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].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Hate Speech and Communal Provocation – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging hate-motivated and inflammatory statements against the Purvanchal community through viral online interview – Petitioner alleged to have made caste-targeted, communal and defamatory remarks against migrants from UP/Bihar and their women – FIR supported by digital evidence (pen drive), complainant's affidavit, memorandum of community members and witness statements – Held: Allegations raise serious concerns of inciting communal disharmony; custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 1–6, 10]

Speech Act Theory – Judicial Application – Court invoked Speech Act Theory (Austin & Searle) to interpret hate speech not only by literal meaning but by intention (illocutionary force) and effect (perlocutionary impact) – Remarks attributed to petitioner prima facie constituted communicative acts capable of provoking public disorder and societal insecurity – Plea that petitioner was named only in supplementary statement not sufficient to discard material on record [Para 6]

Bail Jurisprudence – Individual Rights vs. Societal Interest – High Court held that anticipatory bail in such cases undermines public confidence and can embolden others – Right to pre-arrest bail cannot be invoked when there is prima facie material supporting grave charges and ongoing investigation requires custodial interrogation – Reference made to State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 [Para 9]

**Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Electronic evidence, viral circulation, potential accomplices and community outrage justify rejection of bail plea – Investigating agency must be given full opportunity to trace origin, intent and effect of speech and associated criminal acts without hindrance from bail order [Paras 8–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit in anticipatory bail plea – Custodial interrogation held necessary – Observations not to affect merits of investigation.

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.

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].

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Live and Proximate Link – Delay Vitiates Detention – Alleged occurrence on 11.06.2025; arrest on 22.06.2025; detention order on 21.07.2025 – State failed to satisfactorily explain delay – Mere calendrical narration in affidavit insufficient – Applying Anand Prakash (AIR 1990 SC 516) and Sushanta Kumar Bainik (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333), Court holds live and proximate link snapped; detention vitiated [Paras 6–9].

Detaining Authority Must Consider Custody Status – Non-Application of Mind – Detaining authority failed to record that detenu was already in judicial custody at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on date of detention order; subjective satisfaction regarding imminent likelihood of release on bail absent – Violative of principles in Khudiram Das (1975) 2 SCC 81 and reaffirmed in Ameena Begum (2023) 9 SCC 587 – Detention unsustainable [Paras 10–11].

Subjective Satisfaction – Limited Judicial Review – Court reiterates Khudiram Das doctrine that subjective satisfaction is reviewable on grounds such as non-application of mind, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, incorrect factual assumptions – Detention order failed these tests as detaining authority ignored crucial factual data [Paras 10–11].

Distinction from Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) 20 SCC 609 – DH Dhakad applies where detaining authority considers custody and likelihood of bail but records no explicit finding – Present case more severe: detaining authority completely omitted fact of custody, hence order vitiated on a more fundamental ground [Para 11].

Default Bail – Impact on Preventive Detention Justification – Lone FIR forming basis of detention saw detenu granted default bail on 08.10.2025 due to State’s failure to file final report – Though not the sole ground for quashing, it underscores inconsistency in State sustaining preventive detention while allowing lapse in regular criminal process – Court notes Ram Manohar Lohia’s concentric circle principle distinguishing law and order, public order, security of State [Paras 12–13].

Detention Order Quashed – Procedural & Substantive Violations – Delay unexplained; custody status ignored; subjective satisfaction not in conformity with settled constitutional standards – Detention order, approval and confirmation all set aside – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 14].

Decision:

Writ of Habeas Corpus allowed – Preventive detention order dated 21.07.2025, its approval dated 31.07.2025 and confirmation dated 22.08.2025 quashed – Detenu Longjam Boy Singh @ Khaba directed to be released immediately, if not required in other case(s) – No order as to costs.

[Paras 14]

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unlawful Assembly – Assault – Cross-FIR – Evidence of complainant and injured witnesses found to be partisan, contradictory, and inconsistent with their police statements which admitted mutual fight and injuries on opposite side – Suppression of fatal injuries on accused’s father (deceased Ganpatsinh) in cross-case held fatal – Trial court’s view held a “possible view” warranting no interference [Paras 6–12, 15].

Witness Credibility – Interested/Injured Witnesses – PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 admitted during cross-examination that police statements recorded a mutual fight and blows inflicted by prosecution side – Court notes material improvements, suppression of crucial facts, inconsistency regarding weapon use (bhala vs. chappu), and contradictions with Investigating Officer (PW-9) – Held: Testimony unreliable and unsafe for conviction in absence of independent corroboration [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Medical certificates (Exhs. 32–37, 41, 43) show only simple abrasions and lacerated wounds – No injury consistent with alleged knife blow to chest – Absence of grievous injuries inconsistent with prosecution’s claim of severe attack with lethal weapons – Held: Medical evidence does not support ocular version [Paras 8–10].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Recovery – FSL Report (Exh. 66) inconclusive – No tamancha recovered to support allegation under Section 506(2) IPC – Panchnama witnesses formal; no link between recovered weapons and injuries – Held: Recovery does not corroborate prosecution case [Paras 8–10].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Incident occurred in village with 60–70 houses; FIR itself mentions interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai, etc.) – None examined – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses severely undermines prosecution case, especially in cross-case scenario [Paras 7–10].

