Conviction can be sustained only when circumstances are fully established, consistent solely with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every hypothesis of innocence and form a complete chain – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 16-17].

Last Seen Theory – Hostile Witness – PW-15 Ramzan Khan turned hostile and denied seeing accused with deceased – No corroborative evidence – Held: Theory of last seen not proved [Paras 6, 17].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Memorandum – Authenticity – Memorandums (Ex. P/16 and P/17) allegedly recorded at Police Station at 8:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. – Scientific Officer’s report showed Investigating Officer present at scene of crime at same time – Star witness admitted signatures obtained on blank papers – Held: Memorandums fictitious and inadmissible – Recovery of skeleton not proved at instance of accused [Paras 9-11, 14].

Prosecution Fairness – Withholding Evidence – Scene of crime report not exhibited by prosecution though prepared at its instance – Accused entitled to rely upon such document – Prosecutor must act fairly and place all material before Court [Paras 7-8].

Motive – Illicit Relationship – Allegation not substantiated – No witness proved existence of illicit relationship – No evidence that deceased was aware of such relationship – Motive not established [Paras 4, 11-12].

Motive – Employment Application – Prosecution theory that accused lured deceased on pretext of job clearance – No official from Women and Child Development Department examined – Foundation of prosecution case not proved [Para 12].

Administration of Poison – Failure to Prove Nature of Substance – Alleged pesticide not scientifically established as odorless or capable of clandestine administration – No forensic linkage with cause of death – Theory incomplete [Para 13].

Electronic Evidence – Call Detail Records – Non-compliance with Section 65B Evidence Act – Certificate not issued by service provider – No tower location linking accused to scene – Held: CDR evidence unreliable and inadmissible [Para 15].

Faulty and Malicious Investigation – Fabrication of Documents – Court deprecated creation of fictitious memorandums – Liberty granted to Director General of Police to consider departmental enquiry against Investigating Officer – Conviction cannot rest on tainted investigation [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Copy of judgment directed to be circulated to police authorities for appropriate action [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Alleged Derogatory Remarks on Assamese Women – Statement in YouTube interview alleging existence of a village in Assam where girls practice black magic and convert men into animals – FIR registered under Sections 196(1), 197(1), 353(2) BNS read with Section 67 IT Act and Section 4 of Assam Witch Hunting Act – Investigation culminated in charge-sheet – Held: Taking the statement at face value, essential ingredients of the alleged offences not made out – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 18, 28-30].

Promoting Enmity – Requirement of Two Groups – Section 196 BNS – Mere controversial or objectionable remarks not sufficient – Prosecution must show promotion of enmity between two or more religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups – Statement did not refer to two distinct communities nor promote disharmony between them – Mens rea absent – No offence under Section 196 BNS made out [Paras 20-22].

Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration – Section 197 BNS – No allegation that any class of persons cannot bear allegiance to Constitution or be denied citizenship rights – No assertion affecting sovereignty, unity or integrity of India – Ingredients of Section 197 BNS not attracted [Paras 19-20].

Statements Conducing to Public Mischief – Section 353(2) BNS – Requirement of false information with intent to promote enmity or hatred between groups – Impugned statement, though controversial, did not satisfy statutory threshold – No material showing likelihood of promoting hatred between communities [Paras 20-22, 28].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Publishing obscene material in electronic form – Mere reference to alleged tantric practices and sexual conduct, in context of narration, does not ipso facto amount to obscenity – Ingredients of Section 67 not satisfied [Para 23].

Assam Witch Hunting Act – Identification or Stigmatization as Witch – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) – Offence requires identifying or defaming a person as “witch” implying power to harm society – Statement did not label any individual as witch nor attribute power to harm society at large – Essential element missing – Provision not attracted [Paras 24-27].

Inherent Powers – Scope After Filing of Charge-sheet – High Court empowered to examine FIR, charge-sheet and accompanying materials even after filing of charge-sheet – If allegations taken at face value do not constitute offence, proceedings liable to be quashed – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal principles and subsequent precedents [Paras 15-17, 28-29].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 01/2025 and Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 08.09.2025 (corresponding Sessions Case No. 180/2025) quashed – Proceedings set aside.

