NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Mandatory Twin Conditions Ignored – Bail Orders Cancelled – Accused persons Akash, Shilpa, and Seema were granted bail by the trial court despite seizure of 472.55 grams of heroin in a single raid forming a continuous transaction – Trial court failed to apply or even mention Section 37 NDPS Act – High Court held that when commercial quantity is involved, bail cannot be granted without satisfaction of twin statutory conditions – Orders termed illegal and perverse – Bail cancelled and respondents directed to surrender [Paras 1, 6–7, 24–26, 30–31].

Clubbing of Recoveries – Section 29 NDPS – Joint Operation and Common Intent – Aggregation Justified – Court held that recoveries from Akash, Seema, and Shilpa were not isolated but formed part of a single raid from same premises – Total recovery treated as commercial quantity – Reliance placed on Awadhesh Yadav v. State and principles of clubbing when conspiracy or joint possession is alleged – Section 29 rightly invoked [Paras 3–6, 19–22].

Bail Jurisprudence – Non-Compliance with Section 37 – Per Se Invalid – Trial court mischaracterised the recoveries as intermediate quantity and overlooked the statutory embargo on bail in commercial quantity cases – Cited Supreme Court judgments including Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, State of Kerala v. Rajesh – Held: No bail can be granted unless court records satisfaction that accused is not guilty and will not reoffend – Omission is not a mere irregularity but a fatal legal flaw [Paras 24–25, 28].

Recovery Proceedings – Presence of Female Constable and Absence of Public Witnesses – Not Fatal – Court rejected contention that recovery was doubtful due to female constable’s presence or lack of public witnesses – Held: Female officer’s presence complied with Section 50(4) NDPS – Non-joining of public witnesses not fatal when official testimony is reliable – Cited Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana [Paras 26–27].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevant to Bail – Ignored by Trial Court – Accused Seema had 12 previous cases, including 7 under NDPS – Prior involvements of all accused ignored by trial court – High Court held that antecedents go to the heart of second condition under Section 37 – Held: Non-consideration of material renders bail orders perverse [Paras 11, 28].

Legal Position – Cancellation of Bail – Perversity in Order Justifies Intervention – Trial court granted bail without applying statutory safeguards, ignored relevant facts, and indulged in premature evaluation of evidence – High Court set aside bail orders relying on Puran v. Rambilas and Union of India v. Rattan Malik – Held: Bail granted contrary to law liable to be cancelled [Paras 12, 29–30].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Bail orders dated 15.06.2024, 25.06.2024, and 12.07.2024 granting bail to Seema, Shilpa, and Akash respectively set aside – Respondents directed to surrender before Superintendent Jail within three days [Para 30–31].

Criminal Law – Representation of Company – Section 305 CrPC – Trial court directed petitioner to represent company (Accused No. 23) despite his resignation from directorship prior to initiation of proceedings – Held: A company being a juristic person must appoint its own representative for trial under Section 305 CrPC – Neither the complainant nor the court can compel an unwilling individual, even a former director, to represent the company – Summons must be served at the company’s registered office – Petitioner cannot be forced to represent the company without valid authorization [Paras 1, 22, 26, 28–30].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Section 70 PMLA – Scope – Company and persons in charge at the time of offence may both be liable under Section 70 – However, representation under Section 305 CrPC is separate from liability under Section 70 – Subsequent resignation from company does not absolve individual from criminal liability under PMLA, but does relieve him of obligation to represent the company unless duly authorized [Paras 18–20, 28].

Special Law vs General Law – Harmonious Interpretation – Argument by ED that Section 70 of PMLA overrides Section 305 CrPC rejected – Held: PMLA does not conflict with CrPC provisions on representation of juristic persons – Prosecution under special statute does not allow bypassing procedural safeguards regarding company representation – Trial cannot proceed without proper representation of the company in accordance with Section 305 CrPC [Paras 14, 26–28].

Judicial Discretion – Improper Exercise – Trial court erred by postponing decision on company representation to later stage under Section 207 CrPC – Held: Representation issue must be settled prior to continuation of proceedings – Trial court failed to apply its mind to settled legal position – Order set aside and direction issued to summon company at its registered office and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if no representative is appointed [Paras 21, 26, 30].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order of trial court dated 03/11/2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to serve fresh summons on accused company (Accused No. 23) at its registered address and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if company fails to nominate representative – Entire process to be completed within 60 days from receipt of this order [Paras 29–30].

Electricity Law – Theft of Electricity – Section 135 of the Electricity Act – Accused allegedly hooked electricity directly from low-tension overhead lines – Appellant seized materials and lodged FIR – Respondent paid part of provisional assessment amount – Trial court found that prosecution failed to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt – No independent witnesses examined – No conclusive identification of accused – Held: Evidence insufficient – Acquittal upheld [Paras 2–12].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court held that appellate courts must be cautious in interfering with orders of acquittal – Unless judgment is perverse or legally flawed, presumption of innocence prevails – Trial court’s view not found to be implausible – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Electricity Law – Refund of Amount Paid Towards Provisional Assessment – Trial court directed refund of Rs. 1,32,556 paid by accused during pendency of criminal case – Appellant argued special court lacks power to issue refund – Held: Under Section 154(6) of Electricity Act, special court may direct refund if amount deposited exceeds liability or if no liability arises due to acquittal – Refund order legally sustainable – Appeal on this ground also dismissed [Paras 13–18].

