Arrest – Non-Furnishing of Grounds of Arrest in Writing – Article 22(1) of Constitution – Section 47 BNSS – Court secured trial court records and found that grounds of arrest were not furnished to petitioner prior to production before Magistrate – Held: Non-supply of written grounds of arrest within stipulated time renders arrest illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 8-12].

Grounds of Arrest vs Reasons for Arrest – Distinction – Reasons of arrest are general and formal in nature – Grounds of arrest must contain specific facts necessitating arrest and must be communicated in writing in language understood by accused – Constitutional safeguard not a mere procedural formality – Relied on Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah – Arrest vitiated for non-compliance [Paras 9-11].

Effect of Illegal Arrest – Release of Accused – Following Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court held that if written grounds are not supplied prior to or within reasonable time (in any case two hours before production for remand), arrest becomes illegal – Accused to be released – However, prosecution at liberty to seek fresh remand after supplying grounds of arrest in writing [Paras 11-12].

Merits of Bail – Serious Offence – Prima facie material including statements of nine eyewitnesses (CWs.1-9), two injured witnesses (CWs.2 & 3), and post-mortem report showing death due to penetrating chest injury – Offence under Section 103(1) BNS punishable with death or life imprisonment – On merits, petitioner not entitled to bail – Release ordered solely on ground of illegal arrest [Paras 6-7, 12].

Directions to Investigating Officer – Lapse in Compliance – Court noted lapse by CPI, Arsikere Rural Circle, in not complying with Section 47 BNSS (Section 50 CrPC) – Copy of order directed to be sent to Superintendent of Police and concerned CPI [Order clauses iii & iv].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Petitioner set at liberty due to illegal arrest – Prosecution at liberty to move application for remand/custody after supplying written grounds of arrest – Administrative directions issued.

Bail - Section 12 MCOCA - Arrest and Detention – Look-Out Circular – Commencement of Custody – Appellant detained at Amritsar Airport pursuant to LOC and handed over to Delhi Police – Held, arrest commences from moment liberty is restrained – Custody to be computed from time of airport detention – Subsequent plea of “release” not supported by contemporaneous record [Paras 8-10, 11].

Article 22(2) – Production within 24 Hours – Constitutional Mandate – Appellant not produced before nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of initial restraint of liberty – Only permissible exclusion is travel time to Magistrate – No case of enemy alien or preventive detention – Continued detention without Magistrate’s authority violative of Article 22(2) and Section 167(1) CrPC/187(1) BNSS – Custody vitiated [Paras 6-7, 11-12].

General Diary Entry – Evidentiary Value – GD entry showed handing over of appellant and belongings to Delhi team – No record of alleged release on 26.09.2025 or service of valid notice in presence of local police – Prosecution version of release doubtful in absence of supporting material [Paras 8-10].

Bail – Effect of Constitutional Violation – Where Court finds violation of Articles 21 and 22 in manner of arrest or continued detention, it is duty of Court to grant bail – Gravity of offence, though relevant, cannot cure illegality of detention [Paras 11-13].

Evasion of Investigation – Conduct of Accused – Appellant failed to join investigation despite notice and booked flight abroad – Conduct indicative of attempt to evade investigation – However, constitutional breach outweighs gravity for purpose of bail – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 13-14].

Stringent Conditions – MCOCA Case – Bail subject to execution of bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties – Regular appearance before SHO – No contact with witnesses – Surrender of passport – Disclosure of identity and property details – Restriction on leaving country – Liberty to trial court to modify conditions [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted on stringent conditions due to violation of Article 22(2) – Pending applications disposed of.

Employment Contract – Restrictive Covenants – Non-Competition Clause – Section 27 Contract Act – Appeal against refusal of ad interim injunction – Clause restraining employee from joining competing business for two years post cessation – Held, once employee ceased to be in service upon resignation, post-employment non-compete clause is prima facie void under Section 27 – Section 27 applies to partial as well as absolute restraints – Trial Court rightly refused injunction restraining respondent from joining rival concern [Paras 26-35, 51-54, 67-69].

