Bail – UAPA Offences – Stringent Conditions under Section 43D(5) – Appellant accused of being member of criminal gang involved in terrorist activities, harbouring absconding accused and facilitating supply of arms and ammunition – Recovery of firearms and cartridges from flat where appellant was apprehended – Held: Where accusations appear prima facie true on basis of material in chargesheet, statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) UAPA operates and bail cannot be granted [Paras 41–44, 78].

Terrorism Related Offences – Prima Facie Evidence – Investigation revealed that appellant arranged safe house, harboured absconding accused and facilitated supply of arms to gang members – Arms and ammunition recovered from premises where appellant was present – Court held that such material indicates active involvement in conspiracy and terrorist activities [Paras 33–34, 71–74].

Bail – Successive Bail Applications – Requirement of Change in Circumstances – Earlier bail application of appellant already rejected on merits by coordinate bench – No fresh ground or substantial change in circumstances shown in subsequent appeal – Held: Judicial discipline requires due weight to earlier findings while considering successive bail plea [Paras 45–46].

Delay in Trial – Long Custody – Not Sole Ground in UAPA Cases – Appellant in custody for about four years and seven months – Held: Mere long incarceration or possible delay in trial cannot override statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA where allegations are grave and supported by prima facie material [Paras 47–50].

Parity in Bail – Not Applicable When Role Distinct – Several co-accused granted bail, however allegations against appellant included recovery of arms and active participation in conspiracy – Court held that principle of parity applies only when role and circumstances are identical – Case of appellant found similar to co-accused whose bail was already rejected [Paras 64–67, 75–77].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order rejecting bail affirmed – No interference warranted as accusations against appellant are prima facie true and statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA applies – Observations confined to bail stage and not to affect trial.

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Security Zone – Imposition of Non-Statutory Conditions – Petitioners sought sanction for construction of G+4 residential building of height 15.49 metres situated within 500 metres of Nabanna declared as Security Zone – Municipal Commissioner granted conditional approval imposing several conditions based on police inputs including erection of view cutter, prohibition of windows/balconies facing security zone and police verification of residents – Held: Where building proposal conforms to statutory requirements including height restriction under Section 244 of Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, additional conditions lacking statutory basis cannot be imposed merely on perceived security concerns – Executive inputs cannot override statutory scheme [Paras 42–47].

Municipal Regulation – Scope of Power to Impose Conditions – Statutory Limits – Municipal Commissioner empowered to regulate construction and impose conditions relating to safety and planning under Act – However such power must be traceable to statute – Conditions imposed solely at instance of police authorities without statutory backing held ultra vires – Administrative or executive directions cannot curtail property or development rights absent legislative authority [Paras 46–48, 51].

Building Regulation – View Cutter and Restriction on Windows/Balconies – Conditions Nos. 4 and 5 – Condition requiring ten-foot-high “view cutter” and prohibition on windows or balconies facing security zone examined – Held: Such restrictions contradict mandatory building norms relating to ventilation and habitability and are not contemplated under Sections 243 or 244 of the Act which only regulate building height in notified security zones – Conditions disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution [Paras 49–57].

Municipal Law – Police Verification of Residents – Condition Beyond Scope of Building Regulation – Condition No. 16 requiring verification of “character antecedents” of all existing and future occupants held wholly alien to building sanction regime – Municipal authorities cannot impose surveillance-oriented obligations unrelated to structural regulation – Requirement amounts to intrusion into privacy and liberty under Article 21 and lacks statutory foundation [Paras 58–62].

Constitutional Law – Property Rights – Proportionality – While security concerns surrounding strategic installations are legitimate, restrictions on development must be proportionate and supported by statutory authority – Blanket architectural restrictions and mandatory occupant verification based on speculative security apprehension constitute arbitrary exercise of power offending Articles 14 and 300A [Paras 54–57, 64–66].

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed – Condition Nos. 4, 5 and 16 imposed in building sanction order dated 24.09.2024 quashed as ultra vires and unconstitutional – Remaining conditions upheld – Authorities directed to process and finalise building plan sanction without insisting upon quashed conditions within twelve weeks.

Railways Act – Compensation for Untoward Incident – Bona Fide Passenger – Appellant claimed that he fell from an overcrowded passenger train while travelling from Taj Nagar to Rewari and sustained grievous injuries including amputation of the left leg – Tribunal rejected claim noting discrepancy in journey ticket which, upon verification, was issued a day prior to the alleged incident and valid only for a limited duration – Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancy – Held: Appellant could not be regarded as a bona fide passenger and claim for compensation was rightly rejected [Paras 7, 11].