Service Law – Adhoc / Work-Charged Service – Counting for Seniority and Pay Fixation – Respondents appointed as Clerks on ad-hoc basis by an authority not competent under the service rules – Posts not advertised and appointments made dehors the rules – Termination later held illegal by Industrial Tribunal with direction of reinstatement and full back wages – Held: Grant of reinstatement with back wages does not automatically confer right to count ad-hoc service for seniority or promotion when initial appointment itself was illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Service Law – Effect of Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Continuity of Service – Tribunal awarded reinstatement with full back wages but did not grant continuity of service – Courts below erred in presuming deemed continuity merely from reinstatement and back wages – Held: In absence of lawful initial appointment and express grant of continuity, pre-regularisation service cannot be counted for service benefits [Paras 2, 6, 11].

Service Jurisprudence – Illegal Appointment – Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments – Appointment made by incompetent authority without following recruitment rules treated as illegal – Such service cannot be equated with service rendered pursuant to regular appointment – Counting such service would amount to treating unequals equally, offending Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 12–13].

Precedent – Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association Case – Supreme Court reiterated – Only ad-hoc service rendered after appointment in accordance with rules or after consideration of eligible candidates can be counted for seniority – Ad-hoc service rendered through back-door entry excluded [Para 13].

Civil Suit – Declaration – Trial Court and First Appellate Court wrongly decreed suit holding ad-hoc service countable due to reinstatement with back wages – Judgments held contrary to settled law – Interference in second appeal justified [Paras 5–7, 14].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Suit of respondents dismissed.

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.

Juvenile Justice Act – Bail under Section 12 – Plea of Juvenility Raised During Pendency of Appeal – Convict sentenced to 25 years imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act – Age determination inquiry pending before Trial Court pursuant to High Court’s direction – Whether bail mandatory pending such determination – Held: Though bail to a child in conflict with law is the rule under Section 12 JJ Act irrespective of gravity of offence, it can be denied where release would defeat the ends of justice – Application rejected [Paras 13-16, 21].

Juvenility Claim – Can be Raised at Any Stage – Reformative and Child-Centric Approach – Applicant relied on Hari Ram, Rishipal Singh Solanki, Abuzar Hossain and other precedents – Court reiterates settled position that claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage and must be inquired into – No violation of this principle found as age determination already referred to Trial Court – However, pendency of inquiry does not automatically entitle accused to bail [Paras 15-16].

Section 12 JJ Act – Exception Clause – “Defeat the Ends of Justice” – Scope and Interpretation – Court relied on Raju @ Ashish v. State of U.P. – Nature and gravity of offence, past conduct, and likelihood of repetition relevant factors – Conduct of convict while previously on bail allegedly involved commission of similar offence against same survivor – Such conduct prima facie indicates criminal proclivity and undermines confidence for release – Held: Release at this stage would defeat the ends of justice [Paras 18-20].

Bail – Pending Age Determination – Whether Accused to be Treated as Juvenile Before Determination – Prosecution contended accused cannot be prematurely treated as juvenile – Court observed that until age is determined, and considering conviction for aggravated sexual assault, benefit of automatic bail cannot be extended – Gravity of offence coupled with past conduct justifies denial [Paras 11, 19-21].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court not inclined to release convict pending age determination inquiry – Application disposed of – No costs [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – RWA Dispute – FIR lodged by resident against elected office bearers of Resident Welfare Association alleging extortion, intimidation and harassment over parking regulations – Allegations stemmed from enforcement of society resolution regarding parking discipline – Held: Criminal proceedings initiated to browbeat and harass elected RWA members amount to abuse of process of law – Dispute essentially civil/administrative in nature arising out of internal management of society [Paras 36–37].

Extortion – Section 308 BNS – Essential Ingredients – Delivery of Property – Allegation that Rs.500/- penalty was threatened for repeated parking violations – No material to show complainant or any resident was put in fear of injury or dishonestly induced to deliver money – No evidence of actual extraction or delivery of money – Held: Mere threat of penalty pursuant to society resolution does not constitute extortion – Ingredients of Section 308 BNS not satisfied [Paras 29–31].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 351 BNS – Intention to Cause Alarm – Absence of Ingredients – FIR and statements did not disclose any threat intended to cause alarm or compel complainant to do or omit any act unlawfully – Allegations vague and omnibus – Mere warning regarding parking consequences insufficient – Held: No offence of criminal intimidation made out [Paras 33–34].

