NDPS Act – Successive Bail – No Change in Circumstances – Application Dismissed – The applicant moved a second regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS – The court found no change in circumstances since rejection of prior bail – Held: Successive bail not maintainable in absence of fresh grounds; rejection sustained [Paras 1.0, 6.0, 10.0].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Applicability of Rigorous Bail Conditions – Commercial Quantity – Court reiterated that commercial quantity of Mephedrone was recovered and hence rigors of Section 37 applied – Held: Applicant failed to satisfy dual conditions of Section 37(1)(b) – Not entitled to bail [Paras 7.1–7.5, 8.0–8.6].

Parity in Bail – Not Applicable – Distinguishable Role from Co-Accused – Bail of Co-Accused Ronak Not a Ground – Ronak’s case lacked conscious possession and material link – Here, conscious possession, CDR, and money trail established against applicant – Held: No parity can be claimed [Para 7.3].

Section 29 NDPS Act – Criminal Conspiracy – Supply Chain Established – CDR Records, Bank Transactions and Co-Accused Statements Indicate Nexus – Held: Applicant was active participant in drug supply chain; Section 29 charges sustainable [Paras 7.1–7.2, 7.4–7.6].

Evidence Appreciation at Bail Stage – Premature – Section 52A Compliance a Trial Matter – The applicant’s objection regarding procedural lapses in sampling and evidence was rejected – Held: Evidence appreciation is beyond scope at bail stage; trial court to determine [Paras 9.1, 9.6].

Final Decision – Bail Rejected – Trial to Be Expedited – Court directed trial court to conclude proceedings within 10 weeks and appoint amicus if needed – Held: Application devoid of merits; liberty of accused subordinate to societal interest in drug trafficking matters [Paras 10.0–11.0].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Section 324 IPC – Property Dispute Between Brothers – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC by the Sessions Court while acquitting him under Sections 448/326/307 IPC based on the same evidence – The High Court found the conviction unsustainable as prosecution failed to prove assault by dangerous weapon beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Merely because the complainant sustained injuries is insufficient to attract Section 324 IPC when the prosecution failed to establish key elements like the use of a weapon, independent corroboration, and credible evidence – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. Acquittal [Paras 1, 7, 11, 17-19].

Family Property Dispute – Delay in Lodging Complaint and Compromise Attempt – Impact on Credibility – The Court noted the complainant and accused were brothers residing in the same house with long-standing disputes over immovable property – Delay of over a month in filing complaint without valid explanation, combined with evidence of demand for monetary settlement (Rs. 20,000), cast doubt on the prosecution's version – Absence of corroboration by neutral witnesses and procedural lapses by the investigation undermined the case [Paras 6, 8-14].

Shared Residence – No Trespass – Dispute Among Co-residents – Allegation of trespassing dismissed as both complainant and accused resided in the same house under separate arrangements – Hence, Section 448 IPC was not applicable – The Sessions Court acquitted under this charge correctly [Paras 8, 12].

Medical Evidence – Injuries Not Shown to be Grievous – Failure to Prove Assault by Weapon – Court held that the prosecution failed to link injuries conclusively to the accused as doctors did not record crucial details like the weapon used or clear indicators of grievous injuries under medical jurisprudence – Defence witnesses indicated accidental fall, corroborated by inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – Benefit of doubt given [Paras 11, 15-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Under Section 324 IPC Set Aside – High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC, noting the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18-19].

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Challenge to Declaration and Possession Decree – Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal Dismissed – In a property dispute where the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed under a Lucky Dip Scheme from defendants 1 and 2, the trial court and first appellate court concurrently decreed declaration of title and recovery of possession – The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the absence of a substantial question of law – Execution of sale deed, possession of property, and acts of defendants in forming a layout and appointing agents stood proved on record – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC, second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 1-28].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – The High Court reiterated that second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and courts should not reappreciate facts already concluded by lower courts – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence are binding in second appeal – Mere alternative view or factual dispute does not constitute a substantial question of law [Paras 15-17].

