Bail Application - Grant of regular bail to petitioners - Petitioners are accused in a case involving charges under Sections 307, 353, 186, and 34 IPC, Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act - Petitioner Sukhchain Singh alias Bhujia withdrew his petition. [Para 3-4]

Bail Application - Petitioners Manpreet Singh alias Patwari and Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba not named in the FIR - No recovery of firearms from them - No prior conspiracy established - Other accused named in the FIR - Alleged involvement based on disclosure statements - Petitioners in custody for an extended period - Trial likely to take time - Bail granted to petitioners subject to bail/surety bonds and non-involvement in any other criminal activity. [Para 5-13]

Legal Precedent - Citing "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another," 2012 (2) SCC 382, highlighting that the accused's role in the case should be considered when deciding a bail application, and bail cannot be rejected solely based on previous criminal antecedents. [Para 10]

Decision - Petitions allowed, and petitioners ordered to be released on bail, with a cautionary note about potential bail cancellation if they engage in criminal activity or attempt to influence witnesses. [Para 13-16]

Administrative Law – Central Administrative Tribunal's Order – High Court sets aside the Tribunal's order directing the Staff Selection Commission to form a High Power Committee for re-examining candidates' qualifications. The court found this to be parallel to existing legal proceedings. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – The Tribunal directed based on the premise that respondents’ opportunity for appointment and livelihood come under these Constitutional Articles. The High Court refrains from commenting on the merit of this constitutional issue. [Para 1, 5]

Criminal Proceedings – FIR and Challans – The High Court notes that an FIR has been registered and challans filed against certain candidates in Criminal Court. It holds that a parallel committee for investigation would be impermissible under these circumstances. [Para 2, 3, 4]

Due Process – Fair Opportunity – The Tribunal had expressed concerns over whether the candidates were granted a fair opportunity. The High Court leaves this issue for the Tribunal to decide in accordance with the law. [Para 1, 4, 5]

Committee Recommendations – Staff Selection Commission's Internal Inquiry – The previous committee cleared 135 candidates for appointment and initiated criminal action against the rest. The court takes this into record but notes that no further Committee could have been constituted. [Para 6]

Future Proceedings – Original Applications at the Tribunal – The High Court directs that as the Original Applications are still pending before the Tribunal, they are to be decided in accordance with the law. [Para 4]

Civil Procedure – Interpretation of Rule 3-A of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Whether the prohibition against making an order of stay of execution under Rule 3-A(3) is mandatory – Legislative intent to ensure the consideration of the question of limitation before admission of appeals – Context and purpose of the rule examined. [Para 18-23]

Motor Vehicles Act – Filing of appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Requirement to accompany the appeal with an application for condonation of delay – Provisions of Rule 3-A of Order XLI of the CPC applicable to appeals under Section 173 – Discussion on the mandatory nature of these requirements. [Para 6-10]

Judicial Interpretation – High Court’s duty to consider applications for condonation of delay before entertaining appeals – Analysis of decisions from Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court – The importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedures in the context of appeals. [Para 10-17]

Legislative Intent – Understanding the purpose of Rule 3-A of Order XLI – Curbing the practice of admitting appeals without addressing the question of limitation – Evolving a procedure to ensure timely consideration of condonation of delay. [Para 22-23]

Civil Procedure – Interpretation of Rule 3-A of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure – Construction of the word “shall” in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3-A – Whether “shall” is mandatory or permissive – Division Bench of this Court held that “shall” in Rule 3-A(3) is permissive, allowing for consideration of applications for stay of execution even if the application for condonation of delay is pending. [Para 32-35]

Stay of Execution – Applications for stay of execution of judgment and award – Stay granted, subject to deposit of entire decretal amount along with interest in the concerned Tribunal within a period of four weeks in each case. [Para 40, 44, 47, 50]

Criminal Offenses – Quashment of FIR and Charge Sheet – Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing FIR and charge sheet – Allegations of commission of offense under Section 294 and 506 of IPC – Complaint based on allegations of abuse and threat – Examination of the factual matrix – Lack of specific allegations and necessary ingredients for the offenses – Mere use of abusive language and threats not sufficient to constitute offenses – Insufficient evidence to establish intent to cause alarm – Quashing of FIR and charge sheet justified. [Para 2-28]

Regular Bail – Delayed Release – Compensation for Illegal Incarceration – The convict, who had been granted regular bail by a previous court order, remained in jail due to negligence on the part of jail authorities, causing a delay in his release. The court acknowledges the serious lapse on the part of the jail authorities and grants compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the applicant for his almost three years of illegal incarceration. [Para 1-12]

