Criminal Law – Bail - Rape Allegation – Consent – Breach of Promise to Marry – Petitioner accused of offences under Sections 69 and 75(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS for allegedly refusing to marry the victim after a consensual relationship – Relationship between petitioner and respondent lasted over three years – Victim lodged complaint only after petitioner refused marriage – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, consensual relationship based on a genuine promise to marry, later not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, does not amount to rape – FIR lacks allegations showing false promise from inception – No prima facie case under Section 69 BNS made out [Paras 3–14]

Bail – Principles for Grant – Promise to Marry – Consent and Misconception of Fact – Court relies on binding precedents from Supreme Court including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Prithivirajan, Kunal Chatterjee, and Maheshwar Tigga – Held: Physical relations on the basis of a genuine promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning – Petitioner's prolonged relationship and absence of coercion negate allegation of misconception of fact – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 4–16]

Bail – Conditions Imposed – Accused directed to furnish bond with sureties and report weekly to police – Restrictions imposed on travel outside Andhra Pradesh and on influencing witnesses – Cooperation with investigation mandated [Para 16]

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted to the petitioner/accused on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions including weekly reporting, restricted travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

Contract Law – Fraudulent Agreement – Sale of Vehicle under Hire Purchase – Void Contract – Plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs. 4,90,000/- under agreement dated 16.10.2012 for purchase of truck – Defendant represented that she had cleared substantial loan though outstanding dues existed – Agreement executed during subsistence of hire-purchase loan – Held: Agreement having fraudulent object is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act [Paras 3–7, 11].

Money Suit – Recovery of Earnest Money – Breach of Contract – Plaintiff sought refund of earnest money on discovery of fraud – Trial Court decreed suit directing refund of Rs. 4,90,000/- with interest – Appellate Court affirmed – High Court upheld concurrent findings – Held: Plaintiff entitled to restitution under Section 73 of the Contract Act [Paras 6–8, 11].

Hire Purchase – Ownership of Vehicle – Right to Transfer – During subsistence of hire-purchase agreement, ownership vests with finance company – Defendant had no legal right to sell vehicle to third party – Agreement of sale executed without title – Held: Defendant legally incompetent to transfer vehicle [Paras 7–8].

Evidence – Admission – Effect – Defendant admitted receipt of Rs. 4,90,000/- from plaintiff and failed to prove payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to finance company as claimed – No documentary proof produced – Held: Admission coupled with absence of rebuttal evidence establishes plaintiff’s case on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 6–8, 11].

Civil Procedure – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court reiterated that second appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on evidence – Held: No substantial question of law arises for consideration [Paras 1, 11–12].

Restitution – Return of Property and Money – Vehicle seized in criminal case and handed back to defendant – Defendant having regained possession of vehicle cannot retain earnest money – Held: Direction to refund entire earnest money justified [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 15.03.2021 in Money Suit No. 02 of 2014 and judgment dated 23.12.2022 in Money Appeal No. 1 of 2021 upheld – Decree directing refund of Rs. 4,90,000/- with interest affirmed.

Commercial Law – Maintainability of Commercial Suit – Appellant challenged classification of suit as commercial on ground that no formal written agreement existed and service was not commercial – Held: Provision of transportation and storage of goods by Plaintiff (a packers and movers business) is a commercial transaction falling under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) and (xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Objection held untenable – Suit rightly instituted as a commercial suit [Paras 23-24]

Contract and Cause of Action – Recovery of Storage Rent – Plaintiff proved entrustment of goods and obligation to pay monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- – Defendant failed to lead evidence – Cause of action clearly made out – Existence of valid agreement inferred from conduct and documentary evidence – Plea that document was only a quotation held to be afterthought [Paras 25, 31]

Procedure – Electronic Records – Compliance with Order XI Rule 6 CPC – Plaintiff fulfilled requirements of declaration and certification under Section 65B of IEA and Section 63 of BSA – Court held procedural compliance was adequate – Defendant’s objections dismissed [Para 26]

Evidence Law – Relevance of Prior Judgments – Objection raised to admissibility of previous unchallenged judgments under Section 43 IEA / Section 37 BSA – Held: Judgments inter-partes admissible not as conclusive proof but as evidence of habitual default under Sections 8 and 13 of IEA – Relevance upheld [Paras 28-29]

Inspection and Condition of Goods – Local Commissioner Report – Allegation of damage to goods rejected – Most items intact, minor wear due to time – Refusal of Defendant to open sealed items led to adverse inference – No proof of misappropriation found [Para 30]

Equity and Unjust Enrichment – Defendant continued to enjoy benefit of storage without fulfilling payment obligations – Conduct showed intent to avoid liability while taking advantage of services – Trial Court's decree found just and equitable [Paras 32-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s decree for Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @10% p.a. affirmed – Suit rightly treated as commercial – No procedural or evidentiary infirmity found – Costs imposed on Appellant.

