Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. – Maintainability – Prospective accused challenged the order of Magistrate directing registration of FIR and investigation under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) B.N.S.S. – Magistrate acted on complaint by retired SC community bank officer alleging conspiracy and forgery by bank officials to defame him – Held: Under Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of UP, prospective accused has no locus to challenge pre-cognizance investigation order – Application dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 3, 8, 15, 21, 22].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Allegation by SC complainant of false implication by fellow bank officers through forged complaint – Magistrate found prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and defamation – Directed police to register FIR and investigate – Held: No illegality in Magistrate’s order as procedure under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) B.N.S.S. duly followed [Paras 4, 5, 6, 13, 20].

Police Investigation – Direction under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. – Magistrate satisfied prima facie cognizable offence made out – Considered police report, reply by bank officer, and supporting documents – Held: Application supported by affidavit; procedure under new B.N.S.S. complied – Direction to lodge FIR justified – No abuse of process [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 20].

Prospective Accused – Right to be Heard – No Locus at Pre-Cognizance Stage – Applicant had not been summoned or chargesheeted – Challenge to registration of FIR held impermissible – Reliance on Om Prakash Ambadkar held distinguishable as that case involved improper application of judicial mind, not locus of prospective accused – Father Thomas (FB) judgment binding [Paras 14, 15, 21].

Decision: Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. by prospective accused dismissed as not maintainable – Magistrate’s direction for FIR registration and investigation upheld [Para 22].

Criminal Law - Section 304A, 315, 323, 506 of the IPC – Quashing - Medical Negligence – Delay in Caesarean – Failure to Act Timely – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – The applicant, a qualified gynaecologist, delayed surgery despite obtaining consent at 12 noon – Anaesthetist was called at 3:30 PM and operation performed at 5:30 PM – Foetus died due to “Prolonged Labour” – Held: Medical Board’s opinion disregarded as key documents like post mortem and multiple contradictory O.T. notes were not considered – Delay in medical response amounts to prima facie criminal negligence warranting trial [Paras 19–23, 34–42].

Criminal Liability of Doctors – Standards and Threshold – Role of Mens Rea and Gross Negligence – Held: Prosecution of a doctor requires proof of gross negligence or recklessness, not merely civil wrong – Where surgery is delayed without justification despite prior consent and medical urgency, it crosses the threshold of gross negligence – Observed: Requisite infrastructure lacking at nursing home, which adds to culpability – Jacob Mathew and Kusum Sharma principles applied [Paras 28–36].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Quashment of Proceedings – Not Permissible Where Prima Facie Case Exists – Applicant sought quashing of summoning order based on Medical Board report and defence evidence – Held: Where foundational facts are disputed and prima facie case is made out, quashing not warranted – Trial is proper forum to determine truth after evidence is adduced – High Court cannot evaluate defence evidence at pre-trial stage [Paras 43–45].

Decision: Application Dismissed – Proceedings to Continue – The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC holding that a prima facie case of criminal negligence is made out against the applicant – Found that timing of consent, delay in surgery, and non-consideration of key evidence by the Medical Board require full trial – Applicant free to raise all defences during trial – Observations in judgment not to influence outcome of trial [Paras 43–48].

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Unauthorized Absence – Validity of Dismissal – Tribunal’s Interference – Set Aside – Respondent workman, a permanent underground loader, remained absent without authorization from 28.02.1997 till conclusion of enquiry on 13.03.1999 – Disciplinary proceedings held ex parte after repeated notices – Tribunal held dismissal disproportionate and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages – Held: Tribunal’s order unsustainable for lack of detailed reasons, failure to consider enquiry report, and erroneous finding of “absence of short period” contrary to record – Enquiry was conducted by competent authority, in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice – There was sufficient evidence to establish misconduct – Interference by Tribunal unwarranted [Paras 24–29].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – High Court’s Limited Role – Court reiterated that under Articles 226/227, reappreciation of evidence is impermissible – Interference only if findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or proceedings violate natural justice – Applied principles from Abrar Ali, Heem Singh, and P. Gunasekaran – Found no procedural irregularity or perversity in disciplinary authority’s decision [Paras 18–21, 28].

Relief – Reference answered holding dismissal legal and justified – Employee entitled only to benefits permissible to a dismissed employee under law, including adjustment of any leave due – Writ petition allowed, award set aside [Paras 30–31].

