Divorce Appeal – Cruelty – Financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations – Appellant seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Judgment and Decree granting divorce under challenge – Financial exploitation established through evidence – Appellant’s claim of extramarital relationship unsubstantiated – Allegations of illicit relationship considered as cruelty – Appellant’s withdrawal of such allegations points to their falsity – No infirmity in the findings of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court – Appeal dismissed. [Para 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50]

Financial Exploitation – Appellant’s brother received financial assistance from respondent on various occasions – Evidence of payments for setting up clinic, purchasing plots of land, and other expenses – Appellant unable to explain the source of funds for her brother – Financial dealings established – Financial exploitation proved. [Para 38, 39, 44, 45]

Allegations of Extramarital Relationship – Appellant’s allegations of extramarital relationship by respondent – Onus on appellant to prove such allegations – Failure to provide credible evidence – Allegations considered as an act of cruelty – Coordinated Bench and Apex Court decisions support this view – Allegations withdrawn in amended written statement further cast doubt on their veracity. [Para 45, 46, 47]

Assault and False Allegations – Incident of assault on respondent established through corroborating evidence – Appellant’s undertaking to police not to assault respondent contradicted by her continued behavior – False allegations and counter-blast complaints made by appellant – Evidence supports the incident of assault – False allegations and assaults considered as acts of cruelty. [Para 32, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]

Conclusion – The respondent subjected to cruelty as proven through financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations – Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.2019 granting divorce upheld – Appeal dismissed along with pending applications. [Para 49, 50]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application under NDPS Act – Contraband possession and trafficking – Recovery of fake stickers – Disclosure statement – CDR call records – Material evidence – Analysis of various contentions and arguments – Consideration of legality and applicability of evidence – Examination of case law regarding admissibility of confessions made to NDPS officers – Analysis of recent judgments emphasizing personal liberty and Article 21 – Consideration of applicant’s incarceration period and similarity to other relevant judgments – Primacy of personal liberty and need for timely trial conclusions – Conclusion that Section 37 NDPS Act embargo not applicable – Applicant’s entitlement to be released on regular bail – Stringent bail conditions outlined – Warning against breach of conditions. [Para 20, 31-70]

 Facts

The appellant, Daya alias Dayawanti, is the widow of the deceased Sarwan Kumar who died in a motor vehicular accident on January 10, 2005. The accident occurred when a canter bearing registration No. HR-64-0903 collided with Sarwan Kumar's truck. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the death of her husband. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded her a total compensation of Rs. 3,79,000/-.

 Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the monthly salary of the deceased.

2. Whether the Tribunal failed to enhance the income on account of future prospects.

3. Whether the Tribunal deducted personal expenses on the higher side.

4. Whether the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation on account of loss of estate.

 Observations

The Court observed that the income of the deceased should have been assessed according to the DC rates prevalent at the time of the accident, which were Rs. 5,812.75/- per month. The Court also observed that in cases where there is only one dependent, it is at the discretion of the court to decide the deduction for personal expenses. The Court decided that a deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses would be just and fair in this case.

 Decision

The Court partly modified the award of the Tribunal and granted a total compensation of Rs. 8,44,508/- to the appellant along with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The appeal was allowed with the terms indicated in the judgement.

Look Out Circular (LOC) – Challenge to LOC issued against the Petitioner at the instance of Respondent No.2/Bank of Baroda – Petitioner’s employment history, resignation, and subsequent developments – Investigation into alleged financial irregularities post-Petitioner’s resignation – Petitioner’s request to travel abroad obstructed due to LOC – Legal validity of LOC questioned. [Para 1-8]

Right to Travel and Personal Liberty – Fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Restriction of movement due to LOC – Importance of ensuring valid and justifiable reasons for imposing such restrictions – Need for substantial evidence to support the issuance of LOC. [Para 9]

Issuance of Look Out Circular – Conditions for issuing LOC – Cognizable offences under IPC or penal laws – National interest, sovereignty, security, integrity, bilateral relations, economic interests, and public interest as grounds for LOC – Exceptional cases where LOC can be issued without complete parameters – Necessity for satisfying the prescribed conditions before opening LOC. [Para 12]

Legality of Look Out Circular – Lack of substantial material to justify the LOC – Use of LOC for debt recovery without meeting necessary criteria – Quashing of the Impugned Look Out Circular due to its unsustainability. [Para 14]

Decision – Writ petition allowed, Impugned Look Out Circular quashed – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 15]

Criminal Revision – Quashing of criminal proceeding – Allegation of bodily harm, threats, and false criminal cases against the petitioner – Opposite party no. 2’s alleged vendetta against petitioner due to protest against illegal activities – Complaint registered under Sections 341/323/506 of IPC – Charge sheet filed – Petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings – Counter case and mediation proceedings also involved – Absence of petitioner in mediation – Medical papers indicating injuries – Compoundable offences – Prima facie materials for trial found – Revisional application dismissed. [Para 1]

Personal Vendetta – Alleged vendetta by opposite party no. 2 against petitioner – Petitioner’s protest against illegal activities, misappropriation of funds, and corrupt practices – History of conflicts and complaints – Association’s board dissolved by State Government – Personal vendetta alleged to be motive behind filing false criminal case – Counter case and mediation proceedings indicating continued disputes. [Para 2-6]

