Anticipatory Bail – Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83, 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act - Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the BNS - Lack of Conscious Possession – Accused not Found at Scene – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The applicant was implicated based solely on secret police inputs and was not found in conscious possession of liquor during the raid – The Court observed that the applicant was only a witness to the rent agreement and no material suggested his direct involvement – Held: No custodial interrogation required – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-6].

Relevant Judicial Precedents – Bail Jurisprudence – Cited Apex Court Decisions – The Court relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 to reinforce the settled position on anticipatory bail – Emphasis placed on the applicant’s right to liberty in absence of compelling custodial need [Para 7].

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Cooperation – Bail with Conditions – Anticipatory bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹15,000 with surety and subject to multiple conditions including cooperation with investigation, attendance at police station, travel restrictions, and non-tampering with evidence – Trial Court directed not to be influenced by observations made at bail stage [Paras 8-10].

Bail - NDPS Act – Statement of Co-Accused and Financial Transactions – Bail Granted – The prosecution relied on statements of co-accused and financial transfers to implicate the petitioners under Sections 21, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Held: Statements of co-accused are inadmissible under Sections 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and 162 CrPC – Financial transactions, in the absence of direct link to contraband trade, are insufficient to deny bail – No recovery was made from petitioners – Bail granted [Paras 12–15, 18].

Section 27A NDPS – Meaning of “Financing” – Not Attracted – Court followed Bombay High Court’s ruling in Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, holding that “financing” under Section 27A entails sustaining or operationalizing drug trade and not mere one-time payments – Mere money transfers, without evidence of systemic support, do not attract Section 27A [Paras 19–25].

Organised Crime under BNS – Section 111 Not Invocable – No Prior Charge Sheets – To invoke Section 111 BNS, existence of prior cognized charge sheets in the last 10 years against accused is mandatory – No such history against petitioners – Prima facie ingredients of “continuing unlawful activity” not met – Section 111 BNS not attracted – Bail allowed [Paras 26–32].

Constitutional Right to Silence – Burden of Proof on Prosecution – Petitioners cannot be compelled to explain financial transactions – The burden lies on the prosecution to prove criminal nexus – Exercise of right to silence cannot be interpreted as guilt or organisational membership [Para 33].

Decision – Bail Granted – No prima facie case under Sections 21, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act or Section 111(3) BNS – Petitioners granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with conditions relating to address, attendance, and conduct – Misuse of liberty may lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 34–36].

Bail – NDPS Act – Possession of Intermediate Quantity – Long Incarceration Without Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging recovery of 16.01 grams of heroin – He has remained in custody since 31.07.2023 – Co-accused released on bail – Trial not commenced; no witness examined despite lapse of over 1 year and 9 months – Held: Though petitioner has prior conviction, the prolonged incarceration without progress in trial amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to speedy trial paramount – Criminal antecedents not sufficient to deny bail in absence of timely trial – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1, 18-29].

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences – Conviction under POCSO – Credibility of Child Witness – DNA and Medical Evidence – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Appeal Dismissed.

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Minor Victim – Appellant, maternal uncle of the survivor aged 5 years, convicted under Sections 376(2)/506 IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5 of POCSO Act – Trial Court sentenced him to 11 years RI with fine under POCSO and 3 years RI under IPC Section 506 – Conviction based on consistent testimony of the child survivor (PW-1), corroborated by her medical examination (MLC) and FSL report indicating presence of appellant’s genetic material on jute bag recovered from scene [Paras 2, 17, 21-22, 42-43].

Child Witness – Competency and Tutoring Allegation – Survivor’s testimony held reliable despite minor discrepancies due to age (5 years) and time gap – Court found survivor’s version consistent on key allegation of penetrative assault – Allegation of tutoring rejected in light of corroborative evidence including MLC and FSL report – [Paras 28-29, 35].

Corroborative Testimonies – Sister (PW-2), mother (PW-6), and father (PW-3) of the survivor corroborated the sequence of events including seeing the accused in compromising position, immediate complaint and recovery – Minor discrepancies in the account regarding breaking of door/window held immaterial – [Paras 18-20, 34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – MLC confirmed bruise and hymenal tear on survivor – DNA from jute bag matched with appellant’s blood sample – Chain of custody of forensic samples established – FSL report deemed reliable and corroborative of survivor’s allegations – [Paras 21-22, 30-33].

