Bail – Economic Offences – Alleged Cheating in Land Transactions – Petitioner accused of inducing informants to part with approximately Rs.3.5 crores on promise of registration of sale deeds – Allegations of impersonation, forged documents and non-registration despite receipt of substantial consideration – Investigation resulted in charge-sheet – Held: While allegations serious, offences triable by Magistrate and substantial amount already recovered/frozen – Bail not to be refused as pre-trial punishment [Paras 7-9].

Bail – Parameters for Grant – Discretion under Section 483 BNSS – Court reiterated settled factors governing grant of bail including prima facie case, gravity of accusation, severity of punishment, flight risk, likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Detailed evaluation of evidence impermissible at bail stage – Prima facie assessment sufficient [Paras 5-6].

Bail – Economic Offences – Recovery/Freezing of Amount – Out of alleged fraud of Rs.3.5 crores, approximately Rs.1.7 crores recovered or frozen including bank accounts and insurance policy – Criminal proceedings not meant for recovery of money and bail court not to act as recovery agent – Consideration relevant while assessing continued custody [Para 7].

Bail – Tripod Test – Flight Risk, Tampering, Influencing Witnesses – Allegations largely based on documentary bank transactions – No material showing likelihood of tampering or influencing witnesses – Apprehension of absconding mitigated by surrender of passport and conditions – Petitioner did not misuse interim bail – Factor weighed in favour of grant of bail [Para 8].

Bail – Medical Grounds – Stage-IV Metastatic Cancer – Petitioner suffering from Metastatic RCC (Stage IV) undergoing immunotherapy and palliative treatment – Medical condition undisputed – Humanitarian consideration coupled with right to personal liberty under Article 21 supports grant of bail [Paras 4, 8-9].

Presumption of Innocence – Pre-trial Detention – Bail is rule and jail is exception – Accused presumed innocent until proven guilty – Continued detention must not amount to pre-trial punishment – Constitutional mandate under Article 21 emphasised [Para 8].

Decision: All three bail applications allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties in each case – Subject to conditions including surrender of passport, restriction on travel, cooperation in trial, disclosure of residence details and liberty to trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 269 BNS, 84 BNSS and 209 BNS in case of violation – Applications disposed of [Paras 10-11].

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Extension of Time – Liquidated Damages – Arbitral Tribunal granted 484 days’ extension on account of adverse geology, law and order issues and inclement weather – Held that findings were based on appreciation of evidence and plausible interpretation of contract – No patent illegality or perversity warranting interference – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or sit in appeal over arbitral findings [Paras 15-18, 30-34, 55].

Contract – Delay and Extension – Clause 27 – Geological Variations – Tribunal found actual rock mass encountered materially different from tender documents – Delay attributable to unanticipated geology, weather conditions and law and order disturbances – Extension computed on basis of proportional analysis of KD-03 and KD-14 – Held: Grant of 484 days’ extension was reasoned and within contractual framework – Not open to interference under Section 34 [Paras 27-29].

Construction Contracts – Critical Path – Determination by Arbitral Tribunal – Main Tunnel Banihal (KD-14) held to be on ‘critical path’ based on sequencing of key dates – Completion of ADIT followed by main tunnel Banihal affected overall project completion – Other tunnels executed concurrently and subsumed within extended period – Held: Determination of critical path by technically qualified Tribunal was plausible and did not amount to rewriting the contract [Paras 41-42, 49-52].

Liquidated Damages – Pre-condition of Delay Attribution – Tribunal held that Engineer must first determine extension of time and attribute delay before levying LD – Deduction of LD prior to proper delay analysis held prima facie illegal and contrary to Clause 27 – Interpretation of contractual clause found to be plausible – No perversity established [Paras 35-38].

Public Utility Contracts – Presumption of Loss – IRCON contended loss presumed in infrastructure contracts – Tribunal found no specific loss proved, supervision costs not exclusively attributable to present delay – Held: Finding on absence of loss was factual and plausible – No interference warranted under Section 34 [Paras 53-54].

Patent Illegality – Tests Applied – Court reiterated principles from Associate Builders, Ssangyong, DMRC and OPG Power Generation – Award cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible – Only perverse findings based on no evidence or ignoring vital evidence are amenable to interference – Present award does not suffer from such defects [Paras 15-16, 34].

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Impugned Award upheld – Extension of 484 days and setting aside of liquidated damages sustained – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 55-57].

