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].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Median Cut Closure – Dismissal of PIL – The petitioner sought reopening of a median cut on National Highway No. 44 near village Khari, which was earlier closed due to safety concerns following accidents – The National Highways Authority of India submitted that the closure was based on recommendations from a Road Safety Audit Report in accordance with MoRTH guidelines – Held: The Court found no reason to interfere with expert advice taken for public safety – Mere inconvenience due to an alternative cut being 1.5 km away was not a sufficient ground to reopen the closed median cut [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Expert Decisions – Limited Scope – The Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to substituting expert opinion with judicial wisdom, especially in matters involving technical expertise and road safety audits – Held: Courts should defer to technical assessments unless manifestly arbitrary or mala fide – Petition rightly dismissed [Para 5].

Public Safety vs Local Convenience – Balancing Interests – Median Cut Closure Justified – Though the petitioner cited inconvenience to villagers due to distant alternate routes, the Court observed that safety considerations on a National Highway override such inconvenience – The closure was deemed in public interest to avoid accidents – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 4-6].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court declined to entertain the PIL citing valid expert recommendation and public safety grounds – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Para 7].

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].

Tenancy Law  – Personal bona fide requirement – Clause (g), Section 13(1), Bombay Rent Act – Liberal construction includes landlord’s dependent family – Eviction decree sustained – Landlords (a priestly family near a temple) proved insufficiency of existing premises and need for additional space for named family members; Trial Court erred by insisting those members be examined; Appellate Court rightly decreed eviction and High Court found no revisional infirmity – Held: “for occupation by himself” is not confined to the landlord individually and non-examination of the specific family members is not per se fatal [Paras 5, 15-21, 22-24].

Evidence – Unimpeached testimony and absence of cross-examination – Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Court’s duty to evaluate merits still applies – Decree valid where plaintiff’s case, even if uncontested, independently proves bona fide need – Tenant’s failure to cross-examine PW-1/PW-2 or lead rebuttal evidence left landlord’s evidence intact; Trial Court’s approach was erroneous; Appellate Court corrected error; High Court approves – Principle from Balraj Taneja applied to require judicial satisfaction, which was met on facts [Paras 6-11, 15-21].

Comparative hardship – Tenant operating multiple firms – Evidence (including invitation card, Exh. 32) unimpeached – Hardship balanced in favour of landlord – No material to show tenant’s efforts to find alternative premises post-suit – Finding of greater hardship to landlord upheld [Paras 25-26].

Scope of revisional jurisdiction – Interference limited to jurisdictional error or material irregularity – Appellate decree based on proper appreciation of law and evidence – No perversity or jurisdictional error – Revision dismissed [Paras 24, 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Eviction decree on ground of personal bona fide requirement affirmed – Stay to continue for four weeks subject to undertaking. [Paras 27-28; Final Order].

Criminal Writ – Hit-and-Run Investigation – Mandamus Issued – Police Found Negligent – Petitioner sought Writ of Mandamus directing filing of charge-sheet in a fatal road accident involving her son – FIR was registered on 17/08/2022 but investigation remained stagnant – Court found initial investigation grossly negligent and directed departmental inquiry against the first IO – Charge-sheet finally filed on 07/08/2025 after court’s intervention – Petition disposed with directions for expeditious trial and liberty to seek compensation [Paras 1–12].

Police Inaction – Dereliction of Duty – Court Orders Inquiry – PSI Mr. Dnyadev Pawar, who led the investigation for two years, failed to seize key evidence including the deceased’s vehicle and ignored available e-challan records – Held: Clear case of dereliction of duty – Director General of Police directed to initiate departmental inquiry and take appropriate action under rules [Paras 8–10].

Compensation – Liberty to Approach MACT – Delay in Criminal Proceedings to Be Excluded – Since the accident involved a motor vehicle and the deceased was unmarried and earning, Court allowed liberty to Petitioner to seek compensation from MACT – Period spent before High Court and Trial Court to be excluded for computing limitation [Para 12(c)].

Expeditious Trial – One Year Timeline – Directions Issued – Trial Court directed to complete trial within one year – All parties directed to cooperate – Adjournments to be strictly limited to compelling reasons only [Para 12(a)-(d)].

Final Decision – Petition Worked Out – Rule Made Absolute – As charge-sheet was filed and investigation completed, petition deemed worked out – However, serious view taken of earlier investigative failures, and directions issued for systemic accountability [Paras 7–12].