Presumption under POCSO – Court upheld statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act – Held that appellant failed to rebut presumption beyond reasonable doubt – Allegation of false implication due to property dispute not supported by credible evidence – [Paras 36-37].

Sentencing – Appellant was 19 years old at the time of offence – Trial Court considered mitigating factors but held offence severe, justifying 11-year sentence under POCSO – [Para 43].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Court found no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence – Directions issued to jail authorities and legal services for further assistance to appellant – [Paras 44-48].

Service Law – Promotion – Articles 226 and 227 – Challenge to Tribunal's direction for reconsideration of promotion – Petition Allowed – The respondent, an IRS officer, was denied promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for vacancy year 2008–09 due to “Good” grading in ACR for 2006–07 – On challenge, Tribunal directed communication of the ACR and reconsideration – Review DPC upheld “Unfit” status – Tribunal then directed consideration of ACR for 2001–02 instead of 2006–07 – Held: Such substitution of criteria was beyond the jurisdiction of Tribunal – Communication and representation processes were duly followed – Respondent had right to be considered, not a vested right to promotion – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 2-6, 9-15].

Criminal Writ - Transfer of Investigation – Request to Hand Over to CBI – No Prima Facie Case – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 66D IT Act, sought transfer of investigation to CBI, alleging malafide intent by police due to prior disputes involving her husband – Held: Merely being an accused does not confer right to select investigating agency – No specific material shown to establish that investigation was biased or tainted – Constitutional Courts can order such transfers only in rare and exceptional cases where injustice or manipulation in investigation is evident – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7–12]. 

CBI Investigation – Scope and Judicial Review – Powers Must Be Exercised Sparingly – The Court reaffirmed that power to transfer investigation to CBI is not to be exercised as a matter of routine – It must only be done where fair trial or public confidence in justice system is at stake – Held: No cogent justification shown indicating failure of justice or undue influence – Previous convictions and involvement of petitioner in the dental clinic operation were substantiated by record – No rare or exceptional circumstances made out to warrant CBI intervention [Paras 8–10]. 

Final Decision – CBI Transfer Denied – Petition Dismissed – The Court concluded that no interference was warranted – Investigating agency had already filed chargesheet – No basis found to assume prejudice or mala fide intent behind petitioner’s implication – Petition for transfer and application for impleadment of CBI also dismissed as infructuous [Paras 11–14]. 

Taxation Law - Income Tax Search and Seizure – Challenge to Warrant of Authorization under Section 132 – Search Held Illegal – Petitioners, senior citizen promoter-shareholders of India Pesticides Ltd., challenged the validity of search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a notice under Section 131(1A) – Petitioners contended that the search was conducted without any prior notice or summons and in absence of requisite “reason to believe” as mandated under clause (b) of Section 132(1) – The search was based on retrospective amendment to Section 55(2)(ac) concerning valuation mechanism for capital gains, but no actionable material existed prior to search – Held: There was no valid information or justification under Section 132(1)(b); search and subsequent notice were declared illegal [Paras 1-4, 9-13, 34-42, 48-56].

Search and Seizure – Section 132 of the Income Tax Act – Search Held Illegal – The petitioners challenged the warrant of authorization and consequent search operations under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act – The Court held that the ‘reason to believe’ required under clause (b) of Section 132(1) was wholly absent, and no material existed in the satisfaction note justifying such belief – The Revenue could not rely on post-search materials or vague allegations – Held: Search was arbitrary and illegal, being unsupported by requisite jurisdictional facts [Paras 34-42].

Capital Gains Tax – Retrospective Amendment and Fair Market Value – Petitioners’ Claim of Bona Fide Interpretation Accepted – The petitioners had not offered capital gains on share sale under OFS due to lack of valuation mechanism prior to amendment of Section 55(2)(ac) – They claimed refund of advance tax already paid – Court accepted that tax could not be paid due to statutory lacuna in law before the retrospective amendment and held this could not justify a search under Section 132 [Paras 9-13, 38].

Section 139(8A) – Bar on Updated Returns – Search Prevents Statutory Right – Petitioners argued that after the unlawful search, they were prevented from filing updated returns under Section 139(8A) due to statutory bar – Held: Petitioners were placed at an irreversible disadvantage due to illegal action by Revenue, reinforcing the need to strike down the search [Paras 13, 43].