Criminal Law – Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – Non-Cognizable Offence – Permission for Investigation – Issue whether Magistrate can grant permission on application moved by complainant – Section 155(2) restricts police from investigating without Magistrate’s order but does not specify who may move such application – Held: Provision does not bar complainant or aggrieved person from approaching Magistrate – Object is judicial supervision over investigation and not restriction of access to justice [Paras 8-10, 15, 17].

Conflict of Co-ordinate Bench Decisions – Judicial Discipline – Earlier decision in Navin Chandra Pandey held responsibility lies with police to obtain order – Later decision in Brij Lal Bhar clarified that there is no legal bar for first informant to move application under Section 155(2) – Held: In case of divergence between co-ordinate Benches, later decision to be ordinarily followed unless referred to larger Bench – Certainty and consistency in law emphasized – Court followed Brij Lal Bhar [Paras 10-11].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Technical Objection – Challenge to investigation on ground that permission under Section 155(2) was sought by complainant and not police – Held: Once Magistrate applied judicial mind and granted permission, investigation not vitiated on such technical ground – No jurisdictional error, abuse of process or miscarriage of justice shown – Interference under Section 482 not warranted [Paras 15-16, 18].

Applicability of Procedural Rules – Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice – Reliance on Vijesh Pillai rejected – Said rules not applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh – In U.P., only requirement is judicial order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – No equivalent statutory rule mandating procedural formalities as in Karnataka [Para 12].

Interpretation of Procedural Provisions – Advancement of Justice – Procedural provisions relating to investigation to be interpreted to advance justice and not frustrate legitimate prosecution – Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation – Technicalities cannot invalidate proceedings absent prejudice [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Permission granted under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on complainant’s application held valid – Charge-sheet and summoning proceedings not vitiated – Interim order, if any, vacated [Paras 17-18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Conventional Heads – Loss of Love and Affection and Expectancy of Life – Tribunal awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life – Appellant contended such grant contrary to principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – Held: Claimants not entitled to compensation under those heads as per settled law – Tribunal erred in awarding amounts under impermissible heads [Paras 3-4, 10].

Motor Accident Compensation – Determination of Income – Minimum Wages – Deceased claimed to be earning Rs.20,000/- per month as mason – Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month – Held: Tribunal failed to consider statutory minimum wages notified by Government of Andhra Pradesh – As per Gazette Notification dated 13.03.2017, mason classified as Skilled Labour with wage of Rs.11,670/- per month – Income re-fixed accordingly [Para 9].

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Appellate Re-determination – Though certain conventional heads disallowed, recalculation of income on basis of statutory minimum wages resulted in re-determination of total compensation at Rs.17,83,800/- – Duty of Court to ensure award of “just compensation” under Section 166 MV Act [Paras 10-12].

Interest – Enhancement by Appellate Court – Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum – High Court observed consistent practice of awarding 7.5% per annum – Held: Interest enhanced to 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Compensation re-determined at Rs.17,83,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization – Appellant directed to deposit amount within two months – No order as to costs – Pending applications closed [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Scope of consideration – Magistrate required to examine final report and documents forwarded under Section 173 CrPC – Where documents collected during investigation itself establish full repayment of loan prior to filing of charge sheet – Non-consideration of such material renders charge groundless – Revisional Court justified in setting aside order refusing discharge [Paras 1, 7.1-7.4, 2.12].

Bank Loan – Alleged Cheating – Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC – Allegation of availing credit facilities by use of bogus documents in conspiracy with bank officials – Entire loan amount with interest repaid during investigation – ‘No Due Certificate’ issued before submission of charge sheet – Loan account never declared NPA – Held: In absence of wrongful loss to bank or wrongful gain to accused, essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC not made out – Mere allegation of irregular documentation without resultant loss insufficient to sustain prosecution [Paras 2.14-2.18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Requirement of unlawful agreement resulting in offence or wrongful loss – Where alleged conspiracy did not culminate in any loss to bank and sanction to prosecute bank officials was refused – Prosecution against borrowers alone unsustainable – Charge sheet held groundless [Paras 2.14-2.18].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Charge of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means – No material showing bank suffered pecuniary loss or accused obtained unlawful gain – Continuation of proceedings unjustified [Paras 2.15-2.18].

