Criminal Law – Grant of Bail – Court considered the application for regular bail filed by Sanju alias Sahil Kumar in FIR No. 323/2023 under IPC Sections 307, 452, 148, 149 and Arms Act Sections 25, 27. The petitioner sought bail, emphasizing his inadvertent implication in the crime, lack of specific role or injury attributed to him, and a compromise with the complainant. [Para 1-3]

Application of Judicial Principles in Granting Bail – The court reiterated the fundamental legal principle that 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception,' deriving from the landmark judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977). The court stressed the importance of individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to a speedy trial, and the presumption of innocence, alongside the gravity of the offence. [Para 5-7]

Factors Considered for Bail – The petitioner’s clean criminal record, the approximate three-and-a-half months of incarceration, completion of the investigation, and the fact that charges had not yet been framed were key factors influencing the decision. The court noted that further incarceration would not serve a purpose as the presence of the accused could be secured by other means. [Para 10]

Decision – Grant of Regular Bail – The court allowed the bail application, ordering the petitioner’s release on furnishing the required bail and surety bond, without commenting on the merits of the case. This decision was made considering the totality of circumstances and legal principles governing bail. [Para 11]

Transit Anticipatory Bail - Grant of - Cyber Fraud Case – CRM-M-901 of 2024 - Petitioner seeking transit anticipatory bail in a case registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad for alleged involvement in cyber fraud - FIR registered for offenses under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of IT Act and 419, 420 IPC - Court, relying on precedent in Priya Indoria Versus State of Karnataka & others, 2023(4) Law Herald (SC) 3279, grants transit anticipatory bail for 15 days to enable petitioner to approach the competent court in Hyderabad for anticipatory bail - Observes that courts can exercise jurisdiction and entertain pleas for transit anticipatory bail even if FIR not filed within territorial jurisdiction - Decision ensures access to justice and acknowledges presumption of innocence. [Paras 1-9]

Cyber Crime Investigation – Jurisdictional Concerns – Analysis - Court recognizes the challenge of jurisdiction in cybercrime cases - Emphasizes that courts have the power to grant transit anticipatory bail in cases registered outside their territorial jurisdiction - Upholds the principle of access to justice and presumption of innocence until proven guilty - Reiterates the approach established in the case of Priya Indoria, emphasizing flexibility in judicial process for cyber crimes spanning multiple jurisdictions. [Paras 6-7]

Order – Transit Anticipatory Bail Granted - In light of the precedents and circumstances, the Punjab and Haryana High Court grants transit anticipatory bail to petitioner for 15 days - Directs petitioner to file a petition for anticipatory bail in the competent court in Hyderabad, Telangana - Clarifies that no opinion expressed on the merits of the case, leaving the matter to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction. [Paras 8-9]

Conviction for Murder – Appellant Usman convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife by strangulation – Life imprisonment and fine imposed – Child witness testimony crucial [Paras 2, 8, 18, 42-46, 50]

Child Witness – Evidence of son (P.W. 2), aged 6-7, asserting that appellant killed his mother by pressing a pillow on her mouth and using a rope for strangulation – Importance of child witness credibility and lack of tutoring [Paras 18, 19, 43-45]

Circumstantial Evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Appellant's presence at the crime scene and failure to provide an explanation – Burden of proof shift under Section 106 [Paras 30-31, 40-42]

Autopsy Findings – Ante-mortem injuries and asphyxia due to strangulation confirmed by autopsy [Paras 7, 22]

Testimonies of Relatives – Statements from brother (P.W. 1) and sister (P.W. 3) of deceased, supporting the prosecution's case [Paras 12, 13, 20, 21]

Investigation and Evidence Collection – Police investigation, site plan, recovery of the rope used for strangulation, and inquest proceedings [Paras 5, 6, 24-29]

Appellant's Defense – Claims of false implication and questioning the recovery of the rope and child witness testimony – Court rejects the defense, citing lack of reasonable explanation [Paras 32-34, 46-47]

