are already pending before competent courts and secondary accused are relatives with no specific roles in alleged business transactions the court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail provided they cooperate with the investigation - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted to Petitioner Nos 2 to 6 (A2 to A6) with conditions – Application dismissed in respect of Petitioner No 1 (A1).

Criminal Law - Cancellation of Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439(1) - Perversity in Trial Court Order - Petitioner-State challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Bandipora enlarging the respondent-accused on bail in a case involving charges under Sections 341 376 and 506 IPC - Trial court granted bail by doubting the prosecutrix due to non-seizure of a lighter and muffler and the absence of spermatozoa on clothing - High Court observed that the trial court fell into grave error by undertaking a meticulous analysis of the evidence at the bail stage which is impermissible under law - Court emphasized that bail once granted can be revoked if the order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on irrelevant material - Held - Order granting bail was based on irrelevant considerations and failed to account for the gravity of the offence and its societal impact - Bail cancelled and respondent directed to surrender within one month - [Paras 1-20].

Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence at Bail Stage - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - Reliability of Prosecutrix - Trial court discarded the prima facie involvement of the accused based on minor contradictions in the site plan and the non-recovery of specific items used during the commission of the offence - High Court held that such discrepancies or the absence of spermatozoa do not discredit a statement of sterling quality especially at the stage of considering bail - Court noted that the prosecutrix was an illiterate lady and minor contradictions regarding the site or date of occurrence are not grounds to throw out her testimony - Held - It is not open to a trial court to undertake a meticulous and detailed analysis of evidence to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the prosecutrix is unreliable - [Paras 12-15].

Criminal Law - Right to Speedy Trial vs Gravity of Offence - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439 - Incarceration Period - Respondent sought to sustain the bail order on the ground of eighteen months of incarceration - High Court noted that charges were framed on 11.04.2023 and material witnesses were examined within a year showing no undue delay by the prosecution - Court observed that granting bail in heinous crimes against women at the very inception of trial has a chilling effect on the safety of women - Held - Delay of a few months in a trial for a heinous crime like rape does not automatically lead to infringement of the right to speedy trial so as to justify enlargement on bail - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of the Additional Sessions Judge Bandipora set aside – Bail granted to the respondent-accused cancelled – Respondent directed to surrender within one month.

^{Writ Law - Surveillance and History Sheets - Rajasthan Police Rules 1965 - Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 - Opening and reopening of history sheets - Petitioner challenged order dated 24.04.2014 reopening his history sheet based on FIRs registered in 2012 involving communal riots - Petitioner contended that since he was never convicted he could not be termed a habitual offender and relied on Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act 1953 which requires three convictions - Court observed that the definition of habitual offender under the Act of 1953 cannot be imported into the Police Rules of 1965 - Rule 4.4(3)(b) specifically allows entry of names of persons reasonably believed to be habitual offenders whether they have been convicted or not - Reasonable belief based on repetitive criminal activities is sufficient to justify opening a history sheet - Held - The action of police in reopening the history sheet in 2014 based on the then-pending 2012 criminal matters was not faulty - [Paras 1-21].}

^{Writ Law - Closure of History Sheet - Rajasthan Police Rules 1965 - Rule 4.12 and Rule 4.13 - Discontinuance of surveillance for good behavior - Petitioner sought closure of history sheet citing acquittals in all cases and absence of fresh criminal involvement since 2012 - Court noted that petitioner was acquitted in two 2012 FIRs and discharged in the third in 2019 - Rule 4.12(1) mandates transfer of history sheet to personal file if a person is no longer addicted to crime - Rule 4.13(4) allows destruction of personal file if a person maintains good behavior for seven consecutive years - Court referred to uniform criteria in Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan where history sheets should not be sustained for cases older than 10-15 years - Held - Petitioner’s case requires fresh consideration by the Superintendent of Police in light of subsequent acquittals and long-term good behavior - [Paras 22-26].}

^{Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Superintendent of Police Sirohi directed to consider the case of the petitioner for closure of history sheet in light of the observations regarding Rule 4.12 and 4.13 of the Rules of 1965 and the uniform criteria established by the Court.}

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Bar of suit - Readiness and Willingness - Appellant entered into a sale agreement with the 1st Respondent for a consideration of Rs. 6,20,000/- and paid Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance - Disputes arose regarding the extent of land where Appellant claimed a shortage of 6 kuzhies and demanded a price reduction - Appellant initially filed O.S. No. 251 of 2006 for permanent injunction without seeking specific performance - Subsequently filed O.S. No. 8 of 2007 for specific performance - Trial Court dismissed the suit but ordered refund of advance - High Court found that the Appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness as he neither deposited the balance consideration nor produced evidence of financial capacity - Held - The suit for specific performance was hit by the principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC as the relief was available but not sought in the earlier suit based on the same cause of action - Trial Court's findings on lack of readiness and willingness upheld - [Paras 16-18].