Education Law – Withholding of Original Certificates – Petitioner, an MBBS student, withdrew mid-course due to health reasons and sought return of original certificates for admission to another university – Respondent institution withheld certificates citing pending balance fee for IV and V year – Held: Retaining original documents of a student is not a lawful means for fee recovery – Educational institutions have no lien over original documents of students – Such action unjustifiably hampers career progression [Paras 1-5, 17-19]

Right to Education – Unlawful Retention of Documents – Court held that documents like Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate are personal property of the student and cannot be used as collateral for enforcement of financial obligations – Recovery of dues must follow legal procedure – Affidavits by student and parent empower university to recover dues but not to withhold original documents [Paras 17-18]

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on High Court Judgments – Reliance placed on judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sukhmanpreet Singh Cheema v. Union of India and Monika v. PT. B.D. Sharma University – Held: Institutions cannot retain documents for fee recovery – Also referred to Madras High Court decision in M. Kesavan v. Principal, Cheeran College of Pharmacy affirming same principle [Para 6-7]

Institutional Practice – MBBS Admission Guidelines – Information booklet clauses relied upon by University only pertain to submission of documents at admission – No clause permits prolonged custody or retention post withdrawal of admission – Court found no agreement, clause, or affidavit authorising retention of documents against unpaid fees [Paras 10-11, 18]

Fee Recovery – Appropriate Legal Remedies – Institutions may recover unpaid fee through legal means but cannot enforce payment by impounding student’s certificates – Petitioner had already paid three years’ fees for two years of study – Refusal to return documents disproportionate and without authority [Paras 12-13, 19]

Equity and Fairness – Career Prejudice – Court observed that unjustified withholding of documents severely prejudices educational rights of students – Petitioner’s admission in new university was at risk due to non-availability of documents required for examinations – Directed immediate release [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Application allowed – Jaipur National University directed to release original Class 12 Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate to the petitioner forthwith and not later than 04/12/2025 – University may pursue lawful recovery of fees through appropriate legal process – Main writ petition listed for 22/01/2026.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].

Electricity Law – Pilferage of Energy – Civil Liability – Criminal Acquittal – Clause 39.15 – Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not extinguish civil liability for pilferage – Recovery under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act and Section 52-A Revenue Recovery Act upheld – Limitation counts from final appellate criminal judgment – Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Electricity – Pilferage of Energy – Departmental Assessment – Criminal vs. Civil Consequence – Held: Theft of energy embodies two distinct components—(i) criminal liability punishable under law, and (ii) civil liability to pay for unrecorded consumption – Even if prosecution fails to secure conviction, civil liability survives unless charge is proven false – Acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not bar recovery proceedings.

Terms & Conditions of Supply – Clause 39.15 – Effect – Acquittal on any ground other than “charge is false” does not bar recovery – Sessions Court and High Court acquitted petitioner only on benefit of doubt; hence civil liability intact – Recovery proceedings maintainable.

Evidence – Criminal Case Findings – Session Court found prosecution failed to prove existence or use of remote controller; seals intact; possibility of tampering not established – Held: Such findings only raise doubt, not a declaration of false charge – Therefore, civil liability unaffected.

APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 – Applicability – Assessment order of Superintending Engineer (31.07.1992) confirmed by Chief Engineer (23.10.2001) attained finality – Dues fall within definition under Sections 2 & 3 – Recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 6 valid – Form-A (06.12.2001) and Form-B notices (18.04.2002) validly issued  .

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 – Section 52-A – Validity – Authorises recovery of public dues by treating them as arrears of land revenue – No inconsistency with Electricity Act, 2003 – Recovery for electricity dues permissible – Supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence affirming competence of States to confer such powers on revenue authorities.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Primacy Clauses (Sections 173, 174, 185) – No inconsistency between the 2003 Act and APSEB Recovery Act – Hence, old dues recoverable without recourse to Special Court under Section 153 – Civil recovery mechanism preserved.

Limitation – Article 113, Limitation Act – Cause of action accrues only after final appellate criminal judgment – Here, High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 721/2008 dated 14.11.2011 marked such accrual – Recovery notice dated 18.09.2014 within 3-year limitation – Recovery not time-barred.

Decision:  Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- – All connected applications closed [Final Para] .