Execution of Sale Deed – Validity – Payment of Consideration – Sale Cannot Be Invalidated – The court emphasized that even in cases where full sale consideration is disputed, the registered sale deed passes valid title unless legally set aside – Law settled that non-payment of full consideration does not invalidate a registered sale transaction [Para 25].

Title and Possession – Right to Recovery of Possession – Registered Sale Deed Upheld – The plaintiff’s claim of ownership and right to possession was upheld on the basis of registered sale deed, non-dispute of execution, and established possession prior to unlawful dispossession by defendants – Relief granted against all defendants including agents involved in the transaction [Paras 19-24].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The second appeal was dismissed confirming concurrent decrees of trial and appellate courts in favour of the plaintiff – No substantial question of law found – No costs awarded [Paras 26-28].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Proof of Will and Gift Deeds – Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 Evidence Act – Rejection Upheld – Plaintiff sought partition of ancestral properties claiming intestate succession after mother’s death – Defendants relied on Will and two settlement deeds – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected Will and settlement deeds on grounds of non-proof in law, absence of attesting witness examination, and internal inconsistencies – Held: Courts correctly applied law, mandatory requirements of execution and attestation of Will and settlements not satisfied, partition granted in favour of plaintiff [Paras 1-24].

Suspicious Circumstances – Misdescription in Will – Disinheritance Invalidated – Will described son as minor when major, raising serious doubt on mental awareness of testatrix – Courts rightly held such misdescription rendered Will suspicious – Onus on propounders to dispel suspicion not discharged – Held: Non-compliance with proof requirements and suspicious circumstances rightly led to rejection of Will – Partition rightly decreed [Paras 25].

Settlement Deeds – Lack of Proof – Rights Not Established – Settlement deeds relied upon by defendants were not proved through attesting witnesses and formal legal requirements – Mere possession or enjoyment under such deeds insufficient to establish title when challenged – Held: Courts correctly disregarded unproven settlement deeds, no legal right conferred thereby [Paras 26-28].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Limited Interference – Held: Under Section 100 CPC, High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings unless substantial question of law arises – In absence of procedural error or perversity, concurrent findings stand affirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 29].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld lower courts’ judgment granting 1/3rd share each to parties in A and C schedule properties, dismissing Will and settlement deeds for want of legal proof – Appeal dismissed without costs [Para 29].

Criminal Law - Acquittal of Accused – Allegations of Sexual Assault under Section 8 POCSO Act and Sections 451, 506 IPC – Acquittal Upheld - The appeal by the State challenged the judgment acquitting the respondent accused of charges of sexual assault and house trespass based on contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements – The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prosecutrix’s inconsistent versions, lack of corroboration, and absence of medical evidence rendered the prosecution case unreliable – Held: Trial court’s judgment justified; State’s appeal dismissed [Paras 1-43].

Inconsistent Testimony – Variations in Statements of Prosecutrix – Evidence Found Unreliable - The Court found material inconsistencies between the prosecutrix’s FIR statement, Section 164 CrPC statement, and court testimony regarding the nature of assault and sequence of events – Held: Unexplained contradictions raised serious doubt about veracity of allegations; benefit of doubt rightly granted to accused [Paras 22-26, 34].

Lack of Medical and Corroborative Evidence – No Injuries Found – Prosecution Version Weakened - Absence of external or internal injuries on prosecutrix and absence of injuries on accused contradicted claims of physical assault and struggle – MLC records did not support prosecution’s case – Held: Lack of corroborative evidence a significant factor in affirming acquittal [Paras 16, 29-30].

House Trespass Not Established – Section 451 IPC Not Attracted – Voluntary Opening of Door by Prosecutrix - The Court noted that the prosecutrix herself opened the door to the accused and thus the offence of house trespass was not made out – Held: Essential ingredients of Section 451 IPC absent; acquittal correct [Paras 36].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Intention to Cause Alarm Not Proved – The alleged threats were not proven to be intended to cause alarm or coerce prosecutrix - Held: Mere use of threats without intention to cause alarm insufficient to attract Section 506 IPC [Paras 37-42].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – No Substantial Error Found - The High Court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Held: State’s appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Para 43].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 364A, 392, 397, 412, 34 of the IPC - Sections 25, 27, 54, 59, 30 of the Arms Act - Grant of Bail Post Recording of Key Witnesses – Section 483 BNSS – Bail Granted - The applicant, a dismissed police constable accused in a kidnapping for ransom case, sought bail after the examination of all key material witnesses – The Court noted that after completion of prosecution evidence, risk of tampering or influencing witnesses substantially reduces – Observed prolonged incarceration serves no useful purpose given pending trial duration – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-9, 22-24].

