Civil Law – Suit for Damages - Carrier’s Liability – Damage During Transit – Admitted Loss – Decree Upheld - Appellants (transporters) were held liable for damage to 171 packages of viscose fiber during shipment from Calcutta to Ludhiana – Defendants themselves admitted damage in Exhibit P3 – Held: Admission of damage and quantum sufficient to justify decree; plea of “act of God” unsubstantiated – No perversity found in lower courts’ findings [Paras 3-6].

Act of God Defence – No Evidence – Adverse Inference Drawn - Appellants contended damage occurred due to flash floods between Rajpura and Ludhiana – However, no driver or cleaner was examined – DW-1 (Manager) had no personal knowledge – Held: Mere pleading of natural calamity insufficient; non-examination of key witnesses warrants adverse inference under law [Paras 7-8].

Quantum of Compensation – Surveyor Not Examined – Reliance on Defendants’ Own Letter - Though the Surveyor’s report was not formally proved, the Appellate Court rightly relied on Exhibit P3 issued by defendants admitting loss of ₹70,000 – Trial Court awarded ₹1,00,000 (including interest); Appellate Court modified it to ₹86,110 plus future interest at 12% p.a. – Held: Compensation rightly adjusted based on reliable admission [Paras 5-6].

Final Disposition – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed - The High Court affirmed Appellate Court’s reasoning and found no illegality or perversity – Held: No substantial question of law involved; second appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 8-9].

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Bail Denied – Applicant (cleaner in seized truck) sought second bail after seizure of 151.600 kgs of ganja – Court held that recovery was above commercial quantity, presumption of conscious possession applied, and twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied – Held: No reasonable ground to believe applicant not guilty; bail refused [Paras 20-23].

Charge-Sheet – FSL Report – Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. – Validity of Filing without FSL Report – Court held charge-sheet complete if accompanied by sufficient material; FSL report filed later under Section 173(8) is corroborative – Hence, absence of FSL report at initial stage does not vitiate charge-sheet or entitle default bail [Paras 16-19].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Delay/Irregularity in Compliance – No Ground for Bail – Relying on Supreme Court ruling in NCB v. Kashif (2024), Court held non-compliance or delay in Section 52A procedure for disposal of seized contraband is an irregularity, not illegality; cannot be basis for bail when sufficient evidence exists [Paras 9-13].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Scope – Applies to Personal Search, Not Vehicle Search – Court reiterated SC rulings that Section 50 safeguards apply only to personal search, not to search of vehicle, bag, or premises – Thus, plea of non-compliance with Section 50 rejected [Para 17].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Court held applicant was in conscious possession of contraband above commercial quantity – No ground for bail made out [Para 23].

Regular Bail  – Honey-Trap and Extortion Allegations – Sections 127, 308, 352, 351, 318, 115 & 61 BNS – Bail Granted – Petitioner, a police constable, arraigned as accused No.6, alleged to have accompanied prime accused and threatened complainant in extortion plot – No recovery from petitioner; no direct demand of money attributed – Investigation completed, charge-sheet filed – Court held further detention unnecessary; bail granted with conditions [Paras 3-12].

Allegations – Complaint alleged petitioner present with accused No.1 demanding ₹10 lakh – Charge-sheet, however, only states petitioner warned complainant of trouble if demand not met – No evidence of petitioner’s receipt of money – His role limited and disputed; guilt to be established only at trial [Paras 9-11].

Custodial Necessity – Petitioner in custody since 15/06/2025 – Interrogation complete – Continued detention serves no purpose – Risks of tampering with evidence can be mitigated by bail conditions [Paras 7-12].

Bail Principles – Presumption of Innocence and Personal Liberty – Bail is rule; denial an exception – In absence of recovery or direct overt act, refusal of bail unjustified – Stringent conditions sufficient safeguard [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner/accused No.6 enlarged on bail in Crime No.127/2025 subject to: personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, furnishing and updating residential address, non-inducement of witnesses, and regular appearance before trial court – Breach of conditions to entail cancellation of bail [Paras 12, Order].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape converted to Outraging Modesty – Sections 354/323 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Trial Court convicted appellant for outraging modesty despite charge under Sections 376/511 IPC – High Court found victim’s evidence inconsistent with FIR, medical records, and Section 164 statement – Hostile witnesses and alternative version of incident (dispute over spitting at gate) created reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended; conviction set aside; appeal allowed. Acquittal. [Paras 10-15, 21].

Victim’s Evidence – Weight and Corroboration – Law recognises that sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if trustworthy – In present case, contradictions between FIR, deposition, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and medical report undermined reliability – Court held victim’s testimony lacked cogency and required corroboration, which was absent [Paras 13-15].

