Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Revisional Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Multiple Criminal Revision Applications filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 BNSS challenging orders of Sessions Court cancelling bail granted by Chief Judicial Magistrate – Applicants contended that offences were punishable with less than seven years or had no minimum sentence and that cancellation of bail was impermissible in absence of supervening circumstances – State contended that offences involved large-scale misappropriation of public funds under MGNREGA Scheme and that Magistrate’s bail orders were non-speaking and illegal – Held: Orders granting, refusing or cancelling bail are interlocutory orders and revision against such orders is barred – Revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to reassess bail orders – Applications rejected on ground of maintainability alone, without examining merits [Paras 9–10].

Revisional Powers – Scope and Limitations – Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors of jurisdiction, manifest illegality or perversity – Court cannot exercise revisional power in routine manner or reappreciate discretionary orders passed in accordance with law – Reliance placed on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander – Held: No occasion to invoke revisional powers when challenge is barred statutorily against interlocutory orders [Paras 7.1, 8.1].

Interlocutory Orders – Bail Orders – Bail orders lack finality as applications can be renewed at any stage – Grant, refusal or cancellation of bail is purely interlocutory – Revision barred under Section 438 BNSS (pari materia to Section 397 CrPC) – Reliance placed on Amar Nath v. State of Haryana; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra; Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat – Held: Criminal Revision Applications against cancellation of bail are not maintainable [Paras 9–9.6].

Bail – Powers of Magistrate – Even where offences are punishable with life imprisonment but triable by Magistrate, Magistrate is competent to grant bail – However, correctness of such orders cannot be examined in revision due to statutory bar – Appropriate remedy lies elsewhere under law [Paras 9.3–9.6].

Result – Dismissal on Maintainability – All Criminal Revision Applications dismissed solely on ground of non-maintainability – Liberty reserved to applicants to avail appropriate remedies under law – Time to surrender extended till 16.02.2026 considering rejection was not on merits [Paras 10–12, Further Order].

Decision: Criminal Revision Applications dismissed – Orders of Sessions Court cancelling bail not interfered with – Applications rejected on ground of maintainability – Time to surrender extended till 16.02.2026.

Civil Procedure Code – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, which is the final court on facts, unless such findings are perverse, contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal position, based on inadmissible evidence or rendered without evidence – No substantial question of law arises merely because a different view is possible [Paras 14, 35].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Mandatory Reference to Arbitration – Partnership deed admittedly contained an arbitration clause – Arbitral proceedings were pending since 2007, much prior to institution of suit in 2011 – Civil court had no jurisdiction to continue the suit – Judicial authority bound to refer parties to arbitration once existence of arbitration agreement and arbitrable dispute is shown [Paras 20, 26, 28–30].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Arbitration Clause – Outright rejection of plaint improper where arbitration clause exists – Correct course is to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act – First Appellate Court rightly modified the trial court’s order rejecting plaint and directed reference to arbitration [Paras 10–11, 32].

Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of Original Partnership Deed – Effect – Existence of arbitration clause and pendency of arbitral proceedings admitted by both parties – Plaintiff, being Managing Partner and custodian of original deed, cannot take advantage of non-production – Requirement of filing original or certified copy not fatal in admitted circumstances [Paras 16–17, 20].

Arbitrability – Partnership Disputes – Rights in Personam – Dispute relating to partner’s share of profit and loss is a dispute in personam – Amenable to arbitration – Not a category of non-arbitrable disputes as explained in Booz Allen & Hamilton [Paras 18–21].

Allegations of Fraud – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Allegations of fabrication of documents or fraud simpliciter do not oust arbitral jurisdiction – Arbitral Tribunal competent to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act – Civil court should not assume jurisdiction on such pleas [Paras 25–27, 31–33].

Parallel Proceedings – Civil Suit During Pending Arbitration – Discouraged – Institution of civil suit during pendency of arbitral proceedings amounts to forum shopping – Bifurcation of disputes between arbitral tribunal and civil court would delay proceedings, increase costs and risk conflicting decisions – Contrary to object of Arbitration Act [Paras 29, 34].

