NDPS – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 – Alleged recovery of 1,37,11,610 tablets weighing 5772.584 kg (with strips) – Petitioners alleged to be part of organised chain involving manufacture, marketing and diversion of NRx medicines through licensed and fictitious firms – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Twin conditions cumulative and mandatory – No reasonable grounds shown to believe petitioners are not guilty – Bail declined [Paras 7, 10].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope and Application – Court reiterated that conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are in addition to general bail principles and both conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively – Satisfaction regarding “not guilty” requires prima facie assessment without conducting mini-trial – Condition regarding likelihood of re-offending to be assessed from entire factual matrix including role and antecedents – No case made out to dilute statutory embargo [Paras 7, 10].

Organised Diversion of Pharmaceutical Drugs – Licensed Entities as Facade – Petitioners contended that they were directors/proprietors of licensed pharmaceutical firms and transactions were lawful – Prosecution alleged large-scale diversion of NRx medicines through shell/fictitious firms and cancellation of licences – Held: Mere existence of licences or corporate structure does not ipso facto negate prima facie inference of organised illegal diversion – Commercial sophistication cannot shield criminal accountability at bail stage [Paras 9-9.2].

Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntary Statements – Prima Facie Consideration – Statements under Section 67, disclosures regarding sale of crores of tablets to fictitious/inactive firms and coordination in supply chain placed on record – At bail stage, Court not to conclusively adjudicate admissibility or evidentiary value but may consider surrounding circumstances for limited purpose of Section 37 satisfaction [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Long Incarceration – Trial Delay – Effect under NDPS – Petitioners in custody ranging from December 2024 to May 2025 – 50 prosecution witnesses cited, none examined till date – Held: In view of seriousness of allegations, magnitude of recovery and organised nature of offence, incarceration period not such as to dilute statutory rigour under Section 37 – No case of inordinate delay attributable to prosecution so as to invoke Article 21 exception [Paras 7, 10].

Gravity of Offence – Societal Impact – Court took note of Supreme Court precedents emphasising menace of drug abuse and organised trafficking – Held: Alleged offence involves large-scale commercial quantity affecting public health and youth – Discretion in bail to be exercised with heightened caution in such cases [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: All eight petitions dismissed – No ground made out to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Observations not to be construed as opinion on merits – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Letters Patent Appeal – Scope of Interference – Single Judge declined to entertain writ on ground that disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Directed appellant to approach appropriate forum – Held: No error in impugned order – Observations do not conclude title – Appellant not prejudiced [Paras 11, 22].

Co-operative Dispute – Possession of Flat – Appellant claimed ownership of Flat No. 702 based on purchase of Flat No. 701 allegedly admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. and subsequent division – Sale deed reflected ownership only of Flat No. 701 – No documentary evidence of lawful division or membership in respect of Flat No. 702 – Held: Appellant failed to establish any right, title or interest in Flat No. 702 [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Disputed Questions of Title – Writ Jurisdiction – Allegations of fraud, illegal dispossession and violation of natural justice raised – Cooperative Appellate Court held such issues cannot be adjudicated in interlocutory/review proceedings – Appropriate remedy lies before competent civil forum – Writ court rightly declined to examine disputed factual matrix [Paras 11, 12, 22].

Possession through Court Receiver – Cooperative Appellate Court directed society to hand over Flat No. 702 to Respondent No. 5, failing which Court Receiver to take possession – Appellant not party to earlier proceedings – However, appellant’s claim over Flat No. 702 found unsupported by documents – Held: Orders of Appellate Court based on society records showing flat vacant – No case made out for interference [Paras 12, 14, 23].

Conduct of Appellant – Abuse of Process – Court observed appellant failed to produce any authenticated document supporting alleged 1500 sq. ft. area or lawful bifurcation – Leave and license agreements viewed as attempt to create semblance of possession – Held: Appeal an attempt to defeat rights of bona fide allottee – No merit [Paras 17, 18, 21, 24].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 13.06.2011 upheld – Respondent No. 5 at liberty to take appropriate steps to secure possession in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 24, Order].

Motor Accident Claim – Minor Injured Claimant – Assessment of Notional Income – Minimum Wages of Skilled Worker – Tribunal failed to assess loss of earning capacity of 15-year-old student – High Court held that minor cannot be treated as non-earner – Income to be assessed on basis of minimum wages prevailing in Haryana – Monthly income fixed at Rs.5,500 – 40% addition towards future prospects – Multiplier of 18 applied – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of 13% disability [Paras 9, 13-14, 23; ].