Civil Law - Possession - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 6 - Limitation for suit - Summary suit for possession by person dispossessed of immovable property - Appellant claimed dispossession on 26.03.2007 and filed O.S. No. 14 of 2008 - Plaint was signed on 25.06.2007 but actually presented before the Court only on 26.10.2007 - Section 6(2) mandates a suit must be brought within six months from the date of dispossession - Appellant failed to produce evidence that the suit was presented within the statutory period - Held - The suit was clearly barred by limitation under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act - No reason to interfere with the lower court's dismissal - [Paras 14-15].

Civil Law - Bonafide Purchaser - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Protection of subsequent purchaser - 1st Respondent sold the property to the 2nd Respondent during the pendency of the dispute - Trial Court held 2nd Respondent to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice - High Court observed that since the Appellant's claim for specific performance failed on merits and procedural grounds the status of the subsequent purchaser became secondary - Held - Findings of the Trial Court maintained - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal and Revision Petition dismissed – Trial Court judgments in O.S.No. 8 of 2007 and O.S.No. 14 of 2008 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Waqf Property - Waqf Act 1995 - Sections 4, 5 and 36(4) - Statutory Survey and Notification - Appellant claimed to be hereditary Mutawalli of a 240-year-old Dargah situated on Government Poromboke land leased to Bharat Scouts and Guides - Waqf Board appointed Respondent 5 as Mutawalli and directed registration of the Dargah based on a Trust Deed without conducting a statutory survey as mandated by law - Waqf Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the Board’s resolution - High Court observed that a survey under Section 4 and notification under Section 5 are sine qua non for declaring a property as Waqf - Held - mere religious use or existence of a tomb is insufficient to confer Waqf status without permanent dedication by a person professing Islam and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements - Board cannot assume automatic control without proving the property is legally Waqf - Tribunal order and Board resolution set aside - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-25].

Civil Law - Mutawalliship - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 64 - Appointment and Removal - Waqf Board appointed Respondent 5 as Mutawalli based on a private Trust Deed and representation letters without following the procedure for removal of the existing Mutawalli or verifying the character of the property - Appellant contended he served as hereditary Mutawalli for 40 years - Held - appointment of a Mutawalli presupposes the existence of a validly declared Waqf - resolution passed by the Board without establishing jurisdictional facts is unsustainable - [Paras 3-14 and 24].

Evidence Law - Waqf by User - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 3 - Proof of Dedication - Respondents contended that the Dargah was a Waqf by user and originally a burial ground - Court found the land was classified as Government Poromboke in revenue records and no legal document of dedication existed - Held - Waqf must be established through intention ownership and act of dedication - in the absence of evidence of long public user or statutory notification the property cannot be presumed to be Waqf - [Paras 15-23].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – Resolution dated 23.08.2023 and consequential order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Waqf Board are set aside – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.

Civil Law - Specific Endowment - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 - Sections 6(16) and 6(19) - Religious Charities - Suit property described as M schedule in a 1960 partition deed was dedicated for performing charities at temples and feeding pilgrims - Appellants challenged the sale of this property to the 19th defendant - Trial Court dismissed the suit citing maintainability and limitation - High Court analyzed the nature of the endowment - Held - Property dedicated for charities associated with Hindu festivals or religious character constitutes a specific endowment under Section 6(19) - Statutory definitions and Supreme Court precedents confirm that such endowments fall under the exclusive domain of the HR&CE Act - [Paras 8-10].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Indian Trusts Act 1882 - Section 34 - Coram Non Judice - The parties had previously obtained permission to sell the property from the Principal Sub Court under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act - High Court noted that the Indian Trusts Act is inapplicable to public religious or charitable endowments - Section 108 of the HR&CE Act bars jurisdiction of civil courts when the field is occupied by the HR&CE Act - Held - The order of the Principal Sub Court granting permission for sale was without jurisdiction and coram non judice - Permission for alienation of such property must be obtained from the Commissioner of HR&CE under Section 34 of the HR&CE Act - [Paras 10-11].

Civil Law - Sale by Trustees - Validity - Non-joinder of all trustees - Suit property belonged to a trust where the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 18 were descendants/trustees - Sale deed was executed only by a few defendants - Ratio Decidendi - When a document is executed on behalf of a trust - all trustees must join in the transaction unless delegation is proved - Held - Non-joining of the plaintiffs as signatories to the sale transaction renders the sale void - Sale process was further vitiated by fraud and irregularities in the auction - [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 94 - Suit to set aside transfer of immovable property comprised in a religious or charitable endowment - Sale took place in 2010 and the suit was filed in 2015 - Held - Article 94 provides a 12-year limitation period from the date the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff - Suit was filed well within the limitation period - [Para 14].

