Criminal Appeal – Bail – Denial of bail by trial Court – Petitioner seeks release as an undertrial – Offense under IPC and Arms Act – Alleged involvement in an old feud – Co-accused granted bail – Insufficient evidence of complicity – No likelihood of tampering with evidence – Lengthy preventive custody – Petitioner's personal circumstances – Grant of bail. [Para 1-13]

Bail Application - The petitioner has filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120-B of IPC, and Sections 27 of the Arms Act. The case pertains to a land dispute that resulted in a fatal shooting. The petitioner has been in custody for over 3 years and 10 months. The delay in concluding the trial violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court notes that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial and is not punitive. The State has not presented evidence to show that the petitioner can influence witnesses. The petitioner is granted bail with certain conditions, including restrictions on influencing witnesses, attending court proceedings, surrendering his passport if any, reporting to the police, and other conditions as deemed fit by the concerned Court. [Para 1-11]

Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC - Compromise in a case involving a dishonored cheque - Proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act concluded with withdrawal of the complaint - FIR quashed in line with precedent cases where continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC after withdrawal of the main complaint deemed an abuse of the process of law. [Para 2-13]

Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal against an order regarding maintenance – Husband and wife filed appeals against an order dated 23.02.2023, where the husband was directed to pay Rs.40,000/- per month for the child’s maintenance, while the wife’s maintenance claim was denied. The wife sought enhancement of child’s maintenance to Rs.60,000/- per month and interim maintenance for herself. Husband sought a reduction in child’s maintenance to a total of Rs.21,500/- per month, with him liable for half of it. [Para 1-6]

Qualifications and Income – Both spouses are highly qualified and earning; the wife earns Rs.2.5 lakhs per month, while the husband earns USD 7134 per month, equivalent to Rs.1,65,651/- per month (PPP conversion factor) or Rs.5,60,000/- per month (exchange rate). Husband’s monthly expenses in dollars are around USD 7000. [Para 10]

Interim Maintenance – Interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is intended to prevent financial hardship during matrimonial proceedings and ensure both parties can afford litigation expenses and live comfortably. It’s not meant to equalize incomes or provide a similar lifestyle. [Para 11]

Decision – The court held that both spouses being equally qualified and earning, interim maintenance for the wife was rightly denied. The interim maintenance for the child was reduced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month, considering the incomes of both parties and the shared responsibility for the child’s maintenance. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly. [Para 14-15]

Family Law – Divorce on grounds of cruelty – Marriage dissolved on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appellant-wife aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Family Court – Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Act, 1955. [Para 1]

Marital Dispute – Allegations of cruelty and desertion – Parties married in 2012 – Appellant accused of bickering over petty issues, arguing, and threatening the respondent – Appellant's alleged alcohol, drug, and substance abuse – Suicide attempts – Job disputes – Complaints under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498A/406 IPC – Maintenance issues – Allegations and counter-allegations regarding dowry and harassment. [Para 2-12]

Family Law - Divorce - Grounds for divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - The judgment discusses the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, 1955. It analyzes the conduct of the parties, particularly the appellant-wife, in the context of cruelty and desertion. [Para 1-5]

Marital Discord - Incompatibility and Differences - The judgment highlights the continuous separation between the parties since April 2013 and the inability to sustain their matrimonial relationship. It emphasizes that long separation itself can be a ground for divorce. [Para 45-46]

Effect of False Complaints - The judgment considers the effect of false and defamatory complaints filed by the wife against the husband and his family members. It notes that such allegations can amount to cruelty. [Para 35-42]

Reconciliation Efforts - The judgment mentions the husband's repeated attempts at reconciliation, including visits to the wife's house and staying together in a hotel, which were rebuffed by the wife. [Para 47-50]