Presumption of Innocence – Principle Reaffirmed – Despite the serious nature of allegations, the Court reiterated the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence and right to liberty – Referred to landmark rulings emphasizing bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Upheld that gravity of offence alone is not sufficient ground to deny bail if other safeguards exist [Paras 12-13, 23].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Discrepancies Noted in Recovery Evidence – The applicant pointed out inconsistencies in police records, including absence of clear CCTV identification, non-conduct of TIP, and conflicting CDR details – The Court refrained from detailed evaluation at bail stage but acknowledged contradictions in case narrative as relevant for bail consideration [Paras 6-9].

Humanitarian Considerations – Custodial Incarceration and Right to Dignity – Court highlighted applicant’s clean antecedents, status as sole breadwinner, and prolonged custody since 2021 – Cited Supreme Court’s emphasis on dignity of accused and overcrowding in jails while allowing bail – Noted the applicant’s reinstatement in service as relevant factor [Paras 4-5, 11, 14].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted with stringent conditions including personal and surety bonds, appearance before court, furnishing of contact details, no criminal indulgence, and no interference with prosecution witnesses – Safeguards balanced liberty rights with judicial control [Para 24].

Decision – Bail Granted – Application Allowed – The application for regular bail was allowed subject to conditions after considering post-evidence stage, inconsistencies in prosecution case, and humane factors favouring release – Court directed compliance with terms and communication to jail authorities [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Taxation Law - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest Declared Illegal – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – In a petition under Article 226 seeking release of the detenue, the Court found that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence officials had kept the detenue in custody for over 30 hours without presenting him before a Magistrate and without serving grounds of arrest – The arrest was held to be in clear contravention of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also violated mandatory procedures under Sections 69 and 70 of the CGST Act – Held: The arrest was illegal and the detenue is entitled to release – Further, DGGI officials are to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing a Warrant Officer appointed by the Court [Paras 1-33].

Illegal Detention – Overnight Custody by DGGI – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Detention Unlawful – The detenue was kept in the GST zonal office overnight for more than 30 hours without production before Magistrate – Held: Detention amounts to violation of constitutional protections and is illegal – Consent under coercive circumstances is invalid – Arrest is deemed to have commenced with the unlawful restraint [Paras 13-20].

Section 69 CGST Act – Arrest Authorization Without Application of Mind – Arrest Vitiated – The Additional Director General merely endorsed the proposal for arrest forwarded via the E-office system without independent analysis or satisfaction – Held: Mechanical authorization without reasons to believe or application of mind violates the safeguards under Section 69 and Supreme Court rulings – Arrest declared illegal [Paras 21-25].

Grounds of Arrest – Delay in Communication – Arrest and Remand Vitiated – Although the detenue was restrained at 5:46 PM, grounds of arrest were communicated only at 8:40 PM – Held: Arrest becomes illegal when grounds are not promptly served at the moment of restraint – Subsequent remand proceedings also rendered invalid [Paras 26-29].

CCTV Surveillance – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Inference of Malafide – Despite court direction, DGGI failed to produce CCTV footage and claimed cameras were dysfunctional – Held: Excuse rejected – Inference drawn that non-compliance was deliberate and intended to conceal illegality – Non-adherence to Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh binding directions [Para 12].

Obstruction of Warrant Officer – Prima Facie Contempt – DGGI Officials Misbehaved and Obstructed Judicial Function – The Court-appointed Warrant Officer was stopped from recording the detenue's statement and had official papers snatched – Held: Prima facie contempt made out – Officials directed to show cause – Law cannot be allowed to be subverted by such conduct [Paras 2.1, 9, 10, 33].

