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.

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.

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.

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.

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Central Health Service Doctors – Amendment to FR 56(bb) – Age of superannuation stipulated as 62 years with conditional continuation up to 65 years upon exercise of option – Continuation confined to teaching, clinical, patient care, public health and advisory functions – Challenge to amendment as arbitrary and unconstitutional – Held: 62 years is the normal age of superannuation – Continuation up to 65 years is enabling and conditional – No vested right to continue with administrative charge – Amendment valid – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 21-25, 56-61].

Service Conditions – Reduction in Rank – Exclusion from Administrative Posts after 62 years – Petitioners contended that restriction amounts to divestment of status and reduction in rank – Court held that administrative charge is assignment of duties and not substantive rank – No reversion, reduction in pay or change in cadre – Regulation of duties during extended tenure does not amount to reduction in rank – Condition attached to optional extension cannot be termed punitive [Paras 26-32].

Vested Right – Enhancement of Retirement Age – Whether Notification dated 31.05.2016 created indefeasible right to continue up to 65 years – Held: Age of superannuation is a condition of service amenable to amendment under proviso to Article 309 – No government servant has vested right in continuance of statutory regime – Subsequent amendment dated 11.08.2018 validly regulates conditions of continuation – No crystallised right to hold administrative post till 65 years [Paras 34-39].

Delegated Legislation – Scope of Power under Article 309 – Challenge on ground of lack of Cabinet approval and excess of delegated authority – Court held that Rule 56(bb) forms part of statutory Fundamental Rules framed under Article 309 – Nature of duties during extended tenure falls within “conditions of service” – Once rule is notified, internal procedure of approval not justiciable absent statutory mandate – Option form merely operationalises statutory rule – No excess of power [Paras 40-44].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 – Differential Treatment of Doctors in CAPFs and Assam Rifles – Proviso to FR 56(bb) provides distinct retirement age for specified categories – Reasonable classification permissible – Petitioners failed to establish manifest arbitrariness – Alleged isolated deviations cannot invalidate statutory rule – No hostile discrimination established [Paras 45-49].

Promotion – Exclusion from Consideration after 62 Years – Petitioners challenged non-inclusion in seniority list for promotion to HAG after attaining 62 years – Court held that 62 years being normal age of superannuation, promotional rights do not extend beyond that stage as of right – Conditional continuation up to 65 years does not carry automatic entitlement to administrative promotions – Exclusion consistent with statutory framework [Paras 50-53].

Judicial Review – Policy in Service Matters – Court reiterated limited scope of interference in statutory policy decisions concerning age of superannuation and utilisation of personnel – In absence of manifest arbitrariness or constitutional violation, Court will not substitute its view for that of rule-making authority – Impugned amendment upheld [Paras 54-59].

Decision: Batch of writ petitions dismissed – Notification dated 11.08.2018 substituting Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules upheld – Age of superannuation of CHS doctors remains 62 years with conditional continuation up to 65 years limited to specified non-administrative functions – All pending applications closed [Paras 60-61].

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.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Victim’s Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Trial Court acquitted all accused in case of fatal assault arising out of prior enmity – High Court held that though acquittal of A3 to A11 justified for want of proof of common object and corroboration, acquittal of A1 and A2 perverse in light of consistent eyewitness and medical evidence – Appellate Court can interfere where findings are contrary to evidence on record [Paras 25–27, 32–33].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Mere presence and omnibus allegations insufficient – No reliable evidence establishing common object of A3 to A11 to commit murder – Benefit of doubt rightly extended – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed [Paras 23–25, 33].

Culpable Homicide – Conversion from Murder – Sudden Quarrel – Deceased intervened in dispute between A1 and P.Ws.1 & 2 – No prior enmity between deceased and A2 – Assault occurred in heat of moment without premeditation – Though injury inflicted on vital part, circumstances indicate absence of intention to commit murder – Offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302 IPC [Paras 27, 31].

Individual Overt Acts – Appreciation of Evidence – Consistent testimony of P.Ws.1, 6 and 10 corroborated by medical evidence – Post-mortem confirms head injury consistent with eyewitness account – Minor lapses in investigation and non-examination of certain witnesses not fatal when core prosecution case proved – A1 liable under Section 324 IPC for assault with broken glass and under Section 342 IPC – A2 liable under Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 22, 26–31, 32].

