Criminal Law - Bail Application under MCOCA - Bail Rejected – Application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA – FIR alleges involvement in organized crime syndicate led by Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Langarpuria – Applicant accused of multiple serious crimes including murder, extortion, and robbery – Court observes applicant’s key role in syndicate and prior criminal record – Held: Applicant poses flight risk, likelihood of committing further crimes, and prima facie case under MCOCA made out – Bail application dismissed – Trial Court directed to expedite trial and conclude within six months. [Paras 52-86]

Role of Accused in Organized Crime – Analysis – Court finds substantial evidence linking applicant to organized crime syndicate – Applicant’s involvement in serious offences substantiated by multiple FIRs and investigation reports – Previous conduct and risk of absconding considered. [Paras 64-66, 55]

Legal Standards for Bail under MCOCA – Held – Provisions of Section 21(4) of MCOCA require stringent scrutiny – Bail cannot be granted unless court is satisfied on twin grounds of no guilt and no likelihood of re-offending – Applicant fails to meet these criteria – Court balances societal interests against individual rights. [Paras 52-56]

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court finds no merit in the application for bail – Directs Trial Court to expedite trial and conclude within six months – Observations limited to bail application and not on merits of the case. [Paras 86-89]

Criminal Law - Parole - Grant of Parole for Filing SLP - Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing rejection order of parole application - Petitioner convicted under Sections 302, 326, 452, 147, 148, 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment - Parole sought to engage counsel for filing SLP before Supreme Court - Rejection of parole by competent authority citing Rule 1210 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 due to unsatisfactory conduct - Court observed conduct satisfactory in last one year and no punishment post-2022 - Right to file SLP deemed crucial - Rule 1208 lists SLP filing as valid ground for parole - Simultaneous parole of co-convict addressed - Conditional grant of parole for four weeks after co-convict's surrender. [Paras 1-11]

Right to Legal Representation - Filing of SLP - Analysis - Court underscores importance of convicts' right to file SLP - Availability of free legal aid in jail not sufficient reason to deny parole - Opportunity to pursue legal remedies through chosen counsel emphasized. [Para 8]

Decision - Conditional Parole Granted - Parole granted for four weeks post-surrender of co-convict - Conditions include personal bond, weekly reporting to SHO, active mobile contact, and surrender post-parole with proof of SLP filing. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Health Condition – Petitioner, a 75-year-old woman with advanced carcinoma, sought anticipatory bail. The Court considered her critical health condition and allowed her to join the investigation through video conferencing instead of traveling from the USA to Amritsar, Punjab [Paras 1-6].

Custodial Interrogation – Not Required – Court noted that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence, with no allegations of the petitioner’s personal interaction with co-accused, making custodial interrogation unnecessary [Para 8].

Bail Conditions – Digital Surety Bonds – Court permitted petitioner to furnish bail bonds digitally, considering her inability to travel. The petitioner was allowed to join the investigation through video conferencing and furnish personal and surety bonds through her counsel [Paras 19-20].

Judicial Precedents – Bail Principles – Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the principles of granting bail, including the balance between personal freedom and the need for investigation, and the presumption of bail over jail except in certain circumstances [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Anticipatory Bail Granted – Petition allowed with conditions for digital submission of bail bonds and video conferencing for investigation [Paras 11-27].
 

Constitutional Law – Equality before Law – Challenge to Recruitment Notification – Petitioners, aspiring candidates for Tamil Nadu Combined Civil Services (Group-IV), challenged the notification requiring a Tamil language eligibility-cum-scoring test for selection, alleging it discriminated against non-Tamil medium students and contravened the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. Held that the requirement of passing the Tamil language test with a minimum of 40% marks is consistent with Section 21A of the Act and does not amount to 100% reservation for Tamil medium candidates. The stipulation ensures proficiency in Tamil, essential for efficient public service delivery. Thus, the notification was upheld. [Paras 1-10]

Recruitment Process – Role of Language Proficiency – Analysis – The petitioners argued that consideration of marks in the Tamil eligibility test for overall ranking disadvantaged non-Tamil medium candidates. The Court found this contention without merit, affirming that proficiency in Tamil is crucial for Group-IV posts requiring direct interaction with the public. The policy of evaluating both the Tamil eligibility and general studies papers ensures that selected candidates meet the necessary language competency standards. [Para 7-10]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petitions – The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the validity of the Government Order and the TNPSC notification. The Court emphasized that the employer’s policy decisions regarding recruitment qualifications, unless shown to be illegal or ultra vires, should not be interfered with. [Para 10]

Kidney Transplantation – Non-Near Relatives – Petitioners seeking approval for kidney transplantation where donors are not near relatives – Hospital hesitated to forward applications to the Authorisation Committee – Court allowed petitioners to submit applications directly to the Committee – Directed the Committee to scrutinize and decide on applications within four weeks [Paras 2-28].