Legal Precedents and Principles – Reference to Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar, Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra for principles on circumstantial evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act [Paras 35, 40, 41, 48]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld based on evidence and legal principles, especially the crucial role of the child witness and circumstantial evidence [Paras 49-50]

Challenge to Recovery Certificates - Co-operative bank sought recovery of loans from company in liquidation - Issuance of recovery certificates under Section 101 of the MCS Act disputed. [Para 4-5]

Revision Applications and Procedural History - Company in liquidation's revision applications initially dismissed for non-compliance, later allowed upon depositing 50% amount - Assistant Registrar’s order cancelling recovery certificates set aside by Joint Registrar - Remanded for detailed inquiry. [Para 6-9]

Co-operative Bank’s Appeal - Bank challenged cancellation of recovery certificates, arguing misinterpretation of Section 101 of the MCS Act - Reliance on Division Bench judgment emphasizing importance of statement of accounts in Section 101 enquiry. [Para 14-19]

Official Liquidator's Argument - Emphasized discretion under Article 227 and argued against High Court interference with impugned orders. [Para 22]

Misdirection and Error in Exercising Jurisdiction - Assistant Registrar and Joint Registrar erred in ignoring statement of accounts, focusing on irrelevant documents - Application of Article 227 warranted to correct substantial injustice. [Para 32-36]

Dismissal of Company's Writ Petitions for Refund - Refusal to refund deposit amounts to company in liquidation - Company’s stand on loan disbursement found dishonest, no unjust enrichment established. [Para 37-41]

Remand for Fresh Consideration - Impugned orders set aside, matters remanded to Assistant Registrar for reconsideration under Section 101 of MCS Act. [Para 46-47]

Co-operative Bank's Claim with Official Liquidator - Bank permitted to lodge claim afresh before official liquidator in proper format. [Para 48]

Gang Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Conviction under Section 376D IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act - Appeals dismissed, conviction and sentences upheld - Accused involved in gang rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor - Approver's testimony corroborated by forensic evidence and other witnesses, establishing charges beyond reasonable doubt - Victim's age established as a minor through ossification test corroborated by parental testimony [Paras 1-3, 6-10, 12-16, 18-24, 26-34, 36-40, 42-56, 58-68, 70-80, 82-86, 87-91]

DNA Profiling Evidence - DNA profiling test confirms involvement of accused - One appellant established as biological father of child conceived from the assault - Forensic evidence played a crucial role in confirming appellants' involvement in the crime [Paras 7, 9, 27-29, 32-34, 42-48, 50-54, 66-67]

Judicial Scrutiny of Approver's Testimony - Legal precedents uphold use of approver’s testimony when corroborated - Evidence of approver (PW 23) corroborated by forensic and other evidence, confirming his and appellants' involvement [Paras 14-16, 20, 26, 30, 56-58, 73-76, 80-83]

Victim's Age and Consent - Ossification test establishes victim as a minor - Arguments on victim's consent dismissed based on conclusive proof of age and circumstances of the crime [Paras 21-22, 70, 84-85]

Decision: Appeals dismissed, conviction and sentences upheld - Period of detention suffered by appellants adjusted against sentence [Paras 87-91]

Lease Agreement and Dispute – Plaintiffs (lessors) filed suit for recovery of khas possession and mesne profit due to defendants’ (lessees) failure to vacate property post-lease expiry – Lease initially granted for 30 years with renewal clause for 21 years – Dispute over whether lease renewal was properly exercised [Paras 1, 2].

Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Plaintiffs sought part decree based on defendants’ admission in written statement about the lease and its terms – Defendants countered, claiming rights to renew lease and challenging eviction without compensation [Paras 3, 4, 5].

Defendants’ Pleading and Counter Claim – Defendants filed a counter claim for lease renewal and injunction against eviction without compensation – Raised issue of Thika Tenancy but was not initially pleaded, and attempted amendment was rejected [Paras 6, 7, 20, 22].