Contempt Petition – Disconnection of Water Supply – Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Judgment – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Petitioner alleged willful disobedience of Supreme Court order in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India by builder disconnecting water supply in retaliation for protest over non-provision of amenities – Court found the dispute to be a private civil matter with no cogent proof of willful disobedience – Held: Contempt jurisdiction not attracted – Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- to be deposited with Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association [Paras 6-7, 14-16].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Disconnection of Water Supply – Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Directions – Petition Held Not Maintainable – Petitioner alleged that builder disconnected water supply to her flat in retaliation for residents’ protest over non-provision of basic amenities – Claimed violation of Supreme Court judgment prohibiting stoppage of essential services – Court held that dispute is purely private and civil in nature between petitioner and builder, without evidence of willful disobedience of Apex Court order – Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked in such circumstances [Paras 6-7].

Frivolous Litigation – Abuse of Process – Filing Contempt Petition Despite Directions to Avail Civil Remedies – Petitioner persisted in pressing contempt petition despite being advised to approach proper civil forum – Court found petition to be vexatious, constituting gross abuse of judicial process – Relied on Supreme Court rulings in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and K.C. Tharakan v. SBI – Emphasized need to deter unscrupulous litigants from forum shopping and repetitive meritless filings [Paras 8-12].

Costs – Exemplary Costs to Deter Abuse of Judicial Process – Court imposed costs of ₹50,000/- to be deposited with Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association for construction/renovation of Women Bar Room – Directed recovery as arrears of land revenue in case of default [Paras 14-16].

Anticipatory Bail – Financial Scam – Co-operative Society – Pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions – Sneha MACS allegedly collected ₹6.32 crore from depositors, failed to repay – Accused No. 3, aged 71, retired bank officer, served as Director/CEO only from April 2022 to October 2024 – Majority of deposits mobilised before his tenure – Petitioner claimed to have invested ₹2 crore from own and family’s funds, making him also a victim – Investigation revealed no evidence of siphoning deposits for personal benefit – Petitioner cooperated with Investigation and Inquiry Officers; seizure of documents and material completed – Fixed residence and landed property; no risk of absconding – Health issues noted (kidney, thyroid, diabetes) – Court held custodial interrogation unwarranted; anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with strict conditions [Paras 19–21].

Conditions Imposed – Personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance before Station House Officer every Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. till charge sheet; no threats or inducement to witnesses; no travel outside district without SHO’s permission; surrender of passport or affidavit if none [Para 21].

Decision – Criminal petition allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Para 21].

Regular Bail – Multiple Allegations Including SC/ST Act and BNS – Bail Granted – The appellant sought bail in FIR No. 19/2025 for alleged involvement in violent acts against members of the complainant’s family, including allegations under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act – Held: Though the allegations were grave and included mob violence and attempt to murder, the FIR related to three separate incidents and the appellant was linked only to the third – No medical report supported this part of the allegation – Further, a compromise was effected between the parties and the appellant had been in custody since 06.02.2025 – Bail granted pending trial [Paras 1, 6, 7, 9].

Custodial Rights – Bail and Article 21 – Delay in Trial – No Purpose in Further Detention – The Court noted that the trial had not progressed significantly and continued detention without a foreseeable conclusion would violate the appellant’s fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Held: Bail cannot be denied merely on the ground of pending trial when investigation is complete and incarceration becomes punitive rather than preventive [Paras 9–10].

SC/ST Act – Bar to Bail – Compromise and Procedural Completion Considered – The Court noted that while the SC/ST Act imposes a higher threshold for bail, the bar is not absolute – Once investigation is complete and complainant has no objection, bail may be granted in appropriate circumstances – Reference made to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831 [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Bail Granted – Appeal Allowed – The Court allowed the appeal and directed release of the appellant on regular bail during trial upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court – Clarified that observations made in the order shall not prejudice the trial – Held: Continued detention unjustified in light of completed investigation, pendency of quashing petition, compromise between parties, and prolonged custody [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law - Furlough Leave – Pending Criminal Case under NDPS Act – Conviction Required – Petition Allowed – The petitioner, a life convict under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, was denied furlough leave based on a pending case under the NDPS Act – Held: Rule 4(2)(e)(l) of Notification dated 02.12.2024 bars furlough for convicts under NDPS Act, but does not apply to undertrials – As petitioner is not yet convicted in the NDPS case, the bar is inapplicable – Rejection order held illegal and quashed [Paras 5–6].