Employment – Continuation in Service – Implied Contract by Conduct – Though confirmation letter dated 01-03-2024 doubtful and probation extended – Respondent continued to draw salary and tendered resignation on 08-10-2025 – By conduct, continuance of service till resignation established – However, resignation as probationer not invalid for want of 30 days’ notice since no penal consequence stipulated in Clause 15 – Employment ceased on resignation – Section 27 attracted post resignation [Paras 37-46, 48-52].

Non-Solicitation Clause – Distinction from Non-Compete – Clause restraining ex-employee from soliciting employer’s employees does not restrain employee from exercising his own profession – Section 27 not attracted to such covenant – Prima facie apprehension of “poaching” made out from contemporaneous communications – Ad interim injunction justified restraining respondent from soliciting or inducing appellant’s employees [Paras 53-55, 60-63, 70].

Confidentiality and Trade Secrets – Enforceability – Confidentiality clause and Non-Disclosure Agreement not hit by Section 27 – Company entitled to protect trade secrets, proprietary data and confidential information – Negative covenant enforceable under Section 42 Specific Relief Act – Imminent apprehension of disclosure sufficient at ad interim stage – Injunction granted restraining use or disclosure of confidential information [Paras 32-33, 56, 59-63, 70].

Injunction – Damages – Distinct Reliefs – Trial Court erred in holding damages to be adequate remedy in blanket manner – Claim for liquidated damages under Clause 15.3 distinct from reliefs enforcing confidentiality and non-solicitation covenants – Loss from disclosure of trade secrets and employee poaching not readily quantifiable – Monetary compensation not adequate substitute [Paras 57-63].

Appellate Interference – Ad Interim Stage – Appellate Court ordinarily confines itself to materials before Trial Court – No gross suppression established – Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury satisfied in respect of non-solicitation and confidentiality, but not non-compete – Order modified accordingly [Paras 64-67, 70-71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order modified – Respondent restrained till disposal of temporary injunction application from (i) soliciting or inducing employees of appellant to leave service and (ii) using or disclosing confidential information or trade secrets of appellant – Refusal to restrain respondent from joining or continuing with rival company upheld – Observations tentative – CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of – No order as to costs.

Matrimonial Law – Transfer of Petition – Section 24 CPC – Wife seeking transfer of divorce petition from Family Court, Siwani (Bhiwani) to Rohtak – Applicant-wife residing at Rohtak with a 5-year-old son – Respondent-husband, an Army officer, opposing transfer on grounds of job constraints and paralyzed mother – Held: While the convenience of the wife is generally a primary consideration in matrimonial transfer applications, it is not an absolute "thumb rule" and must be weighed against other circumstances. However, the fact that the applicant is caring for a minor child as a single parent is a significant factor. Furthermore, since a criminal case under IPC and a complaint under the PWDV Act are already pending at Rohtak, where the respondent is required to appear, it is in the interest of justice and convenience for both parties that all litigations arising from the matrimonial dispute be heard at a single station. – [Paras 1-5]

Matrimonial Law – Concealment of Income vs. Convenience – Respondent alleging wife is a qualified professional (Dentist) with prior employment and suppressed income – Applicant asserting no current source of earning – Held: Even if the applicant is a qualified professional, the overarching consideration for transfer remains the practical challenges of "single parenting" a 5-year-old child and the logistical benefit of consolidating multiple pending litigations (Criminal and DV Act) at one station. The respondent's job constraints as an Army officer are noted, but the court may provide relief by allowing virtual appearances where necessary. – [Paras 3-5]

Ratio Decidendi – In matrimonial transfer applications, although the wife’s convenience is a significant factor, the court must adopt a balanced approach considering the entirety of the material on record. Where multiple proceedings (civil and criminal) are already pending at a particular station, judicial efficiency and the parties' convenience are best served by consolidating the matters at that station to avoid conflicting dates and unnecessary travel. – [Para 4-5]

Decision: Transfer application allowed. The petition under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled ‘Dr. Ravi Ramphal Ghangas vs. Dr. Anjali Ravi Ghangas’ (DMC-3-2024), is transferred from Family Court, Siwani, District Bhiwani, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. The District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, is directed to assign the matter to the Family Court, Rohtak. Parties directed to appear within one month. The concerned Courts are encouraged to list all related matters on the same date and allow the respondent to move applications for appearance through virtual mode.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Regular Bail – Allegation that petitioner-wife abused and assaulted deceased-husband leading to suicide – FIR registered under Section 108 BNS – Court held that mere allegations of harassment without specific instigation or proximate act do not prima facie constitute abetment – Essential ingredient of mens rea and direct or indirect incitement not made out – Bail granted [Paras 7-8].