Court's Analysis and Directions – Trial court rejected plaintiffs' application for part decree – High Court set aside trial court's decision, directing fresh consideration of the application under Order XII Rule 6 – Emphasis on consideration of admissions in pleadings [Paras 19, 23, 24].

Property Dispute – Mortgage Deed's Validity – Challenged in first appeal under Section 96 CPC – Hetram Sahu (Appellant/Defendant No.1) contesting trial court's decree declaring the mortgage deed as null and void, and ordering return of property possession – Allegations of fraud in execution of mortgage deed instead of rent deed. [Paras 1-2]

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Plaintiff's testimony and cross-examination evidence, alongside other witnesses (PW1 to PW10) – Plaintiff's lack of education and allegation of being deceived into signing mortgage deed – Defendant's admission of renting two shops and absence of registration for mortgage deed. [Paras 6-9]

Legal Analysis – Trial court's application of legal principles – Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act requires registration of mortgage deeds over Rs. 100 – Section 17 of the Registration Act deems unregistered deeds for property over Rs. 100 invalid – Appellant's argument on using unregistered mortgage deed for collateral purposes rejected as no recovery suit or counter-claim was filed. [Paras 10, 20-24]

Decision – Dismissal of First Appeal – Mortgage deed dated 20-9-2006 held not a valid mortgage by conditional sale as per Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act – Lack of registration and failure to fulfill conditions render mortgage deed invalid – Trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff upheld. [Paras 25-28]

Police Protection – Request for Personal Security – Denial –petitioners sought police protection alleging threat to their lives following a past incident of violence. The Court considered whether such continued police protection was justified. [Para 2-5, 17]

Threat Perception – Evaluation of Current Risk – The Court assessed the current threat perception to the petitioners, noting that the alleged assailants were convicted, and no further incidents or threats were reported against the petitioners. [Para 18]

Utilization of Police Resources – Public Interest Consideration – Emphasized the need for judicious use of police resources, noting the importance of employing police personnel in areas where they are most needed, such as in crime prevention and law and order maintenance, rather than providing long-term personal security to individuals like the petitioners. [Para 29-30]

Payment for Police Protection Services – Financial Implications – Discussed the financial implications of providing police protection, highlighting that the petitioners had not paid the required fees for the security services extended to them over the years. [Para 24, 35]

Policy on Police Protection – Need for Guidelines – Directed the formulation of clearer guidelines and a committee to assess and decide on requests for police protection exceeding seven days, aiming for more effective and justified allocation of police resources. [Para 34]

Order – Dismissal of Petition – The Court dismissed the petition for police protection, ordering the immediate withdrawal of security from the petitioners and directing them to pay the outstanding fees for the services rendered. Further directed the reassessment of threat perception for all individuals in the state receiving police protection. [Para 30, 36-37]

Land Law – Pre-emption Rights – Maintainability of Suit – The High Court of Punjab and Haryana deliberated on the maintainability of a suit for pre-emption in the case involving the sale of land. The plaintiff-respondent, Abdul Rehman, claimed a preferential right to pre-empt the sale based on being a co-sharer in the joint khewat. The defendant-appellant, Habib Ahmed, contested the suit, arguing that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer and that the land had been partitioned. [Para 2, 5]

Applicability of Punjab Pre-emption Act Amendment, 1995 – Held – The High Court observed that the 1995 amendment to the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which removed the pre-emption rights of co-sharers, does not apply retrospectively. Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shyam Sunder & Anr. V/s Ram Kumar & Anr., the Court noted that the amendment is prospective and does not affect substantive or vested rights existing at the time of the suit or the first instance decree. [Para 8]

Evidence and Findings – Confirmation of Co-sharer Status – The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, established that the plaintiff-respondent was indeed a co-sharer in the land in question. This was corroborated by mutation records, which were not successfully contested by the defendant-appellant. [Para 8]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Habib Ahmed, holding that there was no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arose. The judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld, confirming the co-sharer status of the plaintiff-respondent and the maintainability of the suit for pre-emption. [Para 9]