Permanent Disability – 13% Whole Body Disability – Functional Impact – Court reiterated that permanent disability has multi-dimensional consequences including loss of dignity, reduced mobility and long-term impairment – Compensation under loss of future earning capacity to be computed by applying multiplier method in terms of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Erudhaya Priya [Paras 6, 16-17; ].

Future Prospects – Injured Minor – Addition of 40% – Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects – As per settled law including Pranay Sethi and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, future prospects must be granted even in case of minors – 40% addition applied to notional income [Paras 14; ].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Loss of Amenities – Considering young age (15 years) and permanent disability, meagre award by Tribunal enhanced – Rs.3,00,000 granted for pain and suffering – Rs.3,00,000 granted for loss of marriage prospects – Rs.2,00,000 awarded for loss of amenities of life – Enhancement justified in view of KS Muralidhar and Rahul Ganpat Rao Sable [Paras 18, 21, 23; ].

Just Compensation – Welfare Legislation – Court emphasized that compensation must be fair, reasonable and adequate to restore victim to pre-accident position as far as money can – Award modified from Rs.1,20,000 to Rs.9,96,216 – Enhanced amount Rs.8,76,216 with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition [Paras 23-25; ].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 04.09.2009 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.9,96,216 – Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount with 9% interest within two months – Tribunal to disburse amount to claimant.

Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Accidental Fall from Train – Deceased allegedly fell from running train between Daya Basti and Shakur Basti – Journey ticket recovered during jamatalashi – Tribunal dismissed claim on conjectures regarding journey duration and nature of injuries – Held: Findings based on surmises – Recovery of valid ticket establishes prima facie bona fide travel – Burden shifts to Railways to rebut – Impugned order set aside [Paras 9–12, 17–18].

Bona Fide Passenger – Proof – Journey ticket bearing No. m-43449854 recovered from deceased – Recovery not disputed – Tribunal erred in presuming expiry of journey time based on scheduled train chart without evidence of actual train timings (TSR) – Reliance on scheduled timings unsustainable [Paras 9–10].

Commercial Circular No. 5/2016 – Validity of Ticket – For distance up to 199 km, journey to commence within three hours of issue or departure of first train, whichever later – No evidence that deceased travelled contrary to circular – Benefit of doubt to claimants [Paras 11–12].

Medical Evidence – Tribunal Drawing Own Conclusions – Tribunal inferred injuries indicated “hit by train” and not fall – Simultaneously noted absence of loco pilot report or contemporaneous record of run-over – Such self-contradictory reasoning unsustainable – Court held Tribunal erred in substituting medical opinion without expert basis [Paras 13–15].

Standard of Proof – Beneficial Legislation – Proceedings under Railways Act not akin to criminal trial – Hyper-technical approach impermissible – Once basic facts of travel and accidental fall established, burden shifts to Railways – None of the exceptions under proviso to Section 124-A attracted [Paras 16–17].

Delay in Discovery of Body – Not Conclusive – Mere delay in recovery of body in mid-section between stations does not negate travel or accidental fall – Cannot defeat statutory claim absent cogent rebuttal evidence [Paras 8, 12].

Appellate Interference – Tribunal’s Findings Based on Conjecture – High Court justified in setting aside dismissal where conclusions contrary to settled law laid down in Rina Devi and Leela Devi [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 22.05.2019 set aside – Matter remanded to Railway Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation in accordance with law – Compensation to be disbursed within two months – Copy of judgment directed to be sent to Tribunal.

Remission – Premature Release – Section 432(2) CrPC – Competence of Presiding Judge – Life convict’s prayer for premature release recommended by State Sentence Review Board – Judicial Department rejected release based on negative opinion of Chief Judge, City Sessions Court as successor to convicting Bench which ceased to exist – Held: In absence of original presiding Judge, Chief Judge competent to render opinion under Section 432(2) by virtue of Section 5 of City Sessions Court Act and Section 35 CrPC – Provision cannot be rendered unworkable – Question answered in affirmative [Paras 31-39].

Remission – Opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC – Requirement of Reasons – Chief Judge’s opinion primarily reiterated gravity of offence without adequate consideration of post-conviction factors – Relevant parameters in Laxman Naskar and Ram Chander not properly addressed – Mechanical and stereotype reasoning insufficient – Opinion must consider potential for reformation, chance of recurrence, socio-economic condition and purpose of further incarceration – Held: Opinion legally deficient and non-compliant with statutory mandate [Paras 40-45].