Cross-Cases – Mutual Fight – Complainant and injured witnesses were themselves accused in cross-FIR (C.R. I-170/1993) for death of accused’s father – Suppression of mutual injuries and one-sided narration held deliberate and fatal to prosecution – Strong motive to falsely implicate accused established – Benefit of doubt justified [Paras 7–12].

Appellate Interference – Principles – Applying Chandrappa principles and Supreme Court rulings in Rajesh Prasad (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581 – Court reiterates double presumption of innocence and limits on interference in acquittal appeals – Trial court’s view is a plausible, legally sustainable view – No ground to reverse acquittal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld – Records and proceedings to be remitted [Paras 15].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of cruelty by wife not established – Appellant-husband alleged wife refused to cook, misbehaved, and pressured him to live separately from parents – Trial Court found no credible evidence of cruelty – Held: No perversity in Family Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1–9, 22, 54–56]

Family Law – Cruelty – Legal Standard – Reiterated: Cruelty includes physical and mental suffering causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to live with the spouse – Mere marital discord or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Allegations must be grave and substantiated. [Paras 26–34]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Desertion implies intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent – Requires factum of separation and animus deserendi – Respondent-wife was ousted from matrimonial home – No voluntary desertion – No ground made out. [Paras 35–46, 50–52]

Family Law – Appreciation of Evidence – No perversity – Evidence of both parties considered by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion found unproved – Court also considered wife’s willingness to resume matrimonial life – Held: No interference warranted in appeal – Appellate Court not to re-appreciate evidence without perversity or legal error. [Paras 18–23, 47–53]

Family Law – Pending Proceedings – Fact that respondent-wife had filed criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC – Does not per se constitute cruelty – Needs to be established that such proceedings were false and malicious. [Paras 16, 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment of Family Court upheld. No element of perversity found. Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 55–57]

Civil Law - Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Natural Justice – Mutation Case Rejected Without Notice – Petitioners’ application for mutation rejected by Additional Tahasildar, Jatani on the ground of non-submission of original certified copy and non-appearance – Held: Record does not reveal issuance of notice to petitioners nor opportunity of hearing – Violation of principles of natural justice – Order quashed [Paras 3–5]

Administrative Law – Opportunity of Hearing – Mutation Case – Authorities must ensure proper notice and opportunity to parties before passing orders – Absence of notice renders the order unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners [Paras 5–8]

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – High Court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside impugned mutation order for failure to comply with procedural fairness – Authorities directed to conclude proceedings within two months [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 23.10.2024 in Mutation Case No.3928 of 2024 quashed – Matter remitted to Additional Tahasildar, Jatani for fresh disposal after hearing petitioners and other parties – Petitioners directed to appear on 16.12.2025 for further proceedings – Mutation case to be concluded preferably within two months from filing of certified copy of the judgment.

Service Law – Police Personnel – Corruption – Dismissal – ASI trapped for accepting bribe – Inquiry held valid – SP competent authority – Court affirms dismissal as justified under Rule 16.2 and Rule 16.40 PPR; length of service irrelevant when guilt of corruption established [Paras 6–8, 12–13].

Competent Authority – SP as Appointing & Disciplinary Authority – Challenge rejected – Court relies on Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865 – SP competent to dismiss ASI – Contention misconceived [Para 6].

Departmental Proceedings – Approval of District Magistrate – Not Required in Corruption Cases – Rule 16.38 PPR inapplicable; Rule 16.40 governs corruption matters – Following Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 3242 – Contention rejected [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – No Requirement to Call for Comments on Inquiry Report – Rule 16.24 PPR contains complete procedure – Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority may be different – Supply of inquiry report + opportunity to reply + personal hearing = full compliance – No violation of natural justice [Paras 9–11].

Show-Cause Notice – Mention of Proposed Punishment – Not Illegal – Post 42nd Amendment to Article 311(2), no right to representation on proposed penalty – State instructions of 1975 merely advisory – Court relies on Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 [Paras 10–11].

Rule 16.2 PPR – Length of Service & Pension – Consideration Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases – Court cites State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992) 4 SCC 54 – Single act of corruption is “gravest misconduct” warranting dismissal; long service cannot shield corrupt conduct [Paras 12–13].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence – Interference justified only for perversity or procedural violations – No such infirmity found – Court relies on Subrata Nath (2022), P. Gunasekaran, Syed Yakoob (1964), CCRAS v. Bikartan Das (2023) [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No perversity or procedural violation – Dismissal from service justified and upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16–17].