Limitation – Appointment of Arbitrator Already Made – Arbitrator appointed in 2007 and proceedings pending – No issue of limitation or failure to appoint arbitrator arises – Objection not raised before courts below – Cannot be agitated in second appeal [Para 22].

Cross Objections – No Independent Merit – Once reference to arbitration upheld and no substantial question of law found, cross objections filed by defendant do not survive – Liable to be dismissed [Para 35].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objections dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court directing reference of parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act affirmed – No substantial question of law involved – No order as to costs – Pending applications closed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused No.2 found in possession of 10.188 kg ganja while co-accused possessed commercial quantity – Held, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted when quantity recovered from the applicant alone is intermediate and no material to establish conspiracy – Bail granted [Paras 6–7].

Narcotic Offences – Joint Possession – Conspiracy – Mere presence together insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish conspiracy between accused No.1 and accused No.2 – No corroborative material such as CDR details or supplier identification available – Held, joint standing at railway station by itself does not attract liability for commercial quantity [Paras 6–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Length of Custody – Completion of Investigation – Applicant in custody since 07.08.2025 – Investigation almost over – Continued detention held unnecessary – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Antecedents – NDPS Cases – Effect on Bail – Applicant involved in four prior NDPS cases, mostly for consumption and small quantity – Antecedents alone not a ground to deny bail when statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act is inapplicable [Para 7].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on execution of bond with conditions including cooperation with investigation, weekly appearance before Investigating Officer, non-tampering of evidence, and restriction on leaving the State of Kerala.

Service Law – Recruitment – Head Teacher (Class-III) – Interpretation of Eligibility Rule – Teaching Experience – Petitioners, having cleared Head Teacher Aptitude Test, were denied acceptance of application forms on the ground that they lacked five years’ teaching experience after acquiring B.Ed. degree – Rule 4(d) of Recruitment Rules, 2012 prescribes “at least five years separate or combined experience of teaching as a Teacher or Vidya Sahayak” – Rule silent on requirement that such experience must be post-B.Ed. – Held: State misread and misconstrued its own rules by adding a condition not provided therein – Five years’ experience cannot be restricted to post-B.Ed. period in absence of express stipulation [Paras 10–12].

Service Law – Statutory Rules – Interpretation – When recruitment rules do not link experience requirement with acquisition of higher educational qualification, employer cannot read such linkage into rules by administrative interpretation – Experience gained prior to obtaining B.Ed. is liable to be counted when rule itself includes experience as Vidya Sahayak, a post for which B.Ed. is not mandatory – Impugned action held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12.1–13.1].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits and Scope – Though State has prerogative to prescribe qualifications and experience under Article 309, Court can interfere where State acts contrary to its own statutory rules – Misinterpretation of recruitment rules resulting in exclusion of eligible candidates violates Articles 14 and 16 – Limited judicial review does not preclude correction of perverse or arbitrary administrative action [Paras 7–9, 14–15].

Public Employment – Right to Apply – Wrongful refusal to accept applications based on erroneous interpretation of eligibility criteria amounts to denial of opportunity to compete for public employment – Such action infringes fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Petitioners entitled to consideration of candidature on merits [Paras 14–17].

Relief – Directions – Respondents directed to accept application forms of petitioners and consider their candidature for appointment as Head Teachers if otherwise eligible – Appointments, if made, to be with notional seniority from date of appointment of last selected candidate under advertisement dated 22.03.2012 – No entitlement to back wages, but continuity of service and retiral benefits protected – Petition partly allowed [Paras 18–21].