Detenue’s Rights During Interrogation – Statement Must Be Recorded During Office Hours and Under CCTV – The Court reiterated that summoned persons are entitled to legal safeguards during questioning – Held: DGGI must ensure statements are recorded in office hours, preferably under CCTV surveillance, and allow presence of counsel within visible range during investigation – Directions consistent with Mahesh Devchand Gala and Agarwal Foundries cases [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Arrest Held Unlawful – Detenue Entitled to Release – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 were violated by illegal detention and arrest – Authorization under Section 69 was procedurally defective – Arrest and remand are declared null and void – Matter adjourned for final orders on release and contempt action [Paras 30-33].

Civil Revision – Police Assistance to Implement Interim Injunction – Section 151 CPC – Application Allowed - The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order granting police help to enforce an interim injunction where the possession of the disputed property was contested – The High Court held that police assistance cannot be granted mechanically under Section 151 without a clear determination of possession rights, especially when possession was lost before the injunction extension and rival claims exist – Held: Order for police help set aside, direction issued for keys to be returned to petitioner, with liberty to trial court to decide injunction application after hearing both parties [Paras 1-62].

Possession Rights and Police Intervention – Interim Injunction Not Equivalent to Declaration of Rights – Ad-interim orders do not conclusively determine possession rights – High Court held that police cannot assist in restoring possession based on ex parte interim orders when the party seeking assistance is admittedly dispossessed prior to order extension – Held: Interim orders must be enforced carefully, courts must be cautious while exercising inherent powers [Paras 33-36, 45-58].

Inherent Powers of Court – Section 151 CPC – Scope and Limitation – Reaffirmed that inherent power under Section 151 is not to be used when specific provisions like Order 39 Rule 2A exist and when there is no unambiguous finding of possession violation – Reliance placed on Joydeb Das vs. Khandubala Das (2012), Gouri Das vs. Nani Bhattacharjee (2020), and other precedents – Held: Trial court erred by passing police help order solely on complainant’s version without inquiry or adjudication [Paras 26-48].

Direction on Future Proceedings – Adjudication Ordered - Trial court directed to decide pending injunction application after granting petitioner full opportunity to file objections and lead evidence – High Court clarified decision should be made uninfluenced by the interim order on police intervention [Paras 62].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Police help order set aside, possession restored to petitioner, trial court directed to adjudicate matter afresh – Costs not awarded [Paras 59-63].

Service Law – Criminal Case During Selection – Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules – Rejection of Appointment Set Aside – The petitioner, who was discharged from a criminal case and had disclosed the FIR in the verification form, was denied appointment to the post of Constable – Held: Clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3) was applicable as the police had found the petitioner innocent and placed him in Column No. 2 of the supplementary challan – The respondent wrongly relied on Clause (d) and failed to apply the correct rule despite clear direction from the High Court to examine the case in light of Supreme Court ruling in Ravindra Kumar – Rejection order was arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 4, 6, 9, 14-17].

Administrative Law – Non-Application of Mind – Mechanical Reliance on Legal Opinion – Directions Ignored – The Commandant relied entirely on the opinion of the Assistant District Attorney without independently examining the petitioner’s eligibility – Held: The authority violated earlier High Court orders and showed scant regard for judicial directions – The report used for rejecting the claim was prepared without proper application of mind or inquiry into the FIR status – Respondents deliberately misapplied the legal framework and bypassed mandatory considerations under Rule 12.18 [Paras 3, 9, 11-13, 15].

Constitutional Law – Articles 226/227 – Scope of Judicial Review – High Court Intervention Justified – The petitioner was compelled to approach the Court thrice despite having been found innocent by the investigating agency and later discharged by the Trial Court – Held: The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to undo manifest injustice and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner with notional benefits – Mechanical and narrow approach of the authority was deprecated [Paras 1, 5, 8-10, 19-21].

Abuse of Process – Imposition of Costs – Respondent Penalised – The Court noted that the respondent authorities compelled the petitioner to enter a third round of litigation despite clear and binding directions in earlier writ proceedings – Held: Respondent exhibited gross disregard for judicial orders and legal obligations – Imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 and directed appointment with all notional benefits from the date similarly placed candidates joined service [Paras 3, 9, 20-21].