Civil Law - Commission Report – Re-inspection of Property – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Remand Ordered – Petitioners (defendants) challenged Trial Court’s rejection of their request to re-entrust commission to Advocate-Commissioner to measure suit schedule property – Trial Court held re-entrustment impermissible as objections to commission report already filed – High Court held that no inquiry was conducted by Trial Court regarding why measurement was not done – Set aside impugned order and remanded for proper inquiry – Directions issued for re-consideration [Paras 1–21].

Commissioner's Report – Partial Execution – Re-entrustment Justified – Advocate-Commissioner had only recorded physical features and not measured properties due to alleged non-cooperation – Petitioners requested measurement with assistance of surveyor – Court held: If initial commission not fully executed, same commissioner can be directed to complete work, not barred by law – Reliance placed on Kushal Rao v. Shyam Rao (1997 (1) ALT 93) [Paras 16–18].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Duty to Inquire Before Dismissal – Judicial Error – Court observed that dismissal of re-entrustment petition without inquiring into failure of commission execution amounted to procedural irregularity – Matter remanded with direction to conduct inquiry and decide whether warrant should be re-issued – Trial Court to complete process within four weeks [Paras 19–21].

Final Decision – Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded – High Court allowed revision petition, set aside order dated 29.07.2024 passed by I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore – Directed trial court to conduct inquiry regarding Advocate-Commissioner’s failure to execute warrant as per terms, and decide on re-entrustment thereafter [Para 21].

Civil Writ - Minority Institution – Appointment Approval – Article 30 Protection – Approval Mandated – Petitioners appointed after advertisement, interviews, and panel preparation by Christian minority schools – DI rejected approval citing non-compliance with Notification No. 1314 – Held: Minority institutions protected under Article 30 have autonomy in staff appointments – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 govern such institutions – Rejection orders are arbitrary and unlawful – Writs allowed [Paras 1–32].

Constitutional Rights – Article 30(1) – Administrative Autonomy – Affirmed – Christian minority institutions enjoy constitutional autonomy in staff appointments subject only to regulatory oversight – Court reiterated principles from TMA Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar, and Ivy C. Da Conceicao – State’s role limited to regulatory measures, not administrative interference [Paras 10–13, 20–22, 28].

Procedural Validity – Notification No. 641 Overrides General Rules – Recruitment by Minority Schools Lawful – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 specifically empower School Committees and Founder Bodies to appoint staff – Notification No. 1314 cannot override constitutional and special rule protections – Hence, appointments made were lawful [Paras 19–21, 26–27].

Grounds of Rejection – New Grounds in Affidavit – Not Permissible – Orders Must Stand on Recorded Reasons – Court held that DI cannot supplement rejection orders with new justifications in affidavits – Action contrary to principles laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill – Validity to be judged only by original reasons [Paras 14, 30].

Final Decision – Rejection Orders Set Aside – Directions Issued – High Court set aside rejection orders dated 06.08.2009, 22.11.2019, and 18.11.2019 – Directed DI to approve petitioners’ service and pay fixation within four weeks – Writ petitions allowed [Para 32].

Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Section 302 IPC – Upheld for Accused No. 4 – Based on testimony of four consistent eyewitnesses who specifically attributed sword blows to the accused – Minor inconsistencies held immaterial – Conviction for murder upheld despite lapses in investigation [Paras 11, 15-16].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused No. 2 Acquitted – No Direct Evidence – Conviction based solely on discovery panchnama which was not proved in accordance with law – Neither eyewitnesses nor circumstances linked him to the crime – Held: Conviction not sustainable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 12-14, 18].

Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapses – TIP Not Trustworthy – Conduct of TIP not in accordance with law – Witnesses knew many dummy participants – No corroboration between parade and court testimony – However, in-court identification of Accused No. 4 by multiple witnesses deemed reliable – TIP discrepancies did not vitiate case against him [Paras 11(4), 12].

Discovery Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Knife Recovery Unreliable – Panch witnesses to discovery panchnama turned hostile – Investigating Officer failed to narrate full details of discovery – Recovery pertained to weapon allegedly used by another accused – Held: Discovery inadmissible and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 13-14].

Police Notification – Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act – Notification Not Proved – Prosecution failed to produce certified copy or gazette publication of weapon prohibition order – Held: Conviction under Section 135(1) unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 78 of Evidence Act [Para 17].

Faulty Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Though lapses occurred in identification and recovery processes, they do not override consistent eyewitness accounts – Court reiterated that faulty or negligent investigation alone does not justify acquittal if guilt is otherwise proven – Held: No interference with conviction of Accused No. 4 [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 4 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act set aside – Accused No. 2 acquitted of all charges – State not having filed appeals against acquittals or certain IPC charges – Held: Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2017 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 partly allowed [Paras 16-18].