Intentional Insult – Section 352 BNS – Provocation to Breach of Peace – Not Established – No allegation of intentional insult provoking breach of peace or commission of offence – Enforcement of parking discipline cannot be construed as intentional insult – Ingredients of Section 352 BNS absent [Paras 32–34].

Investigation – Fairness – Half-Baked and Biased Investigation – Investigating Officer failed to examine other residents, verify RWA bye-laws, resolutions or alleged collection of money – Charge-sheet filed solely on statements of informant and accused – Held: Investigation conducted in perfunctory and unfair manner in violation of principles of fair investigation under Article 21 – Serious lapses noted [Paras 35].

Judicial Oversight – Accountability of Investigating Officer – Court directed that adverse remarks be placed in ACR of Investigating Officer and copy of judgment be forwarded to Director General of Police to assess suitability of officer for investigation duties – Emphasis on responsibility accompanying power [Para 35].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Bhajan Lal Principles Applied – Case squarely covered under categories where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute offence and proceedings are actuated by mala fides – Criminal law used as pressure tactic in civil dispute – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 34–37].

Decision: Application allowed – FIR, Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2025 dated 25.07.2025 and summoning order in Case No.115214 of 2025 (State v. Kamal @ Kamlesh Agnihotri & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.392 of 2025 under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow quashed as abuse of process of law.

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder Case – Invocation of MCOCA – Stringent Conditions under Section 21(4) – Reasonable Grounds of Non-Guilt – Applicant sought bail in murder of former Minister Baba Siddiqui, where offences under BNS, Arms Act and MCOCA were invoked – Prosecution alleged applicant’s role as member of organised crime syndicate based on two phone calls to co-accused and alleged international calls – Held: Mere proof of phone calls without material showing knowledge or participation in organised crime insufficient to prima facie establish guilt – Confessional statements of key accused did not name applicant – No substantive material to link applicant with conspiracy – Reasonable grounds exist to believe applicant is not guilty for purpose of Section 21(4) MCOCA [Paras 10–14].

MCOCA – Section 21(4) – Interpretation – Embargo on Bail – Scope – Court required to record satisfaction of twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offence on bail – “Reasonable grounds” means more than prima facie suspicion but less than proof of innocence – Findings to be tentative and confined to bail stage – Court must balance seriousness of offence with quality of material against accused [Paras 9, 15–17].

Evidence – Call Detail Records – Confessional Statements – Evidentiary Weight at Bail Stage – Prosecution relied on mobile extraction showing two calls made by applicant to A-15 using hotspot of third party – Held: Mere telephonic contact does not establish complicity unless nexus with organised crime is demonstrated – Allegation of international calls unsupported by identification of recipients – Confessional statements of A-5 and A-15 detailed roles of several accused but conspicuously omitted applicant – Absence of naming significant at bail stage [Paras 10–11].

Photographic Evidence – Firearms – Limited Probative Value – Photograph of applicant holding firearm recovered from mobile phone – Held: Does not establish participation in murder conspiracy – Prosecution case itself that weapons used were sourced from Rajasthan – Existence of firearm photograph insufficient to connect applicant to offence [Para 12].

Financial Transactions – Alleged Funding of Syndicate – Insufficient Proof – Prosecution allegation of applicant depositing money in ATM in Punjab unsupported by affidavit or documentary material – Mere fact of applicant being resident of Punjab and ATM deposit in Punjab insufficient to infer financial assistance to organised crime syndicate [Para 13].

Likelihood of Re-offending – No Criminal Antecedents – Young Age – Applicant aged 22 years with no criminal antecedents – Alleged contact limited to one co-accused through phone call – Held: No material to suggest likelihood of committing offence under MCOCA if released on bail [Para 18].

Decision: Bail Application allowed – Applicant enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions including execution of PR bond, regular reporting to DCB/CID, surrender of passport, restriction on travel, non-tampering of evidence and cooperation with trial – Observations held to be prima facie and not to influence trial.