Railway Accident Claims – Proof of Untoward Incident – Absence of Eye-Witness and Railway Record – Appellant relied on GRP entry and medical records to support the claim of accidental fall from the train – Railway officials including the ticket vending official and train guard stated that no such incident was reported and no entry existed in the Guard Memo Book – Held: Mere recording of GRP information regarding an injured person and subsequent medical treatment is insufficient to establish that the injuries were caused due to an accidental fall from a train in the absence of corroborative evidence [Paras 5, 8].

Railways Act – Section 124-A – No-Fault Liability – Requirement of Passenger Status – Compensation under the no-fault liability regime for “untoward incidents” under the Railways Act is contingent upon the victim being a passenger with a valid ticket – Where the claimant fails to establish that he was a bona fide passenger, the claim for compensation cannot succeed [Paras 10, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal upheld – Appellant held not to be a bona fide passenger and alleged incident not proved to be an “untoward incident”.

Criminal Law – Transfer of Investigation – Allegations of custodial assault against ED officers – FIR lodged by accused in money laundering case – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR or transfer of investigation to CBI – Court found that informant was accused in siphoning of ₹23 crores public funds and ED was investigating several high-profile cases involving senior political and bureaucratic officials – State police treated ED office as crime scene soon after FIR – Held: Considering allegations against central agency officers and apparent haste by State police, exceptional circumstances existed warranting transfer of investigation to CBI to ensure fair and impartial probe – FIR not quashed but investigation transferred [Paras 45-47, 61-62].

Quashing of FIR – Scope of judicial interference – Allegation that informant sustained injury after allegedly hitting his head with a water jug while interacting with ED officers – Informant alleged custodial assault – Medical record indicated superficial injury and noted it as self-inflicted – Held: At the stage of investigation, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated – Allegations in FIR did not fall within parameters of Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing – FIR cannot be quashed merely because defence version appears plausible – Matter requires investigation [Paras 57-58].

Transfer of Investigation to CBI – Principles governing exercise of power under Article 226 – Court reiterated that direction for CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances – Such power may be invoked where investigation by State police may lack credibility or where circumstances indicate bias or influence – In present case ED officers were investigating sensitive cases involving high-ranking State officials and FIR was lodged by accused in those investigations – State police acted with unusual haste – Held: To maintain public confidence and ensure impartial investigation, case transferred to CBI [Paras 51-52, 61-62].

Fair Investigation – Importance in criminal justice system – Investigation must be impartial, unbiased and free from external influence – If investigation appears to be carried out with object of helping a particular party or undermining rule of law, Court can intervene – Fair investigation is essential both for accused and victim and forms backbone of rule of law [Paras 46-49].

Protection to Public Servants under PMLA – Scope of Section 67 PMLA – Provision grants protection against prosecution or proceedings for acts done in good faith under the Act – Whether act was done in good faith is a matter that can only be determined after proper investigation – Therefore issue cannot be conclusively determined at threshold stage [Paras 53-54].

Judicial Discipline – Recusal and roster objections – Objection raised by State regarding lack of roster for the Bench to hear the matter – Court held that roster clearly included criminal writ petitions relating to CBI and PC Act – Recusal cannot be forced by litigants to choose a Bench and courts should not succumb to attempts at forum hunting – Objection rejected [Paras 13-19].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – FIR not quashed – Investigation in Airport P.S. Case No. 5 of 2026 transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation – Jharkhand Police directed to hand over entire case records to CBI – CBI directed to register case and investigate in accordance with law.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Vicarious Liability of Directors – Complaints filed against Managing Director/Directors for dishonour of cheques issued by company – Company itself not made an accused in the complaint – Held: Prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 N.I. Act cannot be maintained against directors in absence of arraigning the company as an accused – Proceedings quashed [Paras 13–15, 21].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Requirement of Arraigning Company – Section 141 N.I. Act creates vicarious liability of persons in charge of company only when the company itself is prosecuted for offence under Section 138 – Commission of offence by company is a condition precedent for fastening liability on its officers – Without impleading company as accused, prosecution against directors is legally unsustainable [Paras 13–14].

Vicarious Liability – Strict Construction of Penal Statutes – Liability of directors or officers arises only by virtue of statutory deeming fiction – Such liability must be strictly construed – Words “as well as the company” in Section 141 make it mandatory that the company must be prosecuted along with persons responsible for its business [Paras 13–14].

Distinction Between Filing Complaint Through Managing Director and Prosecution of Company – Judgment in Bhupesh Rathod distinguished – In cases where company authorises Managing Director through board resolution to institute complaint, the complaint may proceed – However, where company itself is accused but not impleaded as a party, proceedings against directors alone cannot be sustained [Paras 16–19].

