Bail – Allegations of theft of gold and attempt to run over police vehicle while escaping – Accused No. 1 facing 81 adverse antecedents – Bail refused having regard to gravity of offence and criminal history – Petition dismissed as against Accused No. 1 [Paras 6-7].

Bail – Accused No. 2, son of Accused No. 3 and relative of Accused No. 1 – Detained for 61 days in judicial custody – Considering nature of allegations against him and period of incarceration, Court inclined to grant bail – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions of bond, weekly reporting, restriction on travel, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with witnesses [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Criminal petition partly allowed – Bail rejected for Accused No. 1; Bail granted to Accused No. 2 with conditions [Para 9].

NDPS Act – Sampling Procedure – Section 52A(2) – Mandatory Compliance – Accused found with Buprenorphine and Diazepam injections – Samples drawn by detecting officer at spot without moving application to Magistrate – Held: As per Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) and Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), samples must be drawn in presence and under supervision of Magistrate; failure vitiates prosecution – Prosecution case not free from suspicion – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 12-15].

Criminal Trial – Evidence Recording – Sections 273 & 276 Cr.P.C. – Invalid Chief Affidavits – Trial court accepted affidavits of PWs 1 & 4 as chief-examination, contrary to Section 276 Cr.P.C. requiring recording in court in presence of accused – Violated accused’s right to object to leading questions – Prejudice caused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 8-11].

Benefit of Doubt – Doubts in Procedure – Absence of statutory compliance in sampling and defective recording of witness testimony cumulatively rendered prosecution unreliable – Acquittal directed [Paras 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Acquittal [Para 16].

Bail – Anti-National Facebook Post – Sections 152, 192, 197(1), 353(2) BNS – Bail Rejected – Applicant posted provocative and derogatory content including insult to Indian National Flag and slogans glorifying Pakistan – Cyber investigation traced posts to applicant's verified IP and mobile – Court found conduct detrimental to national integrity and social harmony – No grounds for bail [Paras 2–10].

Cyber Crime – Electronic Evidence – Facebook Post Verified Through IP and Mobile Linking – Meta data and cyber report confirmed the posts were made from applicant's mobile using his SIM and devices – Forensic collection upheld as credible prima facie evidence linking accused to offense [Paras 6(i)-(ii), 8].

National Flag – Insult to National Honour – Bail Denied – Photograph showing dog sitting on Indian Flag uploaded by applicant was termed as deliberate act of dishonour – Court reaffirmed importance of safeguarding national symbols and noted that such acts were punishable and socially corrosive [Paras 7, 9].

Criminal Antecedents – Previous Involvement in Arms Act and Attempt to Murder Cases – Considered in Bail Rejection – Two prior cases including one under Section 307 IPC weighed against applicant's plea for liberty [Para 6(vi)].

Social Media Responsibility – Posts Capable of Inciting Communal Disharmony – Court observed that the content uploaded was capable of disturbing public peace and order – Bail denied due to possibility of larger societal impact [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Prima facie materials against the accused supported by technical evidence and witness statements – Insult to National Flag viewed as serious and non-bailable conduct – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Proceedings – Application to Set Aside – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Trial Court imposed condition of Rs.25,000/- for permitting cross-examination of PW1 – Defendants failed to comply, application dismissed – Held: Conditional costs excessive – Opportunity must be given to defend case – Conditional order modified to Rs.5,000/- [Paras 5-9].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Scope – High Court intervened where Trial Court exercised discretion arbitrarily in fixing disproportionate costs – Held: Supervisory power rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Impugned order dated 04.07.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 set aside – Defendants directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to plaintiff on or before 12.09.2025 – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Matter posted for reporting compliance [Paras 9-10].

Civil Liability – Damages - Negligence by Licensing Authority – Non-issuance of Duplicate License – Driver prevented from duty – Appellant, a permanent DTC driver, lost his license in 1996; MLO refused duplicate citing expiry, though DTC records showed validity till 20.12.1996 – Civil Judge in earlier suit (2002) directed issuance of duplicate license, confirming validity till 1996 – Held: Negligence of respondents established; appellant wrongly deprived of duty as driver for 1997–2001 – Loss of salary attributable to negligence of Licensing Authority [Paras 19-24].

Evidence – Public Records – Salary Register – Admissibility – PW2 produced original DTC salary register (Ex. PW2/A), signed by Depot Manager, showing salary appellant would have earned as driver – Court held document admissible under Section 35 Evidence Act – No contrary evidence led by respondents; Trial Court erred in rejecting cogent record – Presumption of correctness applies to official records [Paras 26-33].

Employment – Continuity of Service – Appellant never terminated – Though not assigned driving duty, remained in service; later given desk duty in 2001 until license reissued in 2002 – Salary paid was less than driver’s entitlement – Court held appellant entitled to damages for difference between actual salary paid and driver’s pay for 1997–2001 [Paras 37-44].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Damages enhanced by ₹30,000 (in addition to ₹15,000 awarded by Trial Court) with 9% interest from date of appeal till realisation – Finding of negligence of MLO/MLA final; DTC not liable – Decree modified accordingly [Paras 45-49].

Service Law – Regularization of Long-serving Employees – Denial on Ground of No Sanctioned Posts – Arbitrary and Unconstitutional – Petitioners appointed in 1995 onwards, repeatedly litigated; co-worker Vir Bahadur regularized – Respondents denied petitioners’ regularization citing absence of sanctioned posts – Court held plea unsustainable; reliance on Umadevi misplaced – Continuous exploitation through ad hocism violates Articles 14, 16, 21 – Services directed to be regularized within six weeks; failing which deemed regularization with full benefits – Writ allowed [Paras 5–10, 18].