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder by Poisoning – Grant of Bail on Change in Circumstances – Petitioner (A-2) sought regular bail in a case alleging conspiracy and murder by mixing cyanide poison in alcohol of the deceased – Earlier bail application dismissed on the ground that investigation was at a crucial stage – Subsequent completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet constitutes a change in circumstances – Bail granted [Paras 1, 4, 6].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 r/w 3(5) – Allegation of Conspiracy and Homicide – Prosecution case based on alleged extra-judicial confession made before Village Revenue Officer – Allegation that deceased misbehaved with wife of A-1 and conspiracy hatched by A-1 and A-2 – Court held that at bail stage, detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted [Paras 3, 6].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Relevant Consideration – Accused No.1, the prime accused, already enlarged on regular bail by the Trial Court – Principle of parity applicable in favour of petitioner – Continued incarceration of A-2 held unwarranted once investigation concluded [Paras 4–6].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge Sheet – No Apprehension of Tampering – Once charge sheet is filed and material witnesses examined during investigation, apprehension of tampering with evidence substantially reduces – Bail can be granted subject to stringent conditions [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and sureties – Weekly appearance before Station House Officer till cognizance – Deposit of passport – Prohibition on leaving country and on influencing witnesses or making statements on social media – Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Minor – Conviction – Prosecutrix kidnapped while going for nature’s call during marriage ceremony – Confined in accused’s house and subjected to repeated sexual intercourse – Victim recovered from accused’s house on third day – Trial Court convicted accused under IPC and POCSO provisions – High Court upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–35].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix and parents consistently stated age to be 13–14 years – School admission register from first attended school showed date of birth as 04.07.2006 – Defence relied on doubtful scholar register showing different date of birth – Register found unauthenticated and unreliable – Held: As per Rule 12 of JJ Rules and Section 94 JJ Act, school record has precedence – Victim held to be minor on date of incident [Paras 11–18, 24].

Medical Evidence – Ossification Test – Not Mandatory – Doctor advised X-ray for age determination but ossification test not conducted – Held: Ossification test required only in absence of reliable documentary evidence – Non-conduct does not vitiate prosecution case when school records are available – Reliance placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [Paras 19–24].

Evidence Appreciation – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Prosecutrix gave consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual intercourse – Supported by testimony of mother, father, friend and grandfather – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient when found trustworthy [Paras 25–29].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Report – Corroboration – DNA analysis confirmed match between accused and biological samples of prosecutrix – Strong corroborative evidence establishing sexual intercourse by accused – Defence plea of false implication rejected [Paras 33–34].

Consent – Minor Victim – Irrelevant – Defence plea of consensual relationship rejected – Victim below 18 years of age – Consent, even if assumed, legally inconsequential under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34–35].

Sentence – Confirmation – Multiple offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Sentence of up to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment upheld – No mitigating circumstance warranting interference [Paras 1, 35].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Trial Court affirmed – Records directed to be sent back to Trial Court forthwith [Paras 35–36].

Partition Suit – Grandchild’s Claim – Oral Family Settlement – Proof and Effect – Plaintiff, granddaughter of original owner, sought partition of residential property alleging joint ownership and illegal exclusion – Defendants pleaded oral family arrangement whereby suit property fell to their share and another property to plaintiff’s branch – Evidence showed execution of reciprocal release deeds and receipt of consideration – Conduct of parties, including sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch, corroborated family settlement – Held: Oral partition/family arrangement duly proved – Suit property ceased to be joint [Paras 29–33, 38–39].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Section 8 – Transaction by Guardian Without Court Permission – Void or Voidable – Plaintiff contended that oral partition effected during her minority was void for want of court permission – Held: Section 8(3) HMGA renders such transactions voidable, not void – Transaction remains valid unless set aside by minor within limitation – Reliance placed on Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan – Plaintiff failed to seek setting aside within prescribed period [Paras 34–37].

Limitation – Declaration – Article 58 Limitation Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that mutation and conveyance deed were null and void – Documentary evidence showed plaintiff had knowledge of impugned mutation much prior to alleged date – Limitation of three years under Article 58 runs from date when right to sue first accrues – Held: Prayer for declaration barred by limitation [Paras 21–25, 27].

Limitation – Partition – No Prescribed Period – While declaration relief was time-barred, suit for partition per se not barred by limitation – Partition is a continuing right of co-sharers – However, once oral partition proved and not set aside, no subsisting jointness survives – Reliance placed on Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash [Paras 26–27, 38].