Section 138 N.I. Act – Cheques Issued by Company – Where dishonoured cheques were issued from company account and signed by authorised signatory on behalf of company, criminal liability primarily lies upon company – Directors cannot be prosecuted in their personal capacity unless statutory conditions of Section 141 are fulfilled [Paras 18–21].

Decision: Applications allowed – Entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case Nos. 41 of 2012, 1109 of 2012, 28 of 2012, 3044 of 2011, 40 of 2012, 29 of 2012, 372 of 2012, 347 of 2012, 30 of 2012, 5424 of 2017 and 5425 of 2017, including summoning orders, quashed – Liberty granted to complainant to pursue appropriate legal remedies for recovery of amount in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Sections 332 and 333 IPC – Hurt to Public Servant to Deter from Duty – Conductor of UPSRTC bus convicted for assaulting traffic inspectors during inspection – Allegation that accused punched Traffic Inspector causing loss of two teeth and assaulted other inspectors – Held: Prosecution failed to establish essential ingredient that the inspectors were lawfully discharging official duty at the time of incident – No documentary proof or authority produced showing that the inspectors were authorised to stop and check the bus – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 25–28].

Public Servant – Requirement of Lawful Discharge of Duty – For attracting Sections 332 and 333 IPC prosecution must prove that public servant was acting in lawful discharge of official duty – Mere status as public servant insufficient – Evidence on record did not show that traffic inspectors possessed authority under applicable rules to conduct inspection of the bus – Essential nexus between act of accused and lawful duty not established [Paras 16–18, 25–28].

Evidence Appreciation – Interested Witnesses – Prosecution relied primarily on testimonies of three traffic inspectors – Their statements contained inconsistencies regarding place of boarding the bus and circumstances of inspection – Independent witnesses including passengers or driver not examined – Investigating officer also failed to record statement of passengers – Evidence required closer scrutiny and found unreliable [Paras 22, 35].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence – Injury to Informant – Alleged two fist blows resulted in loss of two teeth – Medical evidence showed abrasion inside lip and possibility of injury due to fall – Doctor stated swelling would normally occur in fist blows and teeth could also be lost due to fall – Ocular and medical evidence inconsistent – Benefit of doubt to accused [Para 34].

Delay in FIR – Possibility of Concoction – Informants after alleged assault did not immediately lodge report or seek medical treatment though police station was nearby – They waited for third inspector to arrive and thereafter lodged FIR – Delay contributed to possibility of concocted version [Para 34].

Cross Cases – Proper Procedure – Where cross cases arise out of the same incident, both cases should be tried by the same judge sequentially and decided independently on evidence recorded in each case – Trial court failed to follow proper approach laid down by Supreme Court [Para 38].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution evidence suffers from inconsistencies and fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must extend benefit of doubt even if trial court recorded conviction – Appellate court justified in interfering with conviction [Para 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 23.10.1986 under Sections 332 and 333 IPC set aside – Accused Rajendra Kumar acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Probate Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Probate Court – Pendency of Civil Suit Challenging Will – Probate petition filed earlier seeking grant of probate of registered Will dated 31.03.2022 executed by deceased Indra Prakash Gupta – Trial court rejected probate petition solely on ground that a subsequent civil suit seeking cancellation of the same Will was pending – Held: Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine proof and validity of Will and probate petition cannot be rejected merely due to pendency of civil suit – Impugned order set aside and probate petition restored [Paras 16–17].

Indian Succession Act – Section 295 – Procedure in Contentious Probate Proceedings – Once objections are raised to the grant of probate, proceedings are to take the form of a regular civil suit – Questions relating to execution, genuineness and testamentary capacity of the testator can be adjudicated within probate proceedings themselves – Separate civil suit for cancellation of Will not necessary where probate petition is already pending [Paras 10, 16].

Civil Procedure – Consolidation of Proceedings – Probate Petition and Civil Suit Concerning Same Will – Issues in probate case and civil suit substantially overlap – To avoid conflicting findings and in the interest of justice, both proceedings should be tried together – High Court transferred civil suit from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge and ordered consolidation with pending probate petition [Paras 13, 16, 19].

Appeal – Allowance – Erroneous Rejection of Probate Petition – District Judge erred in dismissing probate petition solely due to pendency of separate civil suit – Probate petition restored to original number and civil suit transferred and consolidated – District Judge directed to decide both proceedings together within six months without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 21.07.2025 set aside – Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 restored – Original Suit No.369 of 2025 transferred to District Judge, Firozabad and consolidated with probate proceedings – Both matters directed to be decided together within six months.

