Writ Law - Mutation of Revenue Records - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 - Sections 8 and 9 - Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority - Petitioner challenged the order of the 2nd Respondent-Joint Collector which allowed a revision and directed the Tahsildar to cancel the petitioner's mutation entries for subject lands in Jangareddigudem and Guruvaigudem - Petitioner claimed ownership via a 1997 family settlement and a 2018 registered partition deed - Unofficial respondents 5 and 6 claimed title through a 1961 Will of the common ancestor Mandavalli Somaiah which was previously used in 1982 land reforms proceedings to declare lands as non-surplus - Tahsildar had initially rejected the respondents' claim citing two decades of settled mutation in favor of the petitioner - Joint Collector reversed this holding that the 1961 Will prevailed over the unregistered 1997 settlement - High Court observed that the genuineness of the 1961 Will was never tested in a civil court and the revenue authorities cannot decide complex title disputes or the validity of testamentary documents - Held - The dispute is purely civil relating to title and possession - Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction to declare the validity of a Will or the binding nature of a settlement deed - Impugned order set aside - Parties directed to approach Civil Court under Section 8 of the Act - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Title and Possession - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 - Section 8 - Civil Court Jurisdiction - Dispute between parties claiming through a 1961 Will versus a 1997 family settlement - Revisional authority cancelled mutations existing for decades - High Court held that mutation is a consequential act and revenue entries do not confer title - When a title dispute arises the parties must seek a declaration from a competent Civil Court - Held - Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title - Endorsement of Tahsildar rejecting mutation for want of civil declaration held valid - [Paras 19-20].

Administrative Law - Delay and Laches in Revenue Revision - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 - Section 9 - Revisional authority entertained claims based on a 1961 Will after nearly 45 years - High Court noted that the unofficial respondents approached revenue authorities after decades without seeking a civil declaration - Held - Revisional authority should not have interfered with settled entries involving long-standing possession and enjoyment based on documents not adjudicated by a Civil Court - [Paras 17-22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of the 2nd Respondent dated 29.12.2025 in ROC No.D2/91125/2025 is set aside – Parties directed to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title – Status quo ordered regarding mutations pending civil adjudication.

Criminal Law - Pre-arrest Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 - Section 528 - Maintainability and Grant - Petitioner a resident doctor and final year D.M. Nephrology student sought bail in FIR involving BNS and BUDS Act offences - Petitioner asserted being a victim of cheating by Accused No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 1.06 Crores and had previously filed a complaint resulting in FIR No. 255/2026 and a Writ Petition against police harassment - High Court noted the present FIR was lodged while the Writ Petition was sub-judice and subsequent to the petitioner's own complaint against the co-accused - Held - Petition maintainable following the ratio in Sushila Aggarwal and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Regulatory Offences - Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019 - Sections 3(b) and 21 - Definition of Deposit Taker - Prosecution alleged violation of BUDS Act provisions in financial transactions involving doctors - Petitioner argued non-applicability of the special enactment on the ground that he did not fall under the purview of a Deposit Taker - Court found prima facie ambiguity regarding the attraction of Section 21 provisions to the facts and observed that other alleged offences carried imprisonment terms under seven years - Held - Specific language under Section 3(b) of the Act places the petitioner's status as a Deposit Taker in question - pre-arrest bail warranted - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest on executing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties – Directions issued to appear before the Station House Officer on specific Saturdays and surrender passport.

Writ Law - Executive Interference in Investigation - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner challenged order dated 08/09/2025 issued by District Collector directing police to recall Closure Report in Crime No.96/2020 - FIR registered under sections 420 467 468 and 471 IPC - Investigating Officer found no evidence and forwarded Closure Reports to Magistrate under Section 173(2) CrPC - Collector subsequently issued impugned memos ordering reopening of probe and recall of reports - Held - District Collector possesses no statutory jurisdiction under CrPC to interfere with investigation or judicial process - executive mandate cannot override statutory investigative prerogative of police or judicial discretion of Magistrate - impugned orders quashed - [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Law - Investigation Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 173(2) and 173(8) - Role of Magistrate and Executive - Upon submission of Closure Report the jurisdiction strictly lies with Judicial Magistrate who may accept report or reject it or order further investigation - While police retain independent power under Section 173(8) for further investigation it cannot be invoked at behest of District Collector - Collector exercises no supervisory or appellate or judicial authority over CrPC investigative process - executive interference in domain of criminal investigation is ultra vires and arbitrary - Held - Executive order compelling recall of report already forwarded to court is a nullity and destructive to rule of law - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders/memos (Annexures P/19, P/20, and P/21) quashed – Order does not preclude Judicial Magistrate from exercising jurisdiction or Police from exercising independent powers under Section 173(8) CrPC.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 201 and 34 - Appellants convicted for the murder of Additional District and Sessions Judge Uttam Anand by ramming a stolen auto-rickshaw into him while he was on a morning walk - Special Judge CBI Dhanbad sentenced appellants to rigorous imprisonment for life without remission until last breath - Appellants challenged conviction on grounds of lack of motive and absence of mens rea - Prosecution relied on 58 witnesses and extensive technical evidence including CCTV footages and 3D forensic profiling - CCTV analysis showed the auto-rickshaw deliberately veering towards the left to hit the deceased at a 21-degree angle before returning to the middle of the road - Defense plea that vehicle hit a stone was rejected as CCTV showed a smooth run - Forensic evidence established the auto was technically fit and the hit was intentional - Held - Technical and ocular evidence proved a planned and intentional act - Conviction and sentence upheld - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Intention to cause bodily injury - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 300 Thirdly - Murder - Medical evidence confirmed that the deceased suffered massive brain hemorrhage from a hit to a vital part of the body - Post-mortem report established that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature - Application of ratio in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab - Prosecution established the presence of bodily injury and the intention to inflict that particular injury which was not accidental - Once intention to cause the specific injury is proved the inquiry into whether it was sufficient to cause death is purely objective - Held - Act of hitting the deceased with a heavy vehicle on the head squarely falls under Section 300 Thirdly IPC - [Paras 11-19].