Delay in FIR – Explained – Incident occurred at 8.00 p.m. – Complaint lodged at 12.30 a.m. after shifting injured to hospital – Delay natural in circumstances of securing medical treatment – Not fatal to prosecution case [Para 30].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Evidence of hostile witnesses not to be rejected in toto – Conviction can be based on reliable portion of testimony corroborated by other evidence – Conviction sustained on basis of trustworthy eyewitnesses despite some witnesses turning hostile [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Acquittal of A1 and A2 set aside – A1 convicted under Sections 324 and 342 IPC – A2 convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC – Matter posted for hearing on sentence – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Final Report – Section 482 CrPC – Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Accused bus driver alleged to have overtaken and collided with the official vehicle of a judicial officer – Held: None of the charges are even prima facie sustainable as the essential ingredients of Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Act of 1984 are absent – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 10, 19, 20].

Section 353 IPC – Assault or Criminal Force Against Public Servant – Ingredients – For an offence under Section 353 IPC, there must be actual assault or use of criminal force against a public servant on duty with the intention to prevent or deter discharge of duty – Mere obstruction is insufficient; there must be intentional physical force directed against the person – In the instant case, the incident was a brushing of the bus against the car during overtaking and the FIR discloses no criminal intent or mens rea to obstruct or deter any public servant – Section 353 IPC not attracted [Paras 11, 14, 15].

Section 324 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Means – Ingredients – An offence under Section 324 IPC requires that hurt must be caused by a dangerous weapon or dangerous means – Injury caused by shattering of car window glass as a consequence of a road incident does not constitute intentional use of a dangerous weapon or dangerous means by the accused – Section 324 IPC legally unsustainable [Para 16].

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3(2)(e) – "Public Property" – Scope – The category of public property covered by Section 3(2)(e) is a closed and specifically enumerated list – The provision cannot be extended by interpretative exercise to cover all forms of public property in a general sense – An official car of a judicial officer, though public property, is not a "means of public transportation or telecommunications" as contemplated under Section 3(2)(e) – The Act was not intended to govern isolated motor accidents lacking an element of assault and criminal force – Section 3(2)(e) not attracted [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Crl.M.C. allowed – Final Report in Crime No. 847/2018 and all further proceedings in CC No. 367/2018 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha quashed.

Service Law – Pension – Switching from CPF to Pension Scheme – Cut-off Date – Denial of Retrospective Pension – Validity – Retired employees of SIDBI challenged clauses of Circular dated 29.06.2022 granting pension only prospectively from 01.07.2022 to CPF optees and denying arrears prior thereto – Petitioners contended that SIDBI Pension Regulations, 2002 were the only valid regulations and no earlier effective option was given to them to opt for pension – Held: Fixation of cut-off date for grant of pension and refusal to grant pension retrospectively is neither arbitrary nor illegal nor discriminatory – Pension scheme being a policy decision, financial implications and sustainability are relevant considerations – Petitioners having opted for the scheme as a package cannot accept benefits and reject disadvantageous clauses [Paras 16–20].

Service Jurisprudence – Pension Scheme as a Package – Doctrine of “No Picking and Choosing” – Pension option extended as a final opportunity subject to specific terms – Petitioners exercised option to switch from CPF to pension – Held: Employees cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting benefits of scheme while challenging conditions forming integral part thereof – Once option exercised, scheme must be accepted in entirety [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Decision – RBI v. M.T. Mani – Clauses impugned were materially identical to clauses upheld by Supreme Court in RBI v. M.T. Mani – Supreme Court held that denial of retrospective pension prior to cut-off date does not violate Articles 14 or 16 – High Court bound by ratio and applied same to SIDBI pension scheme – Distinction sought on ground of lack of prior options rejected [Paras 16–19].

Policy Decision – Financial Burden – Judicial Restraint – SIDBI pension option resulted in financial burden of approx. ₹96 crores; retrospective arrears would impose additional burden of ₹19.67 crores for petitioners alone – Held: Courts should not interfere with economic and policy decisions taken after considering financial viability – Retrospective pension would lead to financially unsustainable consequences [Paras 17–18].

Delay and Double Benefit – CPF and Pension – Petitioners had enjoyed CPF benefits and income for several years – Grant of retrospective pension would amount to unjust enrichment and double benefit – Reliance placed on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar – Held: No prejudice caused to petitioners by denial of retrospective pension [Paras 11, 21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Clauses 3(VIII) and 4(IX) of Circular dated 29 June 2022 upheld – No order as to costs.