NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Twin Conditions under Section 37 Not Satisfied – Bail Rejected – Petitioners sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a large-scale NDPS case involving over 3 crore intoxicant tablets, capsules, drug money, and vehicles – Court held that the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act applies and petitioners failed to meet twin conditions of proving they are not guilty and not likely to re-offend – Petitioners’ prolonged custody and ongoing trial held insufficient to dilute statutory mandate [Paras 10–13, 18].

Long Incarceration – Not Ground for Bail in Commercial Quantity Case – Trial Progressing Reasonably – Petitioners argued delay in trial and lengthy custody as grounds for bail – Court noted 54 prosecution witnesses already examined out of 160, no prosecutorial delay, and 46 witnesses given up – Held: Ongoing incarceration alone does not relax statutory bar under Section 37 where trial is active and serious recovery involved [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Antecedents – Multiple Petitioners Previously Involved in NDPS and Other Offences – Bail Denied – Court considered that most petitioners had pending or past cases, some convicted – Held: Antecedents and role in organized inter-state drug racket weigh against release – Risk of tampering with evidence or absconding highlighted [Paras 18, Annexures].

Disclosure Statements – No Evidentiary Value Alone – But Supported by Recovery – Petitioners argued disclosures inadmissible under Tofan Singh – Court noted recovery of contraband and other corroborative evidence support complicity beyond mere confessions [Paras 6–9, 13, 15].

Decision – Bail Petitions Dismissed – No Interim Relief – All 17 petitions dismissed – Special Court directed to expedite trial and avoid unwarranted delays – Observations not to affect merits of trial [Paras 20–24].

NDPS Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions Not Satisfied – Bail Denied - The petitioners sought regular bail in FIR involving seizure of over 3 crore tablets and capsules of psychotropic substances, drug money, vehicles, and mobile phones – Petitioners included directors of pharmaceutical firms, chemists, and transporters – Charges framed, 54 out of 160 prosecution witnesses examined – Held: The magnitude of recovery, involvement in organized inter-State racket, and pending examination of key witnesses negate twin-test under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act – Long incarceration alone does not dilute statutory bar when prosecution is proceeding efficiently – Bail rejected [Paras 6-13, 18].

Conscious Possession – Applicability of Section 37 – Commercial Quantity – Recovery from Different Locations – Retrospective Effect of Bail Precedents Denied - Despite prolonged custody, petitioners were denied bail due to direct recovery or association with contraband – Petitioners failed to dislodge presumption of conscious possession or demonstrate lack of nexus with recovered drugs – Arguments based on Supreme Court judgments like Tofan Singh and Dheeraj Shukla distinguished – Bail under Section 37 requires stronger case than prima facie non-involvement [Paras 11-14, 17-18].

Criminal Antecedents – Repeat Offenders – Relevance in Bail Consideration – Past Involvement in Similar Offences – Bail Denied - Multiple petitioners found involved in prior NDPS cases and offences under the Prisons Act – Held: History of similar criminal conduct and possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing remaining accused justifies continued detention – High threshold under Section 37 not met in any case – Bail dismissed across all petitions [Paras 18-19].

Public Interest – Drug Menace in Punjab – Supreme Court’s Concern – Strict Scrutiny Mandated – Bail Denied - Court reaffirmed that drug-related offences severely affect the public health and safety in Punjab – Cited recent Supreme Court observations urging caution in bail for repeat offenders in drug cases – Held: No mitigating circumstance present to deviate from legislative mandate – Bail petitions dismissed [Para 14].

Decision – All Petitions Dismissed – Interim Orders Vacated - After detailed analysis of evidence, law, and custody status, Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 37 NDPS Act – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments [Paras 20-23].
 

Civil Procedure – Closure of Evidence – Repeated Defaults by Plaintiff – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner-plaintiff failed to produce any evidence despite multiple adjournments and even defaulted in paying imposed costs – Trial Court closed evidence vide order dated 29.07.2024 – Held: The impugned order is justified and reflects due judicial discretion – High Court refused to interfere under Article 227 due to lack of procedural diligence by the petitioner [Paras 2-5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope under Article 227 – Limited Interference Permissible – The High Court reiterated that its power under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly and with judicial restraint – Held: Interference is unwarranted unless manifest injustice or gross procedural error is apparent – Reliance placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Closure of Evidence Upheld – Revision Petition Dismissed - The Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the revision petition as meritless [Para 7].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity and Twin Conditions under Section 37 – Bail Denied – Petitioners sought bail in FIR No. 72 of 2020 involving recovery of over 3 crore intoxicant tablets and capsules – Allegations of operating a multi-state drug network involving illicit manufacture, supply, and sale of psychotropic substances – Court held: Despite prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) must be satisfied, which were not met – Serious recovery, criminal antecedents of several petitioners, and risk of evading trial considered – Bail rejected for all 17 petitioners [Paras 1–20].

Civil Law – Tenancy Law - Summary Judgment – Admitted Tenancy and Arrears – Partial Decree Upheld – The appellant, a tenant under a registered lease, admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and rent arrears since 01.03.2018 – The Commercial Court granted partial decree for possession and rent recovery without trial, applying Order XIIIA CPC – Held: Summary judgment justified as there was no real prospect of the appellant defending the admitted claim [Paras 1-3, 6, 21-22].

Limitation – Refiling of Suit Under Commercial Courts Act – Section 14 Protection Granted – The respondent originally filed the suit in civil court in 2018, which was later returned due to jurisdictional transfer – The same plaint was refiled in 2023 under Commercial Courts Act – Held: Section 14 of Limitation Act applicable, suit not barred and claim from 01.03.2018 maintained [Paras 11-16].