Interested/Hostile Witnesses – Evaluation – PWs 3 and 4 (relatives in same premises) did not support prosecution version – PW 4 gave different account of quarrel between accused and victim’s husband – Witness not declared hostile – Lack of corroboration from neighbours and family members further weakened prosecution [Paras 14, 16-17].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report – Doctor noted only tenderness on chest and limbs, no signs of scuffle, sexual assault, or vomiting as alleged – Injury report used against accused though not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Inadmissible for conviction as per Sujit Biswas principle – Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution story [Paras 13, 19-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Principles of Natural Justice – All incriminating materials must be put to accused – Failure to confront with injury report violated audi alteram partem – Such evidence excluded from consideration [Paras 19-20].

Standard of Proof – Two Possible Views – As per Kali Ram and Raj Kumar Singh, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Prosecution evidence not free from doubt; alternative version supported by some witnesses – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 18, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and conviction dated 17/09/2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 354 and 323 IPC – Bail bond discharged in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481 BNSS, 2023) [Paras 21-24].

NDPS Act – Second Bail Application – Commercial Quantity – Allegation of conscious possession – 151.6 kg of ganja recovered from intercepted DCM truck – Applicant apprehended on spot along with driver – Held: Once contraband is recovered from vehicle and accused was present therein, presumption of conscious possession applies – Burden on accused under Section 35 & 54 to rebut – Mere status as “cleaner” insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Bail rightly refused [Paras 2-3, 20-21]

Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Stringent Conditions – Twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) not met – No reasonable grounds to believe applicant is not guilty – Likelihood of re-offending not ruled out – Held: Bail under NDPS Act cannot be granted unless both limbs of Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied – No special circumstances warranting deviation found [Paras 8-9, 13-14, 21-23]

Criminal Procedure – Non-filing of FSL Report with Charge Sheet – Not Fatal – Charge sheet filed on 31.12.2023 based on sufficient evidence – FSL report dated 02.12.2023 included later in case diary under Section 173(8) – Held: Non-inclusion of FSL report with charge sheet does not vitiate proceedings or entitle accused to bail – FSL report is corroborative evidence admissible under Section 293 CrPC [Paras 5-6, 14-20]

Section 52A NDPS Act – Delay or Non-Compliance – Not Ground for Bail – Supreme Court’s ruling in NCB v. Kashif (2024) reiterated – Purpose of Section 52A is early disposal of seized drugs – Lapse is procedural irregularity, not illegality – Does not vitiate prosecution case or entitle accused to bail [Paras 9-13]

Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 50 NDPS Act – Section 50 applies only to personal search – Not applicable to search of vehicles – Argument of non-compliance with Section 50 rejected based on settled Supreme Court law [Para 17]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court finds no reasonable ground under Section 37 of NDPS Act to enlarge applicant on bail – Application rejected with reference to conscious possession and sufficiency of evidence including FSL report.

Civil Law  – Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Sections 7 & 8, Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed in Part – Plaintiff claimed declaration as second wife of late Mukesh Sharma – Trial court dismissed suit holding matrimonial status declaration lies exclusively within jurisdiction of Family Court – High Court upheld finding of lack of jurisdiction but held trial court erred in dismissing instead of returning plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC mandates return of plaint for presentation before competent Family Court – Impugned judgment modified accordingly [Paras 13-22].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Section 7 Explanation (b), Family Courts Act – Exclusive domain over validity of marriage and matrimonial status – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 8 – Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308 applied – Declaration of matrimonial status can only be sought before Family Court [Paras 14-15, 18].

Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Mandatory where Court lacks jurisdiction – Trial court committed illegality by dismissing suit outright – Supreme Court in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667 reiterated principle – High Court directed return of plaint to enable presentation before competent court [Paras 16-19, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 17/09/2022 set aside to extent of dismissal of suit – Finding of lack of jurisdiction upheld – Trial Court directed to return plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 21-23].

Registration of Sale Deed – Role of Registering Officer – Refusal Held Illegal – The Sub-Registrar and District Registrar, Samba, refused registration of a sale deed on the ground that petitioner’s title was unclear, relying on the Advocate General’s opinion – Held: Registering Officer has no adjudicatory role to assess title – Registration cannot be refused if procedural requirements are met and there is no legal bar – Orders of refusal quashed [Paras 12-14, 17-19].

Ownership Rights – Government Order 254-C of 1965 – No Restriction on Transferability – The petitioner acquired land under Government Order No. 254-C of 1965 – Held: Such ownership is full and unrestricted – No condition prohibits sale or transfer – Reliance on Advocate General’s pending opinion without legal notification is unjustified [Paras 15-16, 18].

