Bail under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Complete embargo unless accusation prima facie untrue – Court examined whether material showed appellant’s role in conspiracy – Only recovery of one pistol, cartridges and Rs.50,000/- cash – No direct evidence of conspiracy – Held: Material insufficient to sustain continued custody [Paras 9-12].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Requires meeting of minds – Mere recovery without nexus to larger conspiracy not adequate – Prosecution failed to attribute specific role to appellant in alleged terrorist acts or car snatching – Inference of conspiracy cannot rest on “bits here and there” [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over 5 years – Trial delayed – Supreme Court precedents (K.A. Najeeb, Shoma Kanti Sen, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh) applied – Long custody itself valid ground to grant bail notwithstanding Section 43D(5) UAPA – Right to speedy trial paramount [Paras 13-15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Serious allegations alone insufficient – Bail not to be withheld as punishment – Purpose only to secure presence at trial – Constitutional Courts not strictly bound by prohibitory clause if continued incarceration breaches Article 21 [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2022 set aside – Bail granted to appellant subject to conditions [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Proof – Mother of minor victim sought summoning of grandmother and paternal aunts on the ground of alleged suppression and non-reporting of child sexual abuse – Trial Court rejected application noting that no new or compelling evidence had emerged during trial beyond what was already part of the charge-sheet – High Court concurred, holding that child witness’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and lacked corroboration – Held: Section 319 CrPC requires strong prima facie evidence suggesting possible conviction – Mere suspicion or general allegations insufficient [Paras 8-13, 18-19].

POCSO Act – Duty to Report – Section 21 – Knowledge of Crime – Allegations against grandmother and paternal aunts for failing to report child sexual abuse – PW-1 (minor victim) made broad claims about “family knowing” and “suppression” – Court held that such statements lacked specificity and did not establish actual knowledge or intent to suppress – Held: Section 21 not attracted in absence of clear, credible, and independent proof of knowledge or concealment [Paras 15-16].

Misuse of Process – Matrimonial Acrimony – Vindictive Prosecution – High Court found application was not filed in the child’s best interest but was a misuse of criminal law motivated by the mother’s personal disputes with her estranged husband – Held: Attempt to implicate elderly grandmother and aunts using the minor victim’s testimony amounted to arm-twisting and gross abuse of process – Court cautioned against converting child protection laws into tools for vengeance [Paras 9, 14, 19-22].

Costs – Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation – Trial Court’s imposition of ₹20,000 in costs upheld – Additional ₹10,000 cost imposed by High Court – Held: Costs justified to curb misuse of judicial time and protect individuals from baseless criminal allegations arising out of personal vendetta [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court order upheld – Additional cost of ₹10,000 imposed – Pending applications also disposed of.

Civil Law - Will – Valid Execution – Section 63 Succession Act & Section 68 Evidence Act – Will Upheld – Testator Anokhi Ram bequeathed estate to one daughter Prema Devi and son-in-law; other heirs challenged alleging fraud, unsoundness of mind, and suspicious circumstances – Courts below found Will duly proved through attesting witness and corroborated by evidence of care and support rendered by beneficiaries – Suspicion held dispelled; exclusion of some heirs not by itself suspicious – Held: Execution valid and genuine – No interference warranted [Paras 24-27, 38-47].

Suspicious Circumstances – Removal of Doubts – Burden Discharged – Allegation that ignoring wife and minor daughters raised suspicion – Evidence established that beneficiaries were residing with and maintaining testator and his family, even admitted by plaintiff Vidya – Minor daughters educated and married by them – Held: Choice of testator natural; suspicion adequately removed [Paras 41-45].

Ancestral Property Claim – Rejected – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs alleged property was ancestral coparcenary and not bequeathable – Courts found no foundational facts to establish coparcenary; inheritance traced to father Basti Ram whose estate devolved after 1956, including daughters as Class I heirs – Hence, no coparcenary in Anokhi Ram’s hands – Property validly bequeathed [Paras 24, 29].

Limitation – Knowledge of Will and Mutation – Plaintiffs alleged ignorance until 2011 – First Appellate Court disbelieved plea; mutation had been attested in 1984 – Suit held barred by limitation – High Court upheld finding, invoking power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC [Paras 28, 32, 49].

Additional Substantial Questions of Law – Refusal to Frame – High Court rejected plea to frame two more questions on limitation and evaluation of evidence; held First Appellate Court could examine limitation under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC even absent cross-objections; no factual basis for further question – Application dismissed [Paras 35, 49-50].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments upholding validity of Will and dismissal of suit affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 51-52].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Dismissal Confirmed – The appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of title, possession, and alternatively partition, over land alleged to be part of a tank acquired by their father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendants were in possession for over 25 years, pursuant to a 1984 family partition, and plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession – Revenue records relied upon by plaintiffs were held insufficient to establish title – The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent findings [Paras 1–3, 14–26].

Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Own Title – Plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership or entitlement over the suit land – Defendants proved possession under 1984 partition – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Courts below rightly rejected claim [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Adverse Possession – Long Possession by Defendants – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs approached Court after over 25 years – Defendants in open, uninterrupted possession since 1984 – Held: Plaintiffs lost any right over suit land by efflux of time – Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Ex.B.3 – Admissible as Memorandum of Oral Partition – Partition deed though unregistered was treated as proof of earlier oral partition – Plaintiffs’ witnesses admitted to 1984 partition and continuous possession by defendants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on Ex.B.3 to establish family division [Paras 16, 18].

Co-ownership – Not Established – Plaintiffs and Defendants Not Co-heirs – Plaintiffs not entitled to claim partition or joint possession – Held: Presumption of joint possession or claim of co-heirship not applicable – Alternative relief of partition rightly rejected [Paras 22-23].

Revenue Records – Not Proof of Title – Exs.A1, A2, A6-A9 – Pattadar passbooks and adangals held insufficient to prove legal title or possession – Held: Such records do not confer ownership in absence of supporting title deed or consistent possession [Para 21].

Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Courts below applied correct legal principles – Held: High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally flawed – No such error found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession after 25 years of inaction [Para 26].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Registered Owner – Vehicle Uninsured – Compensation Liability Affirmed – Offending scooter involved in accident was admittedly uninsured – Registered owner argued that vehicle was taken by respondent-driver without authority and that driver had agreed to bear compensation liability – Held: Registered owner cannot evade liability under Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act – Absence of insurance and failure to prove forcible taking of vehicle makes registered owner liable – Dismissal of appeals upheld by relying on Supreme Court rulings in Naveen v. Vijay and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Registered owner may pursue independent remedy against the driver but remains liable to injured parties [Paras 5, 9-12].

Uninsured Vehicle – No Relief Against Compensation Liability – Affidavit by Driver Not a Ground to Discharge Owner – Registered owner relied on driver’s affidavit stating he would pay compensation – Held: Such affidavit does not affect liability of registered owner under the Act – Owner must satisfy award and may seek recovery from driver separately – Tribunal rightly held both owner and driver jointly and severally liable [Paras 5, 11-12].

Appeals Against Compensation – No Enhancement Sought by Claimants – Finding Limited to Owner’s Liability – No appeal for enhancement was filed by claimants – Scope of appeal confined to contest of liability by registered owner – Tribunal award upheld to the extent of holding owner liable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 4, 12].

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Adultery – Divorce Decree Set Aside – Respondent-husband was granted divorce by Family Court citing cruelty and desertion – High Court on appeal found no specific incidents of cruelty or reliable evidence of adultery – Allegations of illicit relationship with co-respondent were unsubstantiated – Evidence showed wife was willing to resume matrimonial life – Held: Allegations were general, vague, and lacked legal substance – Divorce decree set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 13, 18-23, 26-27].

Cruelty – Must Be Proved with Specific Incidents – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Respondent failed to specify dates or incidents indicating mental or physical cruelty – Court held minor quarrels and occasional spats do not constitute legal cruelty – Conduct must be grave, continuous and cause genuine apprehension of harm – No such case made out – Burden of proof not discharged [Paras 18-22].

Adultery – Allegation Must Be Supported by Proof of Voluntary Sexual Relationship – No Evidence of Illicit Relationship – Court observed that adultery must be proved with clear evidence of physical relationship – Mere suspicion or social interaction does not suffice – No independent witness, circumstantial proof, or documentary evidence was produced – Allegation held to be baseless and motivated to create ground for divorce [Paras 24-26].

Repeated Divorce Litigations – Second Petition on Same Facts Not Maintainable – Earlier M.M. Case No. 62 of 2009 was compromised – Fresh divorce case filed on identical allegations without new cause of action – Court disapproved repeated litigation without genuine grievance – Reflects lack of bona fide on husband’s part [Paras 15, 18].

Appellant Willing to Resume Matrimonial Life – Conduct Undermines Ground of Desertion – Wife consistently expressed readiness to cohabit – Court held that readiness of one party to continue the relationship negates allegation of desertion by other spouse – Respondent-husband made no effort for restitution – Did not file petition under Section 9 HMA [Paras 18, 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Divorce decree dated 25.02.2019 set aside – M.M. Case No. 176 of 2011 dismissed – Parties not divorced – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles of Double Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC for assaulting and robbing the complainant – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in identification, non-sealing of recovered items, and contradictory testimonies – High Court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable after acquittal and found no compelling reason to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Identification – TIP Refused – Delayed and Tainted Identification Not Reliable – Complainant identified accused in court more than a month after arrest, claiming he recognized them during court visit – Accused had refused TIP citing prior exposure in police station – High Court held such identification lacked evidentiary value due to procedural compromise and delay [Paras 6, 11, 14].