Evidence Law - Motive and Conduct - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 8 - Absence of motive in face of direct evidence - Appellants argued no prior acquaintance or dispute existed with the victim - High Court held that motive becomes irrelevant when direct ocular and documentary evidence is available - Reliance placed on Chandan v State NCT of Delhi - Conduct of the appellants in stealing the auto-rickshaw before the crime and fleeing in different directions while concealing the vehicle thereafter is suggestive of mens rea - Held - Direct evidence from technical experts and eyewitnesses outweighs the absence of a proven motive - [Paras 11-20].

Criminal Law - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 34 - Liability of passenger - Appellant no 2 was a passenger in the stolen auto-rickshaw throughout the commission of the offense - Evidence showed he was with the driver from the time of theft till the intentional collision - Act of defacing front number plate and removing rear number plate demonstrated a pre-arranged plan to camouflage identity - Reliance on Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v State of Punjab - Common intention can be inferred from presence and conduct during and after the crime - Held - Both appellants acted in concert and are equally responsible for the cohesive chain of circumstances leading to murder - [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC affirmed.

Criminal Law - Further Investigation vs Re-investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 173(8) and Section 239 - Accused persons filed an application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC - While considering said application the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bidhannagar entertained an application by the Additional Public Prosecutor and directed "re-investigation" in the case - The petitioners challenged the order as being beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate - High Court analyzed the power of the Magistrate to order investigation after the filing of a charge sheet - Relied on the Three-Judge Bench decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya - Held - A Magistrate has no power to direct "re-investigation" or "fresh investigation" (de novo) in a case initiated on the basis of a police report - The Magistrate is only empowered to direct "further investigation" under Section 173(8) read with Section 156(3) CrPC after a police report is filed - Such power remains available until the trial actually commences with the framing of charges - The Magistrate's judicial conscience must be satisfied with the record to substantiate a charge sheet - Order directing re-investigation quashed as it was not in accordance with law - Matter remanded for fresh hearing of the Section 173(8) application - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Inherent Power of Courts - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Distinguishing Magistrate's powers from High Court's powers - The High Court observed that while a Magistrate can only direct further investigation - courts of higher jurisdiction have the power to direct further investigation - re-investigation or investigation de novo depending on the facts of the case and the ends of justice - High Court's inherent power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly and carefully to prevent abuse of process or secure justice - Held - The Magistrate's impugned order directing re-investigation was contrary to legal precedents and previous High Court directions - [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law - Fair Investigation - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to just investigation - The expression "fair and proper investigation" encompasses an unbiased and honest probe to bring out the truth - A Magistrate retains supervisory jurisdiction to order further investigation until charges are framed to ensure no innocent person is wrongly arraigned and no guilty person is left out - Held - Arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice is more important than avoiding delay - [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 27.08.2024 quashed and set aside – Learned 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate Basirhat directed to hear the application under Section 173(8) CrPC afresh following guidelines in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and pass a reasoned order within 30 days.

Criminal Law - Evidentiary value of Section 164 statement - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 164 - Appellant convicted for kidnapping child marriage and aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Trial Court based conviction primarily on the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC despite the victim and her parents turning hostile during trial - Victim categorically retracted her earlier statement claiming it was tutored - Independent witnesses for observation mahazar also turned hostile - Medical evidence did not conclusively prove sexual assault - Investigating Officer failed to collect documentary evidence regarding the alleged marriage or stay in a hotel - High Court held that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction without reliable corroboration - Prosecution failed to establish foundational facts to invoke statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act - Held - Conviction based solely on retracted Section 164 statement in the absence of independent corroborative evidence is legally unsustainable - Appeal allowed and appellant acquitted - [Paras 1-24].