Assessment Proceedings – Civil Liability vs. Criminal Liability – Court clarified that Section 135 deals with criminal offence of theft, while Section 126 pertains to unauthorised use – Since acquittal was recorded, no civil liability remains – Special court rightly directed refund – Refuted argument that refund mechanism is unavailable to electricity authority [Paras 15–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Special Court affirmed – Direction to refund Rs. 1,32,556 upheld as lawful under Section 154(6) of Electricity Act – No grounds for interference found.

Guardianship – Custody of Minor Child – Natural Father’s Right – Appellant, natural father of minor child, sought custody after death of wife – Family Court rejected guardianship on ground of non-production of birth certificate of child and death certificate of mother – Held: Approach of Family Court erroneous and unsustainable in law [Paras 1, 7, 11].

Evidence Act – Admission – Proof Dispensed With – Respondent (maternal grandfather) categorically admitted marriage of appellant with deceased mother and birth of minor child in written statement – Held: In view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved – Family Court erred in insisting upon documentary proof despite clear admission [Paras 8-9, 11].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Section 6 – Natural Guardian – Father is natural guardian of minor boy after mother – Maternal grandfather has no better or superior claim to custody than father – No disqualification or adverse circumstance proved against father – Custody cannot be denied on mere apprehension of remarriage [Paras 12-13].

Child Custody – Welfare Principle – Paramount Consideration – Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction must prioritize welfare, well-being, emotional bonding and future development of child – Separation of child from natural father after death of mother detrimental to welfare – Custody with father promotes emotional and social development [Paras 10, 16-17].

Family Court – Hyper-Technical Approach – Disapproved – Rejection of guardianship solely on technical ground of non-production of certificates held improper – Guardianship matters not to be decided on strict rules of evidence or procedure – Human touch and welfare-oriented approach required [Paras 10-11, 16].

Precedent – Custody of Minor – Welfare Over Legal Rights – Supreme Court decision in Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413 reiterated – Welfare of minor is overriding consideration, not mere legal entitlement [Para 10].

Visitation Rights – Maternal Grandfather – While granting custody to father, Court permitted maternal grandfather visitation rights at father’s residence with prior intimation – Balance between custody and continued familial bonding maintained [Para 18(iv)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed by Family Court, Bhadrak in Guardian Misc. Case No. 13 of 2021 set aside – Custody of minor child directed to be handed over to natural father forthwith – Visitation rights granted to maternal grandfather – Appeal disposed of.

Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Reliability of Evidence – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Trial Court convicted appellants relying exclusively on P.W.4 and P.W.5, while disbelieving presence of P.W.6 – High Court held that contradictions, omissions, prior enmity, and delayed complaint raised possibility of false implication, making sole reliance on two injured witnesses unsafe for conviction – Serious doubt arising from prosecution’s own discredited eyewitness P.W.6 [Paras 56–57].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions & Omissions – Eye-witness accounts of P.W.4 & P.W.5 inconsistent with each other and with medical/postmortem evidence; their version about presence of P.W.6 contradicted prosecution case itself – Trial Court’s partial reliance held erroneous – Evidence not of sterling quality to sustain conviction for murder [Paras 46–55].

Medical & Forensic Evidence – Weapons Not Proved – Prosecution failed to prove recovery of weapons (choppers, knife, pistol) – Ballistic report negative – No forensic link connecting accused to firearm injury suffered by deceased; absence of scientific corroboration weakened prosecution case [Paras 30–33].

Delay & Possibility of False Implication – FIR recorded after considerable time gap though police reached hospital immediately; presence of longstanding personal enmity acknowledged – High Court observed that delay coupled with animosity creates strong suspicion of embellishment and naming of rivals after deliberation [Paras 52–55].

Benefit of Doubt – Cross-Case Background – Existence of cross-FIR regarding father of accused having died in related incident suggested possibility of retaliatory accusations – Cumulative deficiencies warranted giving benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 51–55].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under judgment dated 10.11.2020 set aside – Appellants acquitted – All appellants in custody directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Each appellant to execute P.R. bond of ₹25,000 under Section 481 BNSS (corresponding to Section 437A CrPC) before release [Paras 58–59].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Reversal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC based on testimonies of injured witnesses (P.W.4 and P.W.5) – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons and ballistic evidence – No independent or forensic corroboration – Court held conduct of eye-witnesses unnatural as they failed to name assailants to police or hospital staff despite being fit to speak – Held: Sole reliance on testimonies of interested and tainted witnesses in absence of corroboration is unsafe – Conviction reversed [Paras 31–57].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witness – Credibility – P.W.4 and P.W.5 were found to have prior enmity with accused and were involved in counter cases – Their silence till FIR registration and contradictions with medical and other evidence raised doubts – Court applied test of “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable” – Held: In absence of corroboration, such testimony cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 32–54].