Repayment/Settlement – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Distinction between cases of partial settlement and complete discharge of liability – Where full repayment including interest made prior to charge sheet and reflected in investigation records – Possibility of conviction remote and continuation of proceedings would be futile – Supreme Court precedents in K. Bharati Devi, Suresh C. Singhal and Hemant S. Hathi applied – Decisions in Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Sarvodaya Highways distinguished on facts [Paras 2.1-2.5, 2.8-2.13].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 22.06.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.466 of 2012 in C.C.No.812 of 2011 set aside – Petitioners discharged under Section 239 CrPC – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 8].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Relevant date under Section 4 – Reference Court treated 13.01.2005 as relevant date instead of last date of publication i.e. 11.07.2005 – Held: Last date of publication under Section 4(1) is material date – Error apparent on face of record affecting rejection of sale instance [Paras 7, 11].

Comparable Sale Instance – Adjacent Village – Sale deed dated 24.04.2005 (Exh.22) of 77 R land from adjoining village Pachegaon at Rs.2,922/- per Are – Village shares boundary with acquired village – Time proximity established – Held: Exh.22 most suitable exemplar – Appellants entitled to Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands – Consequential rate for semi-irrigated lands fixed at Rs.4,383/- per Are – Other exemplars rightly discarded due to dissimilarity or small area [Paras 10-11].

Nature of Land – Irrigated vs Dry – Mere existence of well not sufficient to treat land as fully irrigated – No cogent evidence to classify lands as irrigated – Reference Court erred in partly treating certain lands as irrigated – Classification modified in accordance with evidence [Para 9, 11].

Highest Exemplar – Principle – Court may adopt highest bona fide exemplar if comparable – Reliance on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust – No escalation required where exemplar proximate in time – Enhancement permissible even if claim lower than determined rate – Reliance on Ambya Kalya Mhatra [Paras 12-13].

Pre-Notification Possession – Rental Compensation – Possession taken on 20.12.2003 prior to Section 4 notification dated 11.07.2005 – Held: Instead of remanding for separate determination, appropriate to grant 9% p.a. interest on enhanced compensation from date of possession till date of notification towards rental value – In line with subsequent Supreme Court modification enhancing rate of interest [Paras 14-15].

Statutory Benefits – Delay in Reference – References filed on 18.01.2008 but deficit court fees paid only on 17.06.2011 – Registration delayed till 11.08.2014 – Held: Period from 18.01.2008 to 17.06.2011 attributable to claimants – No statutory benefits for that period – Period from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014 attributable to authorities – Claimants entitled to statutory benefits for that period – Public exchequer not to bear burden of claimant’s lapses [Paras 16-18].

Interest under Sections 28 and 34 – Land Acquisition Act – Claimants entitled to statutory interest as per Full Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari [Paras 19(f)].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands and Rs.4,383/- per Are for semi-irrigated lands – 9% p.a. interest on enhanced compensation from date of possession till notification towards rental value – Statutory benefits restricted for period attributable to claimants – Award modified accordingly – Reference Court to draw award [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Accused armed with gun, farsa, bhala and lathi lay in wait in field and suddenly attacked deceased – Deceased dragged to field and brutally assaulted – Injuries multiple and grievous – Held: Conduct of accused in arriving together armed with deadly weapons, concerted assault and fleeing only after death established common intention – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC justified [Paras 42-44, 57].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Related/Interested Witnesses – PW-2 (complainant), PW-3 and PW-4 eye-witnesses – Minor contradictions natural and not material – Testimony consistent on manner of assault and participation of accused – Mere relationship or village proximity no ground to discard otherwise reliable evidence – Conviction can be based on trustworthy ocular evidence [Paras 38-42, 45-46].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem disclosed multiple lacerated, incised and contused wounds including fractures of skull, ribs and limbs – Doctor opined injuries possible by lathi, farsa and ballam – Medical evidence consistent with ocular account – Brutality of assault established – Prosecution case corroborated [Paras 49-51].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Essence lies in pre-arranged plan and participation in furtherance of common intention – Inference drawn from manner of attack, weapons carried and collective conduct – Even if specific overt act not attributed to each accused, liability attracted where participation and shared intention proved [Paras 43-44].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Parity – One co-accused acquitted on benefit of doubt due to doubtful presence – Held: No automatic parity in acquittal – Where participation of remaining accused proved beyond doubt, conviction sustainable [Para 52].

Procedural Irregularity – Recording Statement under Section 364 CrPC, 1898 instead of Section 313 CrPC, 1973 – Old Code repealed but forms deemed continued under Section 484(2)(b) CrPC, 1973 read with Section 8 General Clauses Act – Mere use of old proforma an irregularity, not illegality – No prejudice shown – Trial not vitiated [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Case – Alleged Illegality – No High Court transfer order produced – Trial Court recorded that case was transferred by name to same Presiding Officer – Accused consented to disposal – No prejudice demonstrated – Objection rejected [Paras 16-19].