Criminal Law - Statutory Presumptions - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Sections 29 and 30 - Prosecution relied on statutory presumptions to establish guilt after key witnesses turned hostile - High Court observed that presumptions do not operate in a vacuum and the prosecution must first establish foundational facts through reliable and acceptable evidence - Burden shifts to the accused only upon discharge of such initial burden by the prosecution - Failure of the victim and other material witnesses to support the prosecution case regarding sexual assault kidnap and child marriage demolished the foundation of the prosecution story - Held - Presumption cannot be mechanically invoked to fill gaps in the prosecution case or compensate for evidentiary deficiencies - [Paras 17-18].

Evidence Law - Presumption as to documents - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 80 - Trial Court relied on Section 80 of Evidence Act to presume the genuineness of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC - High Court relying on precedent held that a statement made under Section 164 CrPC during investigation is not made in a judicial proceeding and is not given under oath - Presumption under Section 80 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn to rely upon statements of witnesses recorded during investigation to render a conviction - Held - Trial Court erred in invoking Section 80 of the Evidence Act for a statement under Section 164 CrPC - [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant vide the impugned judgment are set aside – Appellant is acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds if any executed by him shall stand discharged – Fine amount if paid shall be refunded to him.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Appellants convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence - Trial Court relied on last seen theory and recovery of weapon - High Court found prosecution theory weak as key witnesses turned hostile and deceased did not mention appellants during telephonic conversation prior to death - Recovery of weapon made from an open place after nine days creating serious doubt - Medical evidence did not corroborate disclosure statements regarding deceased being pushed off a bridge - Chain of circumstantial evidence remained incomplete - Held - Trial Court erred in treating conjectures as conclusive findings without substantive evidence - Appeals allowed and conviction set aside - [Paras 5-38].

Evidence Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of weapon - Lathi allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant from an open place after a lapse of nine days from the date of incident - Earlier search at the same spot did not yield the weapon - Evidence suggested weapon might have been kept at the police station and not actually produced by the appellant - Held - Recovery suffers from serious infirmities and raises serious doubt regarding prosecution story - [Paras 14-36].

Criminal Law - Standard of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Circumstantial Evidence - Fundamental principle that before a court records a conviction the accused must be and not merely may be guilty - Mental distance between may be and must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions - Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused - Held - Mere conjectures cannot be elevated to the status of conclusions - [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeals allowed - Impugned judgment dated 14.8.2021 passed by Sessions Judge Dindori set aside - Appellant Dayalu @ Mukesh is on bail and his bail bonds are discharged - Appellant Rajesh directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Maintainability against Proclaimed Offender - Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving Section 108 BNS regarding the suicide of a victim after a physical relationship on false promise of marriage - Applicant previously filed a writ petition for quashing FIR which was dismissed with a direction to apply for bail - Applicant failed to appear before the trial court - Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC initiated - Applicant subsequently obtained an order setting aside Section 82 notice upon assurance of cooperation - Police report indicated subsequent non-cooperation and failure to record statement - Court examined whether a proclaimed offender or absconder is entitled to discretionary relief - Held - As per settled law of the Apex Court in Lavesh vs State and Srikant Upadhyay vs State an accused who is absconding or concealing himself to avoid execution of warrant and is declared a proclaimed offender is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail - Application rejected - [Paras 1-22].

Criminal Law - Proclaimed Offender - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 82 - Effect on Pre-arrest Bail - Ratio Decidendi - The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and must be exercised sparingly and with caution - When an accused willfully defaults by not cooperating with the investigation and defies court orders leading to the initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC his claim for anticipatory bail under the roof of a rare and exceptional case is denuded - Judicial discretion for pre-arrest bail is not a matter of rule and cannot be granted to those continuously defying orders and remaining out of reach of investigating agencies - Held - The applicant being a willful defaulter is not entitled to any relief from the Court - [Paras 12-21].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – The Court declared the application not maintainable due to the conduct of the applicant as an absconder and a willful defaulter.

Criminal Law - Bail under UAPA - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Appeals under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 challenging the dismissal of regular bail applications by the Special Judge NIA - Appellants accused of involvement in a narco-terror module orchestrated by Pakistan-based handlers leading to a tiffin bomb blast on a motorcycle killing one and injuring others - Investigation established that appellants participated in conspiracy meetings provided logistics vehicles and safe shelter and received terror funds - Appellants argued false implication and delay in trial citing Article 21 of the Constitution - NIA opposed citing gravity of offence recovery of materials and specific embargo under Section 43D(5) of UAPA - High Court observed that the conventional principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception does not apply to UAPA offences where the legislature intends bail to be the exception - Prima facie involvement of all three appellants actively participating in the execution of terrorist acts was established along with their criminal antecedents - Held - No merit in the appeals - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Bail jurisprudence in terrorist offences - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Applicability of standard bail principles - Supreme Court precedent in Gurwinder Singh case relied upon holding that the phrase bail is the rule jail is the exception does not find place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act - The exercise of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope - The proviso to Section 43D(5) suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail the exception and jail the rule - Held - Material on record shows prima facie involvement of the appellants in hatching conspiracy and executing terrorist activities justifying the denial of bail - [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – All three appeals are hereby dismissed and pending applications if any also stand dismissed.