Registration Act – Unregistered Release Deeds – Collateral Purpose – Objection raised that unregistered release deed could not be read in evidence – Held: Under proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, such document admissible to prove collateral transaction, namely existence of oral partition – Document not relied upon to effect transfer but to evidence family arrangement [Para 30].

Evidence – Admission by Conduct – Silence and Subsequent Acts – Signature of plaintiff’s mother on release deed not denied – Sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch pursuant to oral partition remained undisputed – Held: Conduct amounts to admission supporting defendants’ case – Plaintiff failed to rebut inference of prior partition [Paras 32–33, 39].

Cause of Action – Partition After Valid Family Settlement – Once oral partition stood proved and not avoided within limitation, plaintiff had no subsisting right, title or interest in suit property – Held: Suit for partition devoid of cause of action [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Prayer for declaration barred by limitation – Oral family settlement upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to partition or any other relief – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Rigours of Statute – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR involving recovery of 195 intoxicant tablets (Etizolam) amounting to commercial quantity – Court held that once commercial quantity is involved, bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Mere completion of investigation or prolonged custody not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 1, 8].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Recovery allegedly effected from polythene bag thrown by petitioner at the spot – Contentions of false implication, planted recovery and lack of conscious possession held to be matters of trial – At bail stage, Court not required to conduct meticulous examination of evidence – Prima facie material sufficient to attract statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 2, 4, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 – Effect at Bail Stage – Plea of violation of mandatory provisions raised by petitioner – Held: Alleged non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act is a mixed question of law and fact – Cannot be conclusively adjudicated at stage of regular bail – Such issues to be examined during trial [Paras 3, 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail – Petitioner found involved in other NDPS cases – Criminal antecedents weighed against grant of bail – Court held that antecedents coupled with nature of recovery indicate prima facie involvement and disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief [Paras 4, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Discretion of Court – NDPS Offences – Court reiterated that discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously keeping in view gravity of offence, severity of punishment and societal interest – In serious NDPS offences, liberty of individual must be balanced against societal interest and statutory mandate [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Court held that no reasonable grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Observations made confined to bail proceedings and not to influence trial [Paras 10–11].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Recovery of Heroin – Section 37 Rigours – Petition under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR for offences under Sections 21, 22, 27-A and 29 NDPS Act – Recovery of 258 grams of heroin attributed to petitioner, which is more than non-commercial quantity – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act squarely attracted and bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions [Paras 1, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope of Consideration at Bail Stage – Court not required to conduct mini trial or detailed appreciation of evidence – Reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail must coexist – Held: Such satisfaction could not be recorded on facts of present case [Paras 7–8].

Conscious Possession – Recovery from Polythene Thrown by Accused – Effect – Argument that contraband was not recovered from physical possession but from polythene allegedly thrown on seeing police – Held: Does not negate prima facie case of conscious possession at bail stage, particularly when apprehension was preceded by specific secret information [Para 8].

Non-Compliance of Mandatory Provisions – Plea at Bail Stage – Contention regarding violation of NDPS procedural safeguards – Held: Mixed question of law and fact to be adjudicated during trial and not determinative at stage of consideration of regular bail [Para 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevance in NDPS Bail – Petitioner involved in other NDPS and criminal cases – Held: Criminal antecedents are relevant factor while considering likelihood of re-offending and weigh against grant of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 4, 8].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Effect under NDPS Act – Custody of about nine months – Held: Mere completion of investigation or likelihood of delay in trial is not sufficient ground to override statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act in absence of exceptional circumstances [Paras 4, 8–9].

Section 27-A NDPS Act – Challenge at Bail Stage – Argument that provision wrongly invoked – Held: Such contention cannot be examined conclusively at bail stage when prima facie material indicates involvement in narcotics trade [Para 8].

Decision – Regular Bail – Refusal – Seriousness of offence, quantity of contraband, manner of recovery, and statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–11].