Role of Hospitals – Clarification of Responsibilities – Court clarified that hospitals are not required to forward transplantation applications – Applications can be submitted directly by donors and recipients to the Authorisation Committee [Para 8].

Evaluation by Authorisation Committee – Guidelines for Consideration – Emphasized that Authorisation Committees should consider applications without assuming commercial intent – Evaluations should include absence of financial transactions and verification of donor's altruistic intent – Aligned with provisions of the Act and Rules [Paras 11-19].

Protection of Donor Rights – Ensuring Donor Welfare – Highlighted need for medical insurance coverage for donors – Suggested measures for post-operative care and financial security of donors – Encouraged development of comprehensive guidelines to protect donor interests [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Petitioners are permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee. The Committee is directed to scrutinize and decide on the applications within four weeks from the date of submission. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Special Criminal Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Applicant accused of obtaining previous sanction for property sale in disturbed area through alleged fraudulent means – FIR filed under various sections of IPC and Disturbed Areas Act – Held that certain charges (Sections 177, 181 IPC and Section 6(d) Disturbed Areas Act) unsustainable due to legal and procedural lapses – These charges quashed, but proceedings on other charges to continue. [Paras 1-23]

Legal Bar on Prosecution – Sections 177 and 181 IPC – Trial Court’s cognizance barred under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. without complaint by public servant – Charges under these sections quashed. [Para 18]

Incorrect Invocation of Amended Law – Section 6(d) of Disturbed Areas Act – Amendment not in force at time of FIR – Charge under this section quashed as not sustainable. [Para 19]

Decision – Quashing in Part – High Court allows quashing of charges under Sections 177, 181 IPC and Section 6(d) Disturbed Areas Act – FIR to proceed on remaining charges – Accused can raise all contentions before Trial Court. [Paras 21-23]

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Petition challenging recruitment and transfer process for Range Forest Officers – Petitioner ineligible based on service duration at notification time – Tribunal's dismissal upheld – High Court emphasizes strict adherence to eligibility criteria and procedural rules in recruitment [Paras 1-11].

Public Service Commission Rules – Interpretation of Rules 13 and 14 – Notification indicated provisional vacancies subject to change – High Court supports filling vacancies arising during ranked list's currency – Tribunal's reliance on procedural rules validated [Paras 12-17].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Challenge against procedural rules and vacancy notification under Articles 14 and 16 – Petitioner's ineligibility at notification time nullifies locus standi – Tribunal and High Court reject constitutional challenge based on procedural compliance and petitioner's non-eligibility [Paras 9-19].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Tribunal's order upheld – High Court underscores necessity of meeting eligibility criteria at notification time and procedural compliance for valid recruitment challenges [Para 19].
 

Specific Performance – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Forgery Allegations - The appellants sought specific performance of a sale agreement regarding property sold by the first respondent to the deceased K.S.N. Manoharan. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, based on allegations of forgery and limitation. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a full trial [Paras 12-14, 20].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Rejection of Plaint Improper - The Court observed that limitation in specific performance suits is a mixed question of fact and law, especially when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by counsel are involved. The trial court erred in dismissing the suit at the threshold without framing issues and conducting a trial [Paras 25-28].

Doctrine of Laches – Litigant Should Not Suffer Due to Counsel’s Negligence - The appellants argued that the delay in filing the suit was caused by the negligence of their previous advocate, who failed to refile the suit. The High Court accepted this argument, emphasizing that a litigant should not be penalized for the mistakes of their advocate, particularly when fraud by the advocate is alleged [Paras 30-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Case Remanded for Trial - The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and remanding the case for trial. The trial court was directed to frame issues and decide the case on merits within six months [Para 35].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR under Sections 376 and 420 RPC – Allegations involve fraudulent marriage and subsequent physical relations under false pretenses – Court finds no prima facie case against petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 (parents of petitioner No. 3) – FIR quashed against them, while continuing against petitioner No. 3. [Paras 1-17]

Role of Accused in Alleged Offenses – Analysis – Allegations of respondent No. 3 (Miss X) against petitioner No. 3 (Ajay Sharma) include deceitful marriage and coerced physical relations – Court deems investigation necessary to ascertain validity of claims – Finds no evidence implicating parents (petitioners Nos. 1 & 2) in alleged offenses – Holds their inclusion in FIR is to pressurize petitioner No. 3. [Para 12, 14]

Bail – Anticipatory Bail – Interim bail granted to petitioner No. 3 is made absolute with conditions to cooperate with investigation – Bail applications of petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 dismissed as infructuous post quashing of FIR against them. [Paras 16-17]