Constitutional Mandate – State as Model Employer – Court condemned “perennial ad hocism” in public employment; financial constraints or lack of sanctioned posts cannot justify decades-long denial of regularization where work is perennial – State duty-bound to create posts and budgetary provisions; exploitation under guise of outsourcing or casualization unconstitutional [Paras 6–9, 11–12].

Judicial Directives – Enforcement of Court Orders – Administrative Indifference – Court expressed concern over habitual delays and bureaucratic non-compliance with judicial mandates – Laid down parameters: accountability of officers, statutory timelines, monitoring cells, digital transparency, grievance redressal, training, and appraisal linkage – Warning of contempt under Article 215 if directions flouted [Paras 13–17, 19].

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondent-Corporation directed to regularize services of petitioners within six weeks, else deemed regularized with arrears, seniority, and parity benefits as granted to Vir Bahadur – Copy sent to Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for litigation policy reforms [Paras 18–21].

Murder – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony of related witnesses – Conviction upheld; appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 27–33].

Criminal Appeal – Murder in Furtherance of Common Intention – Conviction Upheld – High Court affirmed conviction under Section 302/34 IPC where appellant fired on deceased during marriage function – Eyewitness account of father and brother found reliable – Delay in trial due to absconding not fatal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 27–33].

Identification of Accused – Kaushal @ Alok Chauhan – Identity Dispute Rejected – Appellant’s claim that he was misidentified as “Kaushal” refuted based on consistent reference to both names in investigation and local familiarity – Dock identification and corroborating testimony confirmed involvement [Paras 7, 25, 28–30].

Evidence – Related Witness – Trustworthiness Affirmed – Father and brother of deceased found to be natural and probable witnesses – Prompt FIR, consistent testimony, and their presence at the event established – Held: Related witness evidence cannot be discarded if trustworthy [Paras 18, 26, 30].

Medical and Documentary Evidence – Post-Mortem, FIR, and Site Plan Corroborated Ocular Testimony – Timely FIR and inquest, wound characteristics consistent with close-range firearm use – Trial court’s factual findings based on coherent chain of evidence upheld [Paras 20–24].

Plea for Reduction of Offence – Section 302 vs. Section 304 IPC – Rejected – Argument that death was unintentional or accidental found baseless – Court held accused fired intentionally knowing consequences – No grounds to convert conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 31–32].

Appellate Interference – Scope of Section 386 CrPC – No Perverse Finding – Where trial court’s view is plausible and supported by evidence, appellate court must refrain from interference – Conviction legally sustainable [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant directed to surrender and serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds forfeited [Para 33].

Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation – Section 528 BNSS – Order Cancelling Bail and Issuing NBWs Quashed – Petitioner’s bail was cancelled and NBWs issued for non-appearance – On the date in question, case was adjourned for reply to Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. application and no substantial proceedings were fixed – Held: mere absence on such date without intent to hamper trial does not justify punitive cancellation – Impugned order set aside – Bail restored [Paras 4, 7-8].

Exemption from Appearance – Judicial Discretion – Out of six hearings, petitioner absent on three – Held: occasional exemptions do not establish wilful attempt to evade trial – Trial Court ought to have granted exemption instead of imposing drastic measure of bail cancellation [Paras 4, 7].

Object of Bail – Ensuring Presence vs. Punishment – Court reiterates that bail is to secure appearance during trial and not punitive – Cancellation permissible only on recording cogent satisfaction of wilful evasion – Absence in procedural hearing not sufficient ground [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Approach – NBWs and Bail Cancellation – Caution Against Mechanical Orders – Following Sahib Singh @ Saab Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), Courts must adopt non-bailable warrants sparingly and only upon recording necessity – Punitive approach inconsistent with bail jurisprudence [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Bail cancellation and NBWs quashed – Petitioner directed to appear before trial Court within 15 days and furnish bail bonds – On failure, benefit of bail to lapse automatically [Para 8].

Real Estate Regulation – Interest for Delay – Section 18(1)(a) RERA – Interest is Automatic – Tribunal justified in awarding interest for delay in possession without inquiry – Delay in possession admitted by promoter – Interest for period 01.01.2020 to 13.10.2022 rightly granted at MCLR + 1% – Held: Section 18(1)(a) is mandatory in nature and operates without need for further adjudication where delay is established – Interpretation of phrase “as the case may be” limited to eventualities within Section 18 itself [Paras 25–32].

Appellate Tribunal Powers – Jurisdiction under Sections 44(6) and 53 – Tribunal Not Bound by CPC – Tribunal has power to grant appropriate relief including awarding interest – Held: Tribunal rightly exercised powers to modify Adjudicating Officer’s order and award interest instead of compensation – Exercise of power in conformity with object of Act and guided by principles of natural justice [Paras 26–32].

Statutory Pre-Deposit – Section 43(5) RERA – Appropriation Valid – Pre-deposit can be appropriated toward interest payable to allottee – Held: Pre-deposit is not merely procedural but represents part payment of liability – Tribunal rightly directed release of amount to allottee after verification – Refund permissible only if amount exceeds liability [Paras 33–38].

Maintainability of Appeal – Challenge to Interest on Admitted Delay – Appeal Not Maintainable – No substantial question of law involved – Held: Where facts such as date of agreement, delay, and possession are undisputed, Tribunal’s award of interest cannot be challenged under Section 58 read with Section 100 CPC – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Admission of delay precludes challenge [Paras 39–43].

Final Decision – All Appeals Dismissed – Promoter’s appeals dismissed for lack of merit – Allottee’s appeal also dismissed due to absence of arguments for compensation – Held: Tribunal's orders justified in law and fact – No substantial question of law arises [Para 43].