Family Law – Stridhan – Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Marriage Register as Evidence – Entry in SNDP Yogam Marriage Register showing quantity of gold worn by bride – Correction duly countersigned and supported by testimony of Secretary – Genuineness of register not challenged by respondents – Photographic evidence corroborating entry – Held: Bride possessed 800 grams (100 sovereigns) of gold at the time of marriage – Finding of Family Court limiting gold to 600 grams erroneous [Paras 7–9].

Stridhan – Possession and Misappropriation – Appellant admittedly retained about 15 sovereigns – Respondents already directed to return 60 sovereigns – On evidence, respondents likely retained 85 sovereigns – Held: Respondents liable to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments [Para 10].

Recovery of Gold – Mode of Relief – Market Value – When court directs return of gold or its value, prevailing market value at time of realisation to be awarded – However, no enhancement warranted for 60 sovereigns already settled – For remaining 25 sovereigns, market value at time of recovery payable if gold not returned in specie [Para 11].

Recovery of Money – Burden of Proof – Alleged Entrustment by Parents – Claims for Rs.11 lakhs, chit fund amounts, fixed deposit withdrawal, and partnership contribution – Parents not examined – No documentary proof of availability or withdrawal of funds – Bank statements inconsistent with pleaded payments – Amendment raising FD claim introduced belatedly – Held: Monetary claims not proved – Dismissal by Family Court upheld [Paras 12–15].

Chit Fund Amounts – Locus Standi – Claim relating to chits subscribed by petitioner’s mother – Mother neither examined nor claimant – No proof of entrustment for petitioner’s benefit – Held: Petitioner not entitled to decree for amounts allegedly due to mother [Para 16].

Minor Child – Gold Ornaments – Proper Proceedings – Claim for recovery of gold belonging to minor daughter cannot be sought by mother in her personal petition – Remedy lies in instituting proceedings on behalf of minor – Clarified: Dismissal does not bar such future proceedings [Para 17].

Appeal – Remand – Filling Lacunae Impermissible – Prayer for remand to adduce further evidence rejected – Appeal cannot be remanded merely to fill evidentiary gaps or enable production of additional material – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Respondents directed to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which to pay market value at time of recovery – Rest of decree of Family Court upheld – No order as to costs.

Excise Law – Confiscation of Vehicle – Section 71 Odisha Excise Act – Independent of Criminal Trial – Vehicle seized and confiscated for alleged transportation of 51 litres of illicit NDP IMFL – Confiscation proceedings independent of outcome of criminal trial – Authority empowered to confiscate property if satisfied that offence under the Act has been committed – Criminal adjudication pending no bar to confiscation [Paras 6, 9–10].

Confiscation Proceedings – Satisfaction of Authority – Requirement of Reasoned Finding – Confiscating and appellate authorities failed to record clear satisfaction with reasons to believe that the offending vehicle was used in commission of offence – Mere reliance on seizure report without independent assessment held insufficient – Absence of discussion vitiates confiscation order [Paras 14–15].

Burden of Proof – Owner’s Defence of Lack of Knowledge or Connivance – Under Section 71(5) Odisha Excise Act, burden lies on owner seeking release to prove vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken – However, such burden arises only after authority records foundational satisfaction regarding use of vehicle in commission of offence [Paras 8, 13–14].

Procedural Fairness – Quasi-Judicial Duty of Confiscating Authority – Authorized Officer vested with powers of civil court to summon witnesses, receive evidence and compel production of documents – Failure to examine witnesses and mechanical reliance on investigating officer’s report amounts to denial of effective adjudication – Principles of natural justice emphasized [Para 14].

Mens Rea – Relevance in Confiscation Statutes – Though excise statutes may exclude mens rea by implication, confiscation power must be exercised cautiously – Innocent owner’s claim of lack of knowledge cannot be brushed aside without proper inquiry – Reliance placed on principles laid down by Supreme Court in analogous NDPS confiscation cases [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Remand for Fresh Consideration – High Court refrained from deciding merits of confiscation – Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing to both sides – Appellate Authority directed to pass reasoned, speaking order in accordance with law [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Excise Appeal Case No.31 of 2025 remanded to Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack for fresh consideration – Opportunity of hearing to be granted to petitioner and prosecution [Para 15].