Directions for Timely Release – The Supreme Court’s directions regarding the release of undertrial prisoners and convicts granted bail are noted, emphasizing the need for timely release and providing guidelines for the same. [Para 8-9]

District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) – Failure to Identify Cases – The DLSA, responsible for identifying cases where prisoners granted bail are not released, is criticized for failing in its duty. All DLSAs are directed to collect data on such cases and reasons for non-release. [Para 13]

Listing for Compliance – The matter is scheduled to be listed for compliance with the aforementioned directions and for ensuring compensation to the applicant on 18.10.2023. [Para 15]

Advocate’s Role – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, questioned revenue officials during an encroachment removal operation – Charged under Sections 341 and 353 of IPC – Petitioner’s demeanor considered in light of his profession – Advocate’s actions aimed at safeguarding client’s rights, not obstructing officials – Continuing the investigation against the petitioner deemed an abuse of the court process – FIR quashed as it pertains to the petitioner. [Para 5-7]

Rule 15 of Order XXXII CPC – Scope of ‘enquiry’ – Suit instituted by a mentally unsound person through a next friend – Applicant’s unwillingness to proceed with the suit – Trial court’s ‘enquiry’ into mental capacity – Certain answers found irrational – Application dismissed – Challenge to the order in revision. [Para 1-2]

Distinction under Rule 15 – ‘A person adjudged of unsound mind’ and ‘a person incapable of protecting his interest by reason of any mental infirmity’ – Judicial inquisition necessary for the former – Enquiry mandated for the latter – Apex Court’s clarification in Kasturibai’s case distinguished – Second limb of Rule 15 discussed. [Para 2-4]

Second limb of Rule 15 – Pragmatic approach required – Examination alone insufficient – Possibility of referring parties to a Medical Board for mental assessment – Extensive jurisdiction of the court under Order XXXII CPC – Sharda v. Dharampal case cited – Court’s power to issue directions for mental evaluation affirmed. [Para 3]

Conclusion – No judicial inquisition conducted – Matter falls under the second limb of Rule 15 – Pragmatic approach not followed – Conclusions based on irrational answers set aside – Original plaintiff’s demise noted – Authority to proceed with the suit through the next friend ends upon the plaintiff’s death – CRP allowed accordingly. [Para 5-6]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of FIR registered under various sections of the IPC. The quashing was sought based on the compromise reached between the parties. [Para 1]

Court Directives – Parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to confirm the genuineness of the compromise. A report was received affirming that some petitioners settled their dispute amicably. [Para 2]

Judicial Philosophy – Discourse on the role of legal systems in resolving social conflicts. Noted that criminal law should consider the wishes of the parties to a dispute, especially where the criminal act does not significantly affect society. [Para 3-5]

Scope of Offenses – Delineated the type of criminal offenses that cannot be quashed on the grounds of a compromise, including those involving intentional loss of life and those having a larger societal impact. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Petition allowed for petitioners No.1 and 3, and dismissed for petitioners No.2 and 4. The FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed for petitioners No.1 and 3 based on the compromise. [Para 8]

Anticipatory Bail – Petition for Grant – Mohammad Rayyan Ansari, the petitioner, seeks anticipatory bail concerning FIR No.143 dated 18.06.2023 under Sections 21(c), 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Munak, Karnal, Haryana, following the allegations of selling intoxicating tablets. The petitioner was implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues for the concession of anticipatory bail citing various judgments. [Para 1-3]

Evidence – Disclosure Statement – The petitioner's implication primarily rests on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Pardeep, revealing the source of intoxicating tablets as Mohammad Rayyan Ansari. Call details between Pardeep and the petitioner were obtained, establishing communication between them. [Para 2]

Criminal Antecedents – Habitual Offender – The State, through a status report, highlights the petitioner's criminal history, including another FIR No.419 dated 17.06.2023 under the NDPS Act, where the petitioner is absconding, opposing the grant of anticipatory bail due to his criminal antecedents. [Para 4]

Judicial Precedents – Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Cases – Various judgments were cited by both parties, deliberating on the granting of anticipatory bail, especially in cases where the accused is implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and has prior criminal antecedents. [Para 6-11]

Dismissal of Petition – Considering Multiple FIRs and Habitual Offending – The Court, emphasizing on the petitioner's involvement in multiple FIRs and habitual offending, finds the custodial interrogation necessary to effect recoveries and further the investigation. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed, deeming no merit in the present petition. [Para 12-15]