Remission – Role of State Government – Whether Presiding Judge’s opinion binding – Judicial Secretary treated negative opinion as sine qua non and mechanically accepted it – Held: Though opinion under Section 432(2) is mandatory procedural safeguard, it is not binding – State must not mechanically follow judicial opinion and must independently assess compliance with statutory requirements – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 46-49].

Administrative Directions – Effect of Earlier Writ Order directing consideration “in line with SSRB recommendation” – Whether binding mandate to grant release – Held: SSRB recommendation subject to approval of State Government – Earlier order required sincere consideration, not automatic release – Statutory scheme not supplanted – Judicial Secretary not precluded from independent decision [Paras 50-55].

Constitutional Jurisdiction – Power of High Court to Direct Premature Release – Scope under Article 226 – Though constitutional courts may in compelling circumstances grant remission directly, such power to be exercised sparingly – In present case insufficient material regarding reformation, conduct, and comparative parameters – Not appropriate to assume executive function at this stage – Matter remitted for fresh opinion and reconsideration [Paras 56-69].

Parity – Co-accused granted premature release – Whether automatic entitlement – Held: Parity not absolute right in remission matters – Must establish equivalence in behavioural and statutory parameters – Insufficient material regarding co-accused – Claim rejected [Para 70].

Decision: Impugned order dated 24.12.2024 set aside – Chief Judge, City Sessions Court directed to render fresh reasoned opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC within one month considering factors in Laxman Naskar, Ram Chander and Bilkis Yakub Rasool – State Government to take fresh decision within one month thereafter without mechanically relying on judicial opinion – Writ petition disposed of – No costs [Paras 73-75].

Matrimonial Law – Remand – Scope and Compliance – High Court earlier remanded matter directing Family Court to permit additional evidence on financial capacity of husband and determine permanent alimony – Family Court restored earlier dismissal without quantifying alimony on ground that parties had not mutually agreed – Held: Clear misreading of remand order – Determination of alimony was mandatory irrespective of mutual consent – Restoration order set aside and matter remitted for fresh adjudication in terms of remand directions [Paras 2–5].

Permanent Alimony – Judicial Duty to Quantify – Remand order required Family Court to independently assess financial strength and determine quantum – Failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by remand amounts to non-compliance – Cryptic restoration order unsustainable in law [Para 5].

Maintenance – Interim Relief During Pendency – Prolonged pendency of matrimonial litigation for over thirteen years – Wife found to be impecunious and without financial support – Relying on Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, Court reiterated that object of maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and to ensure dignified survival – Husband directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from January 2026 till disposal of proceedings [Paras 7–9].

Social Justice – Obligation of Husband – Maintenance proceedings are measure of social justice – Husband cannot take subterfuges to deny sustenance to wife – Even able-bodied husband obliged to provide financial support pending adjudication [Para 7].

Expeditious Disposal – Family Court directed to dispose of remanded proceeding within three months considering long pendency – Parties directed to appear before Family Court on specified date [Paras 6, 10–11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Order dated 20.04.2023 restoring earlier judgment set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Cuttack to decide afresh in terms of remand order dated 28.06.2022 – Interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month directed to be paid by husband to wife till disposal – Registry directed to communicate order forthwith.

Local Governance – Special Grade Town Panchayat – Applicability of Statute – Karumandisellipalayam being a Special Grade Town Panchayat is governed by the District Municipalities Act and Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 – Arguments based on Panchayats Act held misconceived – Statutory framework under Urban Local Bodies Act applicable [Paras 41–46].

Burial Ground – Long Standing Usage – Revenue Classification as Cart Track – Evidence including 2000 Panchayat Resolution, Government Grant, Cash Book, Road/Street Ledger and Collector’s Report establish existence of burial ground at least from year 2000 and usage for over 70 years – Mere classification in ‘A’ register as cart track does not efface factual and customary use as burial ground – Court holds burial ground exists in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 [Paras 50–54].

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 172 – Registration and Licensing of Burial Grounds – Obligation of owner or person in control to register existing burial grounds – Council empowered to regulate and notify – Absence of notification prohibiting burial elsewhere renders plea for total prohibition untenable – Subjective satisfaction of Council required for ban under Section 172(3) [Paras 56–58].