Evidence – Recovery and Forensics – Failure of Prosecution – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons allegedly used in crime – Ballistic report was negative – No independent witness examined – CCTV footage not seized – Panch witnesses were friends of deceased – Held: Multiple procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps undermine prosecution case [Paras 33–50].

Delay in FIR – Impact – FIR lodged 6.5 hours after incident despite eye-witnesses being medically fit to speak – Court held delay used for possible false implication – Supported by inconsistent medical and police testimonies – Held: Delay not satisfactorily explained, creates doubt about genuineness of prosecution version [Paras 41–45].

False Implication – Previous Enmity – Double-Edged Sword – Evidence showed prior criminal cases between witnesses and accused – Assault alleged to have occurred at spot of earlier crime involving deceased – Court held prior enmity increased possibility of false implication in absence of corroboration [Paras 32, 45, 54].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 307 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released if not required in any other case.

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Scope under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. – Limited Interference – Petitioners sought discharge from offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 341, 294, 509 read with Sections 34 and 109 IPC – Revisional jurisdiction invoked against order of JMFC refusing discharge – Held: Revisional power is limited and meant to correct patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – No ground made out for interference at the stage of framing of charge [Paras 1, 10–12, 15].

Discharge – Stage of Framing of Charge – Test to be Applied – At the stage of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., court is only to see whether charge is groundless – Strong suspicion sufficient to proceed to trial – Appreciation of evidence, truthfulness or probable defence of accused impermissible at this stage [Paras 8, 11–12].

Revisional Jurisdiction vs Inherent Powers – Distinction Reiterated – Scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. narrower than inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of evidence or determine likelihood of conviction – Interference warranted only in cases of palpable error, arbitrariness or abuse of process [Paras 10–11].

Matrimonial Dispute – Criminal Allegations – Civil and Criminal Liability – Mere existence of matrimonial discord and multiple litigations between parties does not bar criminal prosecution – Allegations in FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose prima facie ingredients of offences alleged – Background facts to be tested at trial, not at discharge stage [Paras 3–4, 14].

Allegations of Cruelty, Harassment and Insult to Modesty – Prima Facie Case – FIR and witness statements disclose that complainant was wrongfully restrained from entering matrimonial home by locking first floor and made to stand on road at night causing humiliation – Statements of on-duty police personnel corroborate allegations – Ingredients of offences prima facie attracted [Paras 5, 13–14].

Defence Plea – Not Considerable at Discharge Stage – Explanation offered by Petitioner No.1 regarding locking of premises amounts to rebuttal evidence – Such defence cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge or in revision against refusal of discharge [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order refusing discharge affirmed – Trial court rightly found sufficient ground to proceed – Petitioners to face trial in accordance with law.

Railways Act – Compensation for Untoward Incident – Death of Bona Fide Passenger – Presumption of Travel – Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A – Deceased died after accidentally falling from a moving train between Gopalapatnam and Duvvada – Inquest report, post-mortem report, police records all confirmed accidental fall – Held: Deceased was a bona fide passenger and the death was due to an untoward incident – Tribunal rightly awarded ₹8,00,000 as compensation under revised Schedule w.e.f. 01.01.2017 [Paras 2, 7–9, 17–20, 22].

Compensation – Interest on Award – Claim for Pendente Lite Interest Rejected – Tribunal’s Decision Upheld – Appellants argued that interest should be granted from date of claim filing – Tribunal awarded interest only from the effective date of revised compensation Schedule (01.01.2017) – Held: No illegality found in denying pendente lite interest where claim amount originally sought was lower than final award under revised Schedule – Award upheld [Paras 3(iii), 21].

Burden of Proof – Bona Fide Passengership – Presumption and Rebuttal – Liberal Interpretation – Recovery of journey ticket and consistent contemporaneous documentary evidence (inquest, police, medical reports) created strong presumption of lawful travel – No rebuttal by Railways – Legal presumption under Union of India v. Rina Devi and Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar applied – Liberal interpretation of "untoward incident" favoured in compensation cases [Paras 13–19].

Evidence Law – Probative Value of Departmental Reports vs Police Records – Court held DRM’s departmental report had limited probative value due to lack of contemporaneity – Police and medical records found more credible – DRM report cannot override conclusive public documents [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Tribunal’s finding that death was caused by an untoward incident upheld – Deceased declared a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation under Section 124A – Award of ₹8,00,000 affirmed – No interference warranted with Tribunal’s decision not to grant interest from date of claim application – Tribunal directed to release 50% of compensation to appellants; remainder to be kept in fixed deposit for five years or until further order [Paras 22–25].