Civil Law - Maintainability - Recovery of Possession - Possession follows title - Respondents argued suit was not maintainable as plaintiffs did not pray for recovery of possession despite 19th defendant being in possession - Property was vacant land - Held - In cases of vacant land possession follows title - Since the sale was vitiated by fraud and the purchaser had no valid title - he cannot be in legal possession - Plaintiffs as co-trustees are deemed to be in joint possession - Relief of declaration and injunction was sufficient - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal suit allowed - Judgment and decree of the Trial Court set aside - Suit decreed as prayed for - Sale deed dated 28.06.2010 declared null and void - 19th defendant permitted to withdraw the deposited sale consideration with accrued interest - No costs.

Sports Law - Election of State Association - National Sports Development Code 2011 - Applicability - Appellant state sports association challenged the refusal of Respondent No 1 National Federation to recognize its Executive Committee elected under the supervision of a court appointed Returning Officer - Elections were conducted under Model Election Guidelines instead of the National Sports Development Code based on a non-existent order of the Orissa High Court cited before the Returning Officer - Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition noting that six elected office bearers were ineligible government employees under the Code and the post of Chairman was unauthorized - Appellant argued that the judgment in Rahul Mehra v Union of India was delivered after the elections and could not be applied retrospectively - Court found that the Code was always applicable to constituents of National Sports Federations and subsequent judgments were only clarificatory - Held - No infirmity in the judgment of the Single Judge as elections were in breach of the Code and based on a non-existent order - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-33].

Writ Law - Judicial Precedent - Retrospective Application - Clarificatory Nature - Appellant contended that the legal position regarding the applicability of the Sports Code to state associations changed after their elections were concluded - Court observed that the decisions in Rahul Mehra and KP Rao were clarificatory and merely explained existing law rather than creating new law from a specific date - Held - The Sports Code was always applicable to the Appellant and no issue of retrospective application arises - [Paras 20-23].

Evidence Law - Fraud and Misrepresentation - Reliance on non-existent order - Returning Officer proceeded on the premise that the Sports Code was inapplicable based on a purported order of the High Court of Orissa which was later discovered to be fabricated - Respondent No 1 challenged the electoral process upon discovery of the discrepancy - Held - Reliance on a non-existent order vitiated the electoral process from its inception and the Returning Officer was precluded from examining candidate eligibility on the touchstone of the Sports Code - [Paras 26-30].

Writ Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Enquiry - Disaffiliation - Appellant alleged that it was unlawfully disaffiliated based on a fraudulent communication and alleged mala fides by Respondent No 1 in constituting a parallel body - Held - These issues necessitate an elaborate evidentiary enquiry which cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction - Appellant granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law - [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Single Judge judgment affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies regarding issues of disaffiliation and alleged fraud requiring evidentiary enquiry.

Criminal Law - Summoning of Witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Reopening of pre-charge stage - Applicant filed a complaint against opposite parties under Sections 406 504 and 506 IPC - Statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC - Accused summoned in 2014 - Complainant's statement under Section 244 CrPC recorded in 2020 - Counsel for complainant made a specific written endorsement in 2021 stating no further evidence would be adduced under Section 244 - Discharge application rejected and formal charges framed in March 2022 - Applicant moved application under Section 311 CrPC in December 2025 seeking to examine witnesses under Section 244 stage citing negligence of previous counsel - Trial Court rejected application as being filed long after pre-charge stage was closed - Sessions Judge affirmed rejection in revision - High Court observed that while Section 311 confers wide discretionary power it cannot be used to undo an explicit waiver or alter the statutory structure of trial to the prejudice of the opposite party - Held - Criminal trial cannot move backward to record pre-charge evidence once formal charges exist on record - Allowing such plea after four years would collapse the criminal justice system into endless delays - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Warrant Trial Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 244 and 246 - Admissibility of pre-summoning evidence - Complainant sought to examine witnesses under Section 311 CrPC who were previously examined only under Section 202 CrPC - Held - Only those witnesses who were duly subjected to examination-in-chief under Section 244 before framing of charges can be recalled for cross-examination under Section 246 - Witnesses recorded at pre-summoning stage under Section 202 do not automatically become substantive trial evidence - If complainant fails to examine them under Section 244 they cannot be directly cross-examined under Section 246 - Fairness of trial must be seen from the perspective of the accused and society and not just the victim - Competence of a lawyer is subjective and change of counsel is no ground to seek a de novo trial or reopen closed stages - [Paras 8-21].

Decision: Application dismissed – Orders of the Trial Court dated 20.12.2025 and Revisional Court dated 07.04.2026 affirmed.