Post-search Justifications – Invalid Basis for Search – Supplementary Documents Ignored – The Court emphasized that the validity of search must be judged on pre-search information – Supplementary material and satisfaction note additions post-search were irrelevant and inadmissible – Held: Search authorization cannot be retroactively justified [Paras 44-46].

Notice under Section 131(1A) – Issued by Authorized Officer Post-search – Notice Quashed – The impugned notice dated 27.01.2025 under Section 131(1A) was issued by the same officer who conducted the search under Section 132 – Held: Authorized Officer under Section 132 cannot invoke powers under Section 131(1A) post-search as it violates statutory safeguards – Notice was declared invalid [Paras 49-54].

Final Decision – Warrant of Authorization and Search Proceedings Quashed – The Court held that the search conducted under Section 132 and the notice issued under Section 131(1A) were unsustainable in law – Petitions allowed – Revenue was granted liberty to proceed under other applicable provisions of the Act, including Section 148, if warranted [Paras 48, 55-56].

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Conviction – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act based on allegation of forcible intercourse with minor cousin – Trial court sentenced appellant to 10 years RI – High Court finds survivor’s testimony inconsistent and school record of age unsupported by valid documents – Held: Prosecution failed to prove minority of survivor beyond reasonable doubt as per Section 94 JJ Act – Relationship found consensual – Conviction set aside [Paras 1, 2, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31].

Age Determination – Inadequacy of School Records – Survivor’s school admission register showed DOB as 03.08.1999 but no birth certificate or parental affidavit produced – School principal (PW-2) admitted date of birth was as conveyed by parents without verification – Survivor herself asserted she was born on Holi in March 1998 – Ossification test not conducted – Court holds prosecution failed to follow mandatory procedure under Section 94(2) JJ Act – Age not proved [Paras 24.1 to 24.5, 25, 26, 27, 29].

Survivor's Testimony – Contradictory Statements – Survivor initially alleged force but later under Section 164 CrPC and during trial, asserted consensual relationship initiated by her – Denied coercion or inducement – High Court accepts this version noting absence of pressure or contradiction on this point by prosecution – Testimony supports defence version [Paras 19, 20, 28, 30].

DNA and Paternity – FSL Report – Appellant accepted paternity of child through FSL report admitted under Section 294 CrPC – Issue before court was not paternity but minority of survivor – Consent immaterial only if minority proven – Since age not proved, consent becomes relevant [Para 21].

Charge Framing – Wrong Substantive Charge – Trial court framed charge under Section 5(m) POCSO Act applicable to child below 12 – Survivor admittedly not below 12 – Court holds wrong charge affects legality of conviction – Adds weight to appellant’s acquittal [Para 10].

Parental Credibility – Unreliable on Age – Survivor’s parents (PW-4 and PW-5) inconsistent on DOB – Gave contradictory statements – Admitted no birth certificate produced at admission – Court finds no credible evidence from parents on age [Paras 7, 24.3, 24.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released unless required in any other case – Copy of judgment to be sent to Jail Superintendent and uploaded on court website [Paras 31, 32, 33, 34].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Share Apportionment – Preliminary Decree Modified in Part – Trial Court passed preliminary decree dividing properties A, B, and C into specific shares among the plaintiff and legal heirs of two deceased members of the family – Appellants (wife and minor son of predeceased son) contended misallocation in A schedule shares – Held: Trial Court wrongly allotted 4/15 share each to plaintiff and defendants 1–3 instead of 3/15 to defendants 1–3 – Decree corrected accordingly; other divisions upheld [Paras 2–5, 7, 10].

Death of Plaintiff Pending Appeal – Succession Dispute – Final Decree Deferred – Appellants argued that plaintiff Thankamani died intestate, affecting share devolvement – Respondents claimed existence of will – Held: Since application for supplementary preliminary decree is pending in trial court, appellate court refrains from adjudicating succession issue – Directed trial court not to pass final decree until disposal of supplementary application [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Procedural Safeguards – Appellate Directions to Prevent Prejudice – Court acknowledged appellant's concern over possible prejudice if final decree passed without addressing succession application – Issued binding direction to trial court to sequence proceedings appropriately – Ensures fair adjudication without procedural disadvantage to parties [Paras 9, 11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified regarding A schedule property shares – Final decree proceedings stayed until disposal of supplementary preliminary decree application concerning plaintiff’s share – No order as to costs – All IAs closed [Paras 10, 11].