Rule-Making Power – Section 69 of Registration Act – Scope Limited – Any rule or instruction not covered under Section 69(1)(a) to (j) is ultra vires – Registration Rules cannot override the Act – Cited SC judgment in K. Gopi vs. Sub-Registrar declaring Rule 55A ultra vires to emphasize limited powers of Registering Officers [Paras 11, 13].

Registration Act – Procedural Compliance Sufficient – No Requirement to Prove Title – Under Sections 34, 52, and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, registration depends on execution, identity, and procedural formalities – Held: Title disputes beyond the scope of registration proceedings – Petitioner cannot be denied registration solely due to absence of clarification from Government [Paras 6-10, 12].

Decision of Coordinate Bench – Binding Authority – Jarnail Singh Case Followed – Coordinate Bench ruling in Jarnail Singh vs. UT of J&K affirmed that ownership under Order 254-C is absolute – Held: Sub-Registrar cannot disregard this legal precedent in absence of contradictory statutory provision [Para 16].

Final Relief – Writ Allowed – Registration Directed – Impugned orders of Sub-Registrar and District Registrar set aside – Petitioner permitted to re-present the sale deed – Sub-Registrar directed to register if no other legal impediment exists [Paras 19-20].

Bail Application – Fraudulent Investment Scheme – Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC & Sections 3, 4 MPID Act – Bail Rejected – Applicant accused of luring more than 127 investors into depositing over ₹7 crores under a scheme promising 5–10% monthly returns, diverting funds to personal accounts – Court held that Designated MPID Court has jurisdiction to try IPC offences along with MPID offences – Transactions amount to “deposits” under MPID Act – Prima facie case of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy established – Antecedents of similar offences and gravity of fraud weighed against bail – Bail Application dismissed [Paras 22-55].

Jurisdiction of MPID Court – Designated Court remains Sessions Court – Possesses full powers under Cr.P.C. – Designation enlarges, not curtails jurisdiction – IPC offences connected with MPID offences can be tried together to avoid multiplicity – Argument of losing appellate forum under Articles 14 & 21 rejected [Paras 22-34].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Applicability affirmed – Prosecution case shows applicant and co-accused conspired to cheat investors – Company’s non-natural status irrelevant where natural persons executed fraudulent scheme [Para 35].

Deposit under MPID Act – Section 3 – Investment with assured fixed returns amounts to “deposit” – Prosecution material shows inducement and extraordinary promises – Argument of non-deposit rejected at bail stage [Paras 37-40].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 409 IPC – Entrustment and misappropriation established – Investors’ funds dishonestly diverted to applicant’s personal account – Prima facie case under Section 409 IPC made out; defence of civil dispute rejected [Paras 41-46].

Parity in Bail – Prior bail order in Crime No.123/2021 distinguished – Present fraud involved larger number of investors and higher amount (over ₹7 crores) – Antecedents of repeat offence – Principle of parity not applicable [Para 47].

Personal Liberty vs. Public Interest – While bail is a rule, economic offences form an exception – Magnitude of fraud, antecedents, and likelihood of repetition outweigh Article 21 considerations – Larger public interest in protecting depositors prevails – Bail rejected [Paras 48-54].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed. No case made out for grant of bail in view of gravity, scale of fraud, antecedents, and public interest [Para 55].

Criminal Writ - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Biological Parent vs. Grandparent – Petitioner, biological father and natural guardian, sought custody of son from maternal grandmother – Respondent contended emotional bond, financial incapacity of father, and pending custody proceedings – Held: Biological parents’ right to custody prevails unless welfare of child is demonstrably at risk – Grandparent has no superior right over natural guardian – Custody directed to be restored to petitioner [Paras 12-14, 16].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus vs. Guardians and Wards Act – Pendency of custody proceedings before Family Court no bar – Writ jurisdiction may be exercised in exceptional cases where detention is unlawful – Habeas Corpus maintainable where biological parent is deprived of custody by third party – Supreme Court precedents in Tejaswini Gaud (2019) 7 SCC 42 and Gautam Kumar Das (2024 INSC 610) applied [Paras 10-12, 14].

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Petitioner and wife living together, gainfully employed – Already caring for twin brother suffering from cerebral palsy – Nothing on record to show incapacity – Property disputes irrelevant – Welfare best served in custody of parents – Adjustment difficulties temporary – Welfare safeguarded with visitation rights to grandmother [Paras 12-14, 17].

Visitation Rights – To balance child’s welfare and existing bond with grandmother, respondent no. 5 allowed weekday visitation (9:00 am to 6:00 pm) at petitioner’s residence for three months – Respondent nos. 6 to 8 permitted to accompany – Petitioner directed to cooperate [Para 17].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Police directed to secure custody of minor from respondent no. 5 and hand over to petitioner within two weeks – Visitation rights granted – No order as to costs [Paras 16-18].