Rent and Possession – Quantum and Apportionment – Rent Apportioned After Partial Possession Returned – The Court directed recovery at ₹84,000/month from 01.03.2018 till 19.10.2023 and ₹60,000/month thereafter for the remaining floors – Appellant's claims of reduced rent and oral arrangements with third parties found unsubstantiated and irrelevant to legal obligations under lease [Paras 17-22].

Security Deposit Adjustment – To Be Considered During Trial – Although the plea of ₹90,000/- security deposit adjustment was not accepted at summary stage, the Court clarified that this can be considered at the trial stage for damages and penalties [Para 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s orders, finding no merit in the appeal and confirming the validity of the partial summary judgment and directions for trial on damages [Para 26].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Direct Approach to High Court – Permissibility in Special Circumstances – Application Allowed – Applicant directly approached the High Court bypassing Sessions Court citing rejection of interim protection to co-accused and risk of similar denial – Court held that special circumstances were made out, particularly due to applicant’s young age and academic commitments – Preliminary objection overruled [Paras 2–9].

Dowry Death Allegation – Discrepancy Between FIR and Medical Evidence – Bail Granted – FIR alleged strangulation by co-accused (mother), implicating the applicant and family – However, postmortem showed ligature mark with cause of death as hanging, and no injury elsewhere – No direct allegations against applicant – Bail granted considering lack of prima facie material and academic background of applicant [Paras 10–16].

Anticipatory Bail – Bail Not Barred by Prior Writ Dismissal – Distinct Remedies – Held – Withdrawal of earlier writ petition for FIR quashing did not preclude filing anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail considered independently on its own merits [Para 15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and sureties in event of arrest or appearance, subject to conditions including cooperation, non-interference with investigation, and presence before trial court [Paras 16–17].
 

Income Tax Law - Business Loss and Commercial Expediency – Deduction for Expenditure on Group Company – Permitted – Appellant incurred Rs.200.47 lakh in deposits and interest and Rs.49.18 lakh as expenses in connection with its group company MMC – Court held that these were for commercial expediency to protect reputation and business continuity – Following earlier decision in assessee's own case for AY 1989-90, such deductions are allowable under Sections 28 and 37 of the Act [Paras 10–14].

Accounting Standards – Section 115J – Scope of Assessing Officer's Review – Limited – Held – Assessing Officer cannot question profit and loss account audited and certified under the Companies Act – Concept of ‘below the line’ has no statutory relevance – Following SC ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd., the AO’s jurisdiction is restricted to adjustments enumerated in Explanation to Section 115J only [Paras 15–17].

Precedent and Consistency – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Revenue Had Accepted Previous Judgment – Held – Since the revenue accepted earlier High Court ruling in assessee’s favour for the preceding AY and did not challenge it, Tribunal’s reliance on overruled precedent was erroneous – Appeal allowed accordingly [Paras 13–14, 18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – All substantial questions answered in favour of assessee – Tribunal’s order dated 25.02.2003 quashed – Expenses and write-offs allowed as business deductions [Para 19].
 

Civil Law - Assigned Land – Applicability of A.P. Assigned Lands Act, 1977 – Distinction Based on Date of Assignment – Land assigned before 18.06.1954 not governed by the Act – Held: Land admeasuring Ac.2.48 cents assigned in 1946 falls outside the ambit of the Act, while Ac.0.29 cents assigned in 1955 is covered – Resumption by authorities held without jurisdiction for the 1946-assigned land [Paras 20-23].

Resumption – Conversion to Non-Agricultural Use – No Continuous Violation – Field Inspection Shows Mixed Usage – Court found that only one acre had been previously used for brick manufacturing and the land was under cultivation during inspection – Held: Conversion ground insufficient to justify resumption of entire land [Paras 13, 26-27].

Jurisdiction – High Court’s Power under Article 226 – Private Title Disputes – Land Ownership Claims by Third Parties – Disputes raised by respondents 4 to 10 regarding ancestral title were considered private civil matters – Held: Such issues to be adjudicated before competent civil forum, not under writ jurisdiction [Paras 11, 29].

Social Justice – Purpose of Land Assignment – Economic Upliftment Not a Disqualification – Court deprecated the view that landless poor must remain poor to retain assignment benefits – Held: Improvement in financial status does not invalidate land assignment or justify resumption [Para 28].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Dismissed – High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s order holding resumption illegal for Ac.2.48 cents and valid for Ac.0.29 cents – Appeals by State and private parties dismissed with no costs [Paras 30-31].
 

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Not Applicable – Petitioner Alleged to Have Driven the Getaway Vehicle – The petitioner sought bail claiming parity with co-accused Sifarish Khan and Akhileshwar Kumar @ Sanjay, who had been granted bail earlier – Held: The petitioner was directly involved in the commission of the robbery, driving the motorcycle with a fake number plate and aiding the pillion rider who snatched the gold – The co-accused had distinct and less direct roles, thus no parity existed [Paras 4, 6].

Robbery – Daylight Crime with Police Impersonation – Bail Denied – The offence was committed in broad daylight in a busy locality, with the perpetrators dressed in khaki to impersonate police officers and using a pistol-shaped lighter – The court found the nature and execution of the crime to be daring and serious, justifying rejection of bail [Paras 3, 7].

Recovery of Property – Gold Not Yet Recovered – Accused's Claims Unfounded – Though the defence claimed the gold was fake, the prosecution clarified it had not been recovered yet – Court observed that the petitioner’s counsel was not correctly briefed, and such misrepresentations weakened the bail plea [Para 8].

Final Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Given the seriousness of the offence, involvement of the petitioner, and absconding co-accused, the court found it unfit to grant regular bail to the applicant [Para 9].