FIR – Prompt Lodging – Incident at 04:00 PM – FIR lodged at 06:45 PM – No delay – FIR not result of deliberation or consultation – Investigation commenced promptly [Para 27].

Motive – Prior Enmity – Deceased and complainant accused in earlier murder of father of accused – Bail granted shortly before incident – Strong and proximate motive – However, in case of direct ocular evidence, motive only corroborative [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants Ram Narain and Ram Uggar @ Ram Ugra under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment confirmed – Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive steps to be taken – Appeal abated qua deceased appellants Gyanendri and Ram Pher [Paras 58-59].

Habeas Corpus – Arrest without Warrant – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Petitioner contended that grounds were cyclostyled, vague and identical to reasons for arrest – Court examined Exts.P13 and P15 and held that detailed factual allegations specifying petitioner’s role in conspiracy and misappropriation were clearly stated – Held: Grounds were personal, specific and not mere formal “reasons for arrest” – Requirement under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS complied with [Paras 16-21, 24].

Article 21 & 22(1) – Distinction between “Reasons for Arrest” and “Grounds of Arrest” – Reaffirmed that “reasons” are general investigative justifications whereas “grounds” must disclose specific factual basis necessitating arrest – Exts.P13 and P15 narrated conspiracy, role of petitioner’s firm, stripping of gold and pecuniary loss – Held: Sufficient disclosure enabling defence and opposition to remand [Paras 13-14, 20-21].

Section 48 BNSS (analogous to Section 50A CrPC) – Intimation to Friend/Relative – Grounds of arrest served on person accompanying petitioner from Chennai – Court inferred that accompanying staff member could reasonably fall within expression “friend” for purposes of statutory compliance – Subsequent email to wife did not invalidate earlier compliance – Held: No violation of mandate to inform friend/relative [Paras 19, 22].

Remand Proceedings – Non-supply of Remand Application – Remand report in Malayalam not served on accused at time of remand – However, written grounds of arrest supplied separately in English, language known to accused – Held: Since grounds were already furnished in writing, non-supply of remand report in local language did not vitiate arrest or remand [Paras 22-24].

Right to Legal Representation at Remand – Counsel of choice informed telephonically of arrest and production – Accused produced two hours later than time intimated – No advocate present at 10:00 p.m. remand – Court held that as counsel was informed and chosen by accused, obligation to provide legal aid did not arise – Delay due to medical examination and travel not sufficient to render arrest illegal [Paras 25-28].

Necessity and Justification of Arrest – Allegation of conspiracy and misappropriation of gold belonging to Travancore Devaswom Board involving offences under IPC and PC Act – Court held that grounds disclosed material showing petitioner’s complicity and role – Arrest not mechanical or routine – No illegality established [Paras 8, 21, 28].

Decision: Writ Petition (Criminal) dismissed – Arrest and remand upheld – No violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) or statutory safeguards under BNSS found.

Customs – Smuggling – Seizure of Foreign-Origin Cigarettes – 25,01,200 cigarette sticks seized from vehicle and godown – Absolute confiscation ordered under Section 111(d) – Penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(i) – Concurrent findings by Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT – Held: Seizure and confiscation based on detailed Panchnama and un-retracted statements under Section 108 – No infirmity in concurrent findings [Paras 11–15, 17–18].

Section 108 Customs Act – Evidentiary Value – Statements recorded under Section 108 not retracted at any stage – Such statements have binding effect and can be relied upon for confiscation and penalty – Right of cross-examination not absolute – In absence of demonstrated prejudice, denial of cross-examination not fatal [Paras 17, 25].

Burden of Proof – Section 123 Customs Act – Goods of foreign origin seized – Once seizure proved, burden shifts on person from whose possession goods recovered to establish licit import – Appellant failed to discharge statutory burden and remained in denial of seizure and valuation – Held: Authorities justified in drawing adverse inference [Paras 13, 21–22].

Valuation – Market Value Determination – Appellant challenged valuation of cigarettes at Rs.14 per stick – Show cause notice disclosed market survey basis and total market value of Rs.3,50,16,800/- – Once valuation disclosed, burden shifted to appellant to rebut with cogent material – Failure to produce contrary evidence renders valuation sustainable – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 20–22, 24–25].

Section 130 Customs Act – Scope of Appeal – High Court’s jurisdiction confined to substantial question of law – Concurrent factual findings by three authorities cannot be re-appreciated in absence of perversity or legal infirmity – Held: No question of law involved in challenge to valuation, seizure, or penalty – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Pending application disposed of.