Default Bail - Grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 for setting aside an order resulting in miscarriage of justice - Facts involve an FIR registered for carjacking and subsequent arrest of the petitioner - Police did not present the challan within 60 days - Petitioner moved for default bail on the 61st day - Challan presented on the same day - Dispute over whether the period for default bail was 60 or 90 days - Learned JMIC granted default bail - Condition imposed to furnish bail bonds before 4.30 p.m. on the same day - Surety not accepted due to previous commitment in another case - Petitioner's right to default bail extinguished - Revision petition dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - petition under Section 482 to quash the order of the learned revisional Court. [Para 1-9]

Default Bail - Imposition of Unreasonable Conditions - Constitutionality of Conditions - The case pertains to the imposition of conditions on the grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The primary issue is whether such conditions can be deemed impractical, unreasonable, and onerous. [Para 1-25]

Right to Personal Liberty - Fundamental Rights - The judgement underscores the significance of personal liberty, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the context of granting bail. [Para 25]

Reasonable Conditions - Judicial Discretion - The Court emphasizes that conditions imposed while granting default bail must be reasonable, practical, and in conformity with the principles of justice and personal liberty. Imposing unreasonable conditions that hinder an accused person's release are unacceptable. [Para 25]

Orientation Course for Judicial Officers - The judgement calls for the coordination between the Registrar General of the Court and the Director of the Judicial Academy, Chandigarh, to arrange an orientation course on Fundamental Rights, particularly focusing on the Constitution of India, for all judicial officers in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and UT, Chandigarh. This course aims to enhance their expertise in balancing the rights of accused persons with the principles of justice. [Para 29-30]

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 451 – Representation of People Act, Section 78 – Release of seized currency notes during ongoing investigation – Petitioner, a politician, faced allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income – Currency notes seized during the investigation – Application for release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s contentions regarding the source of the amount – Detailed examination of contentions by Special Judge – Prima facie findings regarding the explanation of the petitioner – Purpose of Section 451 Cr.P.C. – Provisional arrangement for interim custody of seized articles during the trial – Safeguards for the recovery of articles – Application of guidelines from Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents – Preservation of wealth alleged to be disproportionate – Balanced approach considering rights of the State and the accused – Release of seized amount to the petitioner with conditions including execution of bond and bank guarantee – Findings in this order not to prejudice petitioner’s contentions during investigation and trial. [Para 1-16]

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Revision under Section 115 - Plaintiffs seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit after realizing that it had been instituted against deceased defendants - Trial Court rejecting the withdrawal application - Whether institution of the suit against deceased persons is a formal defect and whether Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is applicable - The suit against a deceased person is a nullity since its inception and can be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action - Impugned order set aside, and plaintiffs allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit as permissible in law. [Para 1-13]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Challenge to impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 - Acquisition proceedings for public purpose – Petitioners sought quashing of notifications for land acquisition in Sector 57, Gurugram for public purpose – Reliance on Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. [Para 1-3]

Legal Background – Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court in light of the judgment in "Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal". [Para 6-7]

Factual Background – Prior litigations, representations, and proceedings disclosed – Initial writ petition disposed of by High Court and liberty granted to petitioners to file representation – Rejection of representation by authorities led to current writ petition. [Para 4-5]

Legal Tenacity - Re-canvassing of relief based on the Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal judgment - Claim for lapsing of acquisition proceedings - Statutory requirements for lapsing - Tendering of compensation and assumption of possession - Requirement for acquiring authority to meet statutory parameters embodied in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013. [Para 9]

Imperative Statutory Discharging Requirement - State's obligation to tender compensation and assume possession - Conditions for debarring the acquiring authority or enabling landowners to claim lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 - Essential statutory elements to consider. [Para 9]

Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings - Conditions for the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 - Inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the Act coming into force - Possession not taken, compensation not paid - Clarification of 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) - Non-deposit of compensation in court - Consequences and applicability of Section 24(2) - Mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894. [Para 9]

Decision - Dismissal of the writ petition - No merit found - Costs imposed on the petitioners - Disposal of pending applications. [Para 13-14]