Constitutional Law – Statutory Right of Appeal – Validity of Conditions – Challenge to proviso (b) of Section 7 requiring surrender of possession before entertaining appeal – Held: Right of appeal is statutory and legislature can impose reasonable conditions – Condition not per se unconstitutional unless arbitrary, excessive or rendering remedy illusory [Paras 5, 22]

Interpretation of Statute – Reading Down – Expression “surrender of possession” – Literal interpretation requiring physical possession would render appeal harsh and unworkable – Court reads down provision to include constructive/symbolic possession – Provision upheld by purposive interpretation [Paras 16, 19, 20, 23-25]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of efficacious appeal under Section 7 – Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable when statutory remedy exists – Petition dismissed on this ground [Paras 2, 26]

Property Law – Migrant Property – Object of Act of 1997 – Preservation and protection of migrant properties and prevention of distress sales – Custody vested in District Magistrate including deemed custody – Condition of surrender ensures protection of property during appeal [Paras 8-11, 15]

Possession – Scope and Meaning – Includes actual, constructive and symbolic possession – Determination depends on statutory context and purpose – For Section 7, symbolic possession sufficient compliance [Paras 18-19]

Eviction – Appeal Against Eviction Order – Requirement of surrender of possession – Held: Symbolic/constructive possession sufficient – Appellant may retain de facto possession while competent authority retains de jure custody pending appeal [Para 24]

Precedent – Division Bench Ruling – Symbolic possession recognized as compliance with Section 7 – Followed [Para 21]

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Proviso (b) to Section 7 upheld subject to reading down – Petitioner relegated to statutory remedy of appeal – Four weeks’ time granted to file appeal – Status quo to be maintained for four weeks.

NDPS – Conviction under Section 21(c) – Recovery of Codeine-Containing Cough Syrup – Commercial Quantity – Four accused intercepted at a public place on the basis of secret information — 175 bottles of Codeine-containing cough syrup recovered from bags, plastic sacks and a ladies purse in their possession — FSL report confirmed presence of Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate — Trial Court convicted all four accused and sentenced each to 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- — All three appeals dismissed and conviction affirmed [Paras 5-9].

"Public Place, Public Seizure" – Sections 42 and 43, NDPS Act – Applicability – Recovery effected at a place accessible to the public while accused were in transit — Held: Provisions of Section 42 apply to search of buildings, conveyances or enclosed places based on prior secret information; where recovery is made from a public place or during transit, Section 43 governs the situation and compliance with Section 42 is not required — Contention of non-compliance with Section 42 misconceived and rejected [Paras 44-55].

"Search of Bag Is Not Search of Body" – Section 50, NDPS Act – Personal Search Distinguished from Search of Baggage – Contraband recovered from bags and ladies purse carried by accused — Held: Section 50 is attracted only when the body of the accused is searched — Search of bag, briefcase, purse, container or article carried by accused does not amount to personal search — Contention of non-compliance with Section 50(4) regarding search of female accused also rejected on the same principle — Provisions of Section 50 not attracted [Paras 56-71].

Conscious Possession – Statutory Presumptions – Sections 35 and 54, NDPS Act – Accused found carrying bags containing contraband — Members of raiding party and Investigating Officer consistently deposed regarding recovery — Accused made only bald denial in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence — Held: Once possession established, burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption of conscious possession — Appellants failed to discharge said burden — Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 72-79].

Informant as Investigating Officer – No Per Se Bias – PW-10 was both informant and Investigating Officer — Held: Following Constitutional Bench in Mukesh Singh (supra), merely because informant and investigator are the same person does not vitiate investigation or trial — Question of bias depends on facts of each case — No material placed by appellants showing actual prejudice or motive for false implication [Paras 19, 29, 74-75].

Delay in Forwarding Samples – Safe Custody Established – Sealed samples initially forwarded to Drug Inspector, then resealed and forwarded to FSL — Seals found intact on receipt at FSL — Defence did not cross-examine PW-10 on delay or tampering — Held: Delay in routing samples through another authority does not vitiate prosecution case when chain of custody and link evidence are duly established — Contention of non-compliance with Rule 13 of NDPS Rules, 2022 raised for first time in appeal without cross-examination, not sustainable [Paras 81-86].

Decision: All three criminal appeals dismissed — Conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- affirmed — Appellants to serve remaining sentence — Registry directed to transmit copy of judgment to Superintendent of Jail and to inform appellants of their right to appeal before the Supreme Court and availability of free legal aid [Paras 92-97].