Abetment – Ingredients – Instigation and Mens Rea – To attract Section 108 BNS (corresponding to Section 306 IPC), prosecution must establish active role by instigation or intentional aid – Mere harassment or matrimonial discord insufficient – There must be positive action proximate to the time of suicide and clear intention to drive deceased to commit suicide – In absence of such material, offence not prima facie attracted [Para 7].

Bail – Principle of “Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception” – Petitioner in custody for about seven months – Investigation complete – Trial likely to take considerable time – Pre-trial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – No useful purpose to be served by continued custody – Regular bail allowed with liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation if misuse [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if petitioner involved in any subsequent case – Pending applications rendered infructuous.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Murder Case – Allegation of Instigation by MLA – Petitioner (Accused No.5) alleged to have instigated co-accused in fatal assault resulting in death of informant’s son – Prior written complaint by deceased naming petitioner and alleging threats to life – Prima facie material including CDRs and photographs requiring confrontation – Held: Not a fit case for anticipatory bail – Petition rejected [Paras 22-26, 35, 41, 45].

Interim Anticipatory Bail – No Vested Right to Confirmation – Interim protection granted earlier by Vacation Bench – Court held that interim anticipatory bail does not create a vested right for regular anticipatory bail – Court entitled to independently assess merits after hearing prosecution – Interim order discharged [Paras 14-16, 46].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Scope – Prosecution contended petitioner misled investigation and feigned ignorance regarding co-accused despite contrary material in CDRs – Court observed custodial interrogation qualitatively different from interrogation under protection of anticipatory bail – Effective confrontation of material required – Accused cannot dictate manner of interrogation – Custodial interrogation justified [Paras 35-39, 41-42].

Influence of Accused – Political Position – Petitioner a sitting MLA and former Minister – Court held social and political stature relevant while considering likelihood of influencing investigation or witnesses – Investigation transferred from local police to CID – Possibility of hampering fair investigation cannot be ruled out [Paras 18-20, 44].

Scope of Judicial Interference in Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation must ordinarily be left to investigating agency – Courts should not interfere in manner or course of interrogation – Relied on State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement – Anticipatory bail to be granted only in exceptional circumstances [Paras 38, 40, 43].

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Fear of Witness – Court perused Section 164 statement of deceased’s mother – Prima facie explanation to allegations regarding naming of petitioner found – Prosecution’s contention that witness was under fear found to have substance [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim anticipatory bail granted on 26.12.2025 discharged – Petitioner not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Cheques drawn on State Bank of Patiala presented after its merger with State Bank of India – Cheques returned with remark “Funds Insufficient” and not “Invalid” – Contention that cheques became invalid after 31-12-2017 due to amalgamation – Held: Expression “within the period of its validity” in proviso (a) to Section 138 is elastic and may cover invalidity arising from merger – However, where cheque is dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient”, presumption under Section 146 NI Act operates – Whether cheque had become invalid and could not have been honoured is a triable issue – Cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Complaints not liable to be quashed [Paras 19–23, 29–31, 40–41].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Process – Disputed Questions of Fact – Accused relying on Acquisition Order and RBI Circular not produced before Trial Court – Cheques dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 146 NI Act applicable – Rebuttal requires evidence – Held: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide disputed factual issues requiring trial – No interference with orders issuing process [Paras 13–15, 29–30, 35, 37–39, 41].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumptions – Sections 139 & 146 – Cheque Returned for “Funds Insufficient” – Mandatory presumption that cheque was dishonoured – Onus shifts to drawer to rebut – Where return memo does not indicate invalidity but insufficiency of funds, burden lies on accused to establish invalidity at trial – Quashment at threshold impermissible [Paras 29–30, 32–34, 40–41].