Recovery – Failure to Seal Recovered Items – Recovery Not Credible – Purse, PAN card, and ID card allegedly recovered from accused were neither sealed nor subjected to forensic testing – IO admitted inability to link currency notes to the complainant – Recovery held to be in open condition and devoid of evidentiary worth [Paras 9, 14].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Independent Witness Denied Presence of Accused – Defence witness DW6, an independent eyewitness and neighbor, stated that quarrel occurred between complainant and other persons and the accused were not present – Prosecution did not cross-examine the witness – DD entries and MLC also did not mention robbery – Held: Prosecution version doubtful [Paras 7-8, 14].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope Limited – No Interference Without Perverse Finding – Citing precedents including Ravi Sharma v. State (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in reversing acquittals – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s assessment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No.2 under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in well-reasoned judgment of Trial Court – Proceedings against respondent No.1 abated due to death during pendency of appeal [Paras 6, 15-16].

Family Law - Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Increase Allowed – Revision Allowed – Petitioner sought enhancement of ₹10,000/month maintenance fixed in 2012 to ₹30,000/month citing increase in cost of living, medical needs, and respondent’s pension – Family Court had rejected plea stating no substantial change in circumstances – High Court held that increase in respondent’s pension from ₹28,705 (net salary in 2012) to ₹40,068 justifies enhancement – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month from date of revision petition [Paras 1, 7, 20-28].

Comparison of Net Salary and Pension – Faulty Reasoning by Family Court – Corrected by High Court – Family Court compared 2012 gross salary with current pension without considering that original maintenance was based on net salary – High Court found this comparison flawed and based enhancement on present net pension being substantially higher than net income in 2012 [Paras 14, 21].

CGHS Card Entitlement – Right of Legally Wedded Wife – Respondent Directed to Restore Wife’s Access – Respondent removed petitioner’s name from CGHS card despite ongoing maintenance – High Court held that as legally wedded wife, petitioner is entitled to CGHS benefits – Respondent directed to facilitate inclusion of her name on the card within two months [Paras 22-24].

Change in Circumstances – Interpretation – Includes Rise in Cost of Living and Health Needs – Court reaffirmed that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 Cr.P.C. includes not just income variation but also health issues, inflation, loss of family support, and deterioration of earning spouse’s health – Mere retirement doesn’t bar maintenance enhancement [Paras 17-18, 26-27].

Balancing Equities – Senior Citizens on Both Sides – Modest Enhancement Ordered – Both petitioner and respondent being senior citizens, Court adopted a balanced approach – Maintenance enhanced modestly to ₹14,000/month in view of respondent’s limited post-retirement income and petitioner’s medical needs [Paras 25-27].

Final Decision – Family Court’s order set aside – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month with effect from date of revision – Arrears to be cleared within six weeks – CGHS card to be restored within two months [Paras 28-29].

Civil Law  – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell New Tenure Land – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff sought enforcement of a 1980 agreement to sell land which was then classified as new tenure agricultural land – No permission under Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act obtained – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: Agreement was void ab initio, barred by law – No cause of action arose – High Court dismissed Second Appeal, holding no substantial question of law arises [Paras 1-3, 15-17, 24-26].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Enforceability of Agreement Hit by Statutory Bar – Agreement to sell restricted land without Collector’s permission – Held: Agreement void under Section 43 of Tenancy Act – Plaint rightly rejected at threshold – Plaintiff's readiness and possession immaterial in face of statutory bar [Paras 15-17, 22-23].

Tenancy Law – Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act – Agreement to Sell Without Sanction – Barred by Law – Held: Section 43(1) expressly prohibits agreement to sell new tenure land without Collector's sanction – Section 43(2) renders such agreements void – Plaintiff admitted land was new tenure at the time of agreement – Hence, no enforceable right accrued [Paras 14-17].

Specific Performance – Conditional Agreement – Land Not Converted at Time of Agreement – Held: Agreement subject to future conversion of land tenure – Sale unenforceable unless condition fulfilled and permission obtained – Suit filed decades later without evidence of compliance – No cause of action made out [Paras 10-11, 20-21].

Possession and Protection Under Section 53A TPA – Not a Ground to Sustain Invalid Agreement – Plaintiff claimed possession since 1980 – Held: Possession under invalid or illegal agreement not protected under Section 53A – Agreement void from inception due to statutory bar – Ancillary reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 13, 20].

Limitation – Cause of Action Claimed in 2012 – Agreement Dated 1980 – No Continuous Assertion of Right – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness or communication for 32 years – Father of vendor died in 2009 – No demand till public notice in 2012 – Suit time-barred and barred by law [Paras 11, 23].

Substantial Question of Law – None Arising from Concurrent Findings – Enforceability of Void Agreement Not a New Legal Issue – Held: All legal issues settled by Full Bench and Supreme Court – No perversity or error in findings of Courts below – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Civil Application Also Disposed – No error in rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Agreement held void and suit barred by law – No triable issue or substantial question of law made out [Paras 26-27].