Reclassification – Pending Resolution – Town Panchayat Resolution dated 14.10.2025 seeking measurement and reclassification as burial ground – Matter under consideration by Revenue Authorities – Court declines to interfere at this stage and rejects mandamus to prevent reclassification – Ongoing statutory process not to be interdicted [Para 60].

Right to Dignity – Dead Persons – Disturbance of Graves – Collector’s report reveals levelling of graves and disturbance of burial sites – Held: Right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead – Temporal sanctity of grave violated – Authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under BNSS/Section 297 IPC – State reminded of constitutional and statutory duty [Paras 62–65].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Access to Burial Grounds – Denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste community amounts to violation of Article 17 and may attract penal consequences under SC/ST Act – District Collector empowered and obligated to act – Failure to protect burial rights deprecated [Para 66].

Municipal Duty – Constitutional Mandate – Article 243W read with XII Schedule mandates Town Panchayat to provide and maintain burial and cremation grounds – Section 172(4) obligates provision and maintenance within municipal limits – Local body directed to secure and maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage [Paras 61, 67].

Decision:

W.P.No.37501 of 2025 disposed of with directions –

(i) District Collector to ensure segregation and proper fencing of burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 –

(ii) Town Panchayat to maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage –

(iii) Revenue authorities to act on resolution dated 14.10.2025 and exclude burial area from classification as cart track –

(iv) Collector to initiate action against persons responsible for levelling graves –

W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 dismissed – No costs.

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds of Arrest – Arrest memo merely mentioning crime number and sections without disclosing specific grounds – Separate sheet of “grounds of arrest” not forming part of arrest memo and not attested as required under Section 36 BNSS – Held: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (2026) 1 SCC 500 – Arrest and consequential remand rendered illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 20-26, 33-34].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Constitutional safeguard not a procedural formality – Grounds must be furnished in writing in a language understood by arrestee – Failure to supply written grounds within stipulated time vitiates arrest and remand – Remand order cannot cure foundational illegality of arrest – “Once the edifice goes, the superstructure collapses” [Paras 19-23, 27, 33].

Criminal Procedure – Remand under Section 187 BNSS – Mechanical Remand – Magistrate obliged to apply judicial mind to legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards – Failure to notice non-conformity of arrest memo and absence of duly attested written grounds – Remand held to be passed in a mechanical manner – Habeas corpus maintainable notwithstanding remand [Paras 28-30].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus after Judicial Remand – Writ lies where remand order suffers from absolute illegality or is passed mechanically – Distinction between judicial review remedies and writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus is writ of right granted ex debito justitiae in case of unlawful detention – Petition maintainable despite pendency of criminal proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Arrest of petitioner declared illegal – Remand order dated 29.01.2026 set aside – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

PIL - Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Scope of Interference – Petitioner challenged the closure of fresh registrations and the fixation of age-related eligibility criteria (21 to 60 years) under the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Art. 14 – Held: Judicial review of a policy decision is limited to examining its legality, not its wisdom. Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters. A policy decision can only be interfered with if it is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, or dehors the provisions of a statute. The fixation of the date for commencement and closure of a scheme, as well as the determination of the age of entitlement, falls squarely within the executive domain of the State. The court found no arbitrariness in the State’s exercise of discretion regarding the implementation and continuation of the policy. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Equality before Law – Hostile Discrimination – Allegation of arbitrary exclusion of newly eligible women from a welfare scheme – Held: The State has the discretion to decide the implementation period and the scope of beneficiaries for a welfare policy. Stoppage of fresh registrations from a specific date does not, per se, constitute hostile discrimination. The fixation of minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement is a policy matter within the domain of the State Government and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be manifestly arbitrary. [Paras 10, 11]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Locus Standi – Enhancement of Financial Benefits – Petitioner sought a direction to enhance the amount provided under the scheme as per alleged promises – Held: The petitioner is admittedly neither an aspirant nor a beneficiary of the scheme. Claims regarding the enhancement of financial benefits under a social welfare scheme cannot be entertained at the instance of a third party in a PIL. Such matters pertain to the discretionary executive functions of the State. [Para 12]

Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s power of judicial review over executive policy is restricted to assessing whether the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, or ultra vires the powers of the delegatee. The determination of eligibility criteria, including age limits and registration timelines for a welfare scheme, is a matter of administrative policy within the State's domain and does not attract judicial interference under Art. 226 unless it is demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary or malafide.

Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.