Interpretation of Prison Rules – Definition of “Prisoner” – Notification of 2024 Clarified – Court held that Rule 2(f) and Rule 1(3) of Chapter I of the 2024 Notification define "prisoner" as a “convicted prisoner” and the Rules apply only to such convicts – Mere pendency of NDPS proceedings does not disentitle prisoner from furlough benefits – Respondent authority erred in law by applying rules to an undertrial context [Paras 6–7].

Adverse Police Report – Non-application of Mind – Vague Apprehensions Not Sufficient – The DIG relied on a police report claiming the petitioner’s release may endanger public peace – Held: Police report was based on speculative assertions without material support – No history of post-conviction misconduct or complaints – Authorities must apply mind and record specific, substantiated reasons to reject statutory benefits like furlough – Citing Sanjay Kisan Kadse v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 1 Mah LJ 789, Court held vague police reports cannot override fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition Allowed – Furlough Leave Granted – The Court quashed the rejection order dated 31.01.2025 and directed release of the petitioner on furlough for 21 days subject to conditions imposed by authorities – Held: Application of Rule 4(2)(e)(l) to pending cases is erroneous – Adverse police report unsupported by facts – Authorities reminded of duty to avoid routine and mechanical denials of statutory rights [Paras 10–11].

Regular Bail - Sections 21, 29, 36A, 52A of the NDPS Act – Recovery of Commercial Quantity – Bail Denied – The petitioner was apprehended along with 1 kg of heroin based on secret information – Co-accused handed over heroin to petitioner in a public area – The Court held that the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act was clearly attracted due to recovery of commercial quantity – No grounds made out to satisfy twin conditions for grant of bail [Paras 13–14, 22].

Procedural Irregularity – Delay in Sampling under Section 52A – Not a Ground for Bail – Petitioner argued that delay in drawing and depositing samples vitiated the case – Court rejected this contention citing Supreme Court judgment in NCB v. Kashif (2024 SCC OnLine 3848) – Held: Procedural delay is not sufficient to vitiate proceedings or justify bail – Samples were sealed and sent to FSL with judicial magistrate’s seal [Paras 7, 15–17].

Lack of Independent Witness – Not Fatal to Prosecution – It was argued that no public witness was joined at the time of recovery – The Court observed that efforts were made to involve public witnesses who refused to participate – Citing Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563 and other rulings, the Court held that recovery by police witnesses cannot be disbelieved solely on this ground [Paras 3, 18].

No Videography or CCTV – Not Mandatory – Petitioner claimed absence of videography and CCTV footage casts doubt on recovery – Court held that videography is not mandatory and absence of CCTV camera at the site was a factual explanation – Investigating Officer not expected to deposit personal devices – Version of police cannot be discarded on this ground [Paras 4, 10–11, 19–20].

Duration of Custody – Not Ground for Bail Where Commercial Quantity is Involved – Petitioner had been in custody since April 2023 – Court held that the duration was not exceptionally long and did not justify release under Section 37 NDPS Act – Trial delay not sufficient by itself for bail [Paras 8, 21].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found sufficient material establishing prima facie guilt and no reasonable ground to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed as bar under Section 37 not satisfied [Paras 22–23].

Default Bail - UAPA – Extension of Custody – Section 43D(2) – Default Bail Refused – Appellant challenged extension orders of 24.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 and rejection of default bail on 11.03.2024 – Contended that trial court acted mechanically, without individualised assessment, and that investigation was substantially complete – Held: Public Prosecutor’s 90-page report detailed specific investigative steps, pending analysis of voluminous digital evidence, fund trail, absconding accused, and ISIS-linked activities – Trial court applied mind, recorded satisfaction on necessity, and complied with safeguards in Zeeshan Qamar – No mechanical extension – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-34, 38].

National Security – Necessity of Continued Detention – Allegations of ISIS Membership – Material showed appellant’s involvement in recce of cities, handling of explosives, receipt of ISIS literature, and encrypted communications – Investigation linked to wider conspiracy with cross-border elements – Releasing appellant at crucial stage would impede investigation and risk evidence destruction – Custody extension justified [Paras 34-37].

Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – UAPA Framework – Court reiterated that statutory right arises only if charge-sheet not filed within prescribed/extended period – Under UAPA, extension up to 180 days permissible on valid Public Prosecutor’s report – Trial court’s extension order within legal limits – Gravity of offence relevant to necessity assessment, though not to default bail entitlement – No violation of safeguards [Paras 27, 38-39].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial court orders upheld – Continued custody under Section 43D(2) UAPA lawful – Pending applications disposed [Para 39].