Legal Proceedings – Criminal case registered against petitioner – Sections 341/323/506 of IPC – Charge sheet filed – Petitioner claims abuse of process of law and seeks quashing of proceedings – Mention of counter case and related revisional application – Mediation attempted but petitioner absent on two occasions – Mention of medical reports indicating injuries suffered by complainant. [Para 7-12]

Evidence – Medical papers in case diary – Injury report showing pain and swelling over left cheekbone of complainant – Mention of failure of petitioner to appear for mediation on two occasions – Primacy facie materials indicating need for trial mentioned – Mention of compoundable offences. [Para 13-15]

Criminal revision application seeking quashing of proceedings dismissed – Prima facie materials found in present case against petitioner. [Para 16-20]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Application – FIR registered under various sections including 302, 201, 364, 365 & 34 IPC – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 of CrPC – Accused's contentions of no criminal antecedents and irreparable injustice due to pre-trial incarceration – State's opposition – Grant of bail subject to conditions. [Para 1-4]

2. Bail Criteria – Consideration of factors justifying grant or refusal of bail – Importance of cumulative effect of circumstances – Existence of prima facie case and reasons for releasing accused on bail – Bail not precluding subsequent applications – Gravity of offence, heinousness, and potential of accused to avoid justice as relevant factors – Discretion to be exercised judiciously and compassionately. [Para 8]

3. Bail Conditions – Stringent conditions to balance personal liberty and need for ensuring compliance – Conditions to prevent accused's influence on investigation, tampering with evidence, or intimidation of witnesses – Technological advancements in identification techniques – Alternative options for surety and address details – Imposing proportionate and reasonable conditions. [Para 9-10]

4. Bail Terms – Release on bail subject to specific terms and conditions – Furnishing of personal bond and surety – Fixed deposit option – Requirements for surety approval – Accused's responsibility to explain conditions – Non-contact orders, surrender of weapons, and restraint from entering specific areas – Compliance with bail conditions and consequences of breach – Balanced approach to preserve rights and liberties. [Para 11-17]

5. Judicial Observations – Observations on the evolving role of technology in identification techniques – Recovery of expenses in case of flight risk – Flexible address requirements – Necessity of proportional conditions – Emphasis on ensuring safety of witnesses and victims – Conditions ensuring accused's reciprocation for protection from incarceration. [Para 11-20]

6. Conclusion – Bail granted with stipulated conditions – Purpose of conditions explained – Conditions aimed at balancing liberty and compliance – Directions for communication of order and verification – Balance between individual rights and societal interests highlighted. [Para 21-26]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Petitioner seeks bail in a case involving charges of 302, 201, 364, 365 & 34 IPC – Peculiar facts and circumstances considered – State opposes bail – Role assigned to the petitioner is providing a rope to tie the deceased – Lack of motive or prior enmity – Petitioner's incarceration since 07.07.2021 – Petitioner's claim of being a first offender – Importance of granting bail while considering the possibility of influencing investigation or tampering with evidence – Conditions for the grant of bail – Bail granted with stringent terms and conditions – Court's focus on ensuring safety of witnesses, victims, and fair trial – No expression of opinion on case's merits – Possibility of modification of conditions – Order not limiting or restricting further investigation. [Para 1-26]

Criminal Bail Application – Violation of NDPS Act – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC – Allegations of possession of contraband – Petitioner’s antecedents, irreparable injustice, and commercial quantity involved are key points – Court examines compliance with NDPS Act provisions and legislative mandate under Section 37. [Para 1]

Burden of Proof – Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin conditions of statutory mandate must be satisfied – Commercial quantity involved shifts burden on petitioner – Non-examination of independent witnesses insufficient – No violation of Section 37 requirements established. [Para 6]

Search and Seizure – Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act – Accused alleges non-compliance – Legal status of compliance to be determined at trial – Non-rectifiable violations might lead to bail – Prejudice to prosecution must be proven – No evident violation in this case. [Para 11]

Speedy Trial – Conclusion of trial requested by court – Balance between speedy trial and court’s docket considered – Accused’s obligation to not delay proceedings – Consequences for seeking adjournments or delaying trial outlined. [Para 16]

Decision:Petition for bail dismissed – No discharge of burden under Section 37 – Trial court requested to expedite trial proceedings and conclude by specified deadlines – Non-compliance with trial requirements leads to recall of expedited trial order. [Para 16]

NDPS Case - Petitioner seeks quashing of order dismissing application to preserve call details record of his mobile - Dispute over date and circumstances of petitioner's arrest - Prosecution alleges arrest on 10.10.2021 from highway, petitioner claims abduction by police on 09.10.2021 near his house - Petitioner's request for tower location and call details preservation - Similar cases considered by court [Para 3-11]

Access to Evidence - Accused's right to access evidence to build defense - Court's consideration of preserving call details and tower location records - Precedents cited supporting early access to evidence [Para 9]

Decision - Trial court's order set aside - Tower location and call details of petitioner's mobile to be preserved for specific period - Copies to be provided to petitioner [Para 11]