Presentation of Cheque – Proviso (a) to Section 138 – “Within the Period of its Validity” – Interpretation – Term not confined only to period printed on cheque – May include circumstances rendering cheque invalid before expiry of printed validity – However, no straightjacket formula that merger automatically nullifies liability under Section 138 – Attendant facts and bank endorsement decisive [Paras 20–23, 40].

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Orders of Magistrate issuing process and Sessions Court dismissing revisions upheld – No costs [Paras 42–43].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Wrong Quotation of Penal Provisions – Petitioner, a Director of company, sought quashing contending offences under Sections 415, 420, 472, 477A, 378 and 379 IPC not attracted – Held: Mere misquoting of penal provisions by investigating agency does not warrant quashing – Trial Court empowered to frame appropriate charges based on materials on record – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Company Director – Allegation of Misappropriation of Company Assets – Prosecution alleged petitioner purchased goods in name of company, diverted them to wife’s shop, manipulated computer data, removed company records and retained company car – Court observed that materials prima facie disclose offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC – Applicability of Sections 415 and 420 IPC to be examined at stage of charge – Proceedings cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Forgery and Use of Forged Documents – Incorrect Mention of Sections 472 and 477A IPC – Allegations indicate possible offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC – Held: If investigating agency wrongly invoked Sections 472 and 477A IPC, Magistrate can incorporate correct provisions while framing charges – No ground for quashment merely because specific sections may not strictly apply [Para 6].

Theft – Company Vehicle – Defence that Car Surrendered to Financier – Petitioner contended that offences under Sections 378 and 379 IPC not attracted as vehicle returned to financier due to loan arrears – Held: Such factual defence to be considered by Trial Court at stage of framing of charge – Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC not to be invoked for premature evaluation of defence [Para 7].

Powers of Trial Court – Alteration of Charge – Court clarified that Magistrate may invoke powers under Section 216 CrPC (Section 239 BNSS, 2023) to alter or add charges if already framed – Observations in present order to be considered at stage of framing/alteration of charges [Final Order].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – No ground to quash proceedings – Trial Court to consider proper penal provisions at stage of framing or alteration of charges.

Banking Law – Fraud Classification – RBI Master Directions – Declaration of account as “Fraud” during pendency of writ petition – Petitioners challenged show cause notices dated 28-02-2025 alleging non-supply of Forensic Audit Reports and relied upon documents – During pendency and after conclusion of hearing, bank issued letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring account as “fraud” – Held, action of bank in passing impugned orders without supplying requested documents and without considering petitioners’ request violates principles of natural justice – Orders dated 15-01-2026 set aside and quashed – Bank directed to furnish documents/allow inspection and thereafter proceed afresh in terms of law [Paras 1, 10, 16-21].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Supply of Forensic Audit Report – Petitioners contended that show cause notices were issued mechanically on basis of KPMG and Saxena & Saxena Forensic Audit Reports without furnishing copies thereof or underlying documents – Held, where FAR forms basis of show cause, effective opportunity of reply requires supply of relevant documents sought – Non-supply renders subsequent declaration unsustainable [Paras 4-9, 16-18].

RBI Master Directions – Summary Procedure – Balance between Speed and Fair Hearing – Respondent relied on earlier decision in Hemant Kanoria v. Bank of India – Court reiterated that though fraud classification is summary in nature and time-bound, principles of natural justice must be read into the process – Procedure laid down in earlier judgment regarding issuance of show cause, furnishing of documents, inspection and supplementary reply to be followed – Mechanical adherence to speed cannot defeat fair opportunity [Paras 12-15, 17-20].

Judicial Review – Post-Hearing Developments – Bank’s action in declaring account as fraud after matter reserved for judgment – Held, passing adverse order during pendency of writ petition without addressing grievance regarding non-supply of documents amounts to arbitrary exercise of power – Writ court justified in setting aside such action and issuing procedural directions [Paras 1-2, 10, 17].

Decision: Impugned letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring petitioners’ account as “fraud” set aside – Respondent directed to supply documents specified in para 14 within two weeks or permit inspection if voluminous – Petitioners to file reply within two weeks thereafter – Bank to pass reasoned order within two weeks of receipt of supplementary reply – Writ petition and connected application disposed of.