NDPS Act – Bail – Joint Bank Account with Accused – Allegation of Financing – Petitioner arrested based on deposits made by her father in joint account, without recovery of contraband or direct involvement in drug trafficking – Held: Mere receipt of proceeds, without evidence of intentional aid or operational financing of illicit drug activity, does not constitute offence under Section 27A NDPS Act – Bail granted [Paras 2, 10-11, 14-15]

NDPS Act – Section 29 – No Prima Facie Case of Abetment – Petitioner alleged to have received proceeds from drug trade – No overt act or instigation attributed – Court held that passive receipt of money without intentional facilitation does not amount to abetment – Application of Section 29 not attracted in absence of active complicity [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Principles Reiterated – Court relied on guidelines laid down in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 and other precedents – Factors including gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, and possibility of tampering with investigation considered – Held: Petitioner entitled to bail due to lack of direct nexus to drug trafficking [Paras 8-9]

Interpretation – ‘Financing’ under NDPS Act – Citing Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2021 CrLJ 248 – Court held that 'financing' must involve conscious and operational monetary support to sustain or promote the illicit drug trade – Mere monetary deposit by another in joint account insufficient to attract Section 27A [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner directed to furnish ₹1,00,000 bail bond with one surety – Subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence, attending trial regularly, and disclosing change of address or contact details – Petition disposed of.

Civil Law - Succession Law – Revocation of Probate – Section 263 – Illustrative Scope – Division Bench held that the five explanations under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act are illustrative and not exhaustive – Court emphasized that “just cause” is a flexible standard designed to empower courts to intervene in varied situations where revocation may be warranted in the interests of justice – Held: The term “just cause” allows for wider judicial discretion beyond the listed explanations [Paras 29–32, 36–38].

Interpretation – Explanation Clauses – Purpose and Effect – Explanation to Section 263 does not control or restrict the scope of the main provision – Cited authoritative principles of statutory interpretation to affirm that explanations elucidate rather than limit or expand the operative provision – Held: The deeming fiction in the Explanation identifies certain situations as “just cause” but does not preclude other factual scenarios from being so held [Paras 21–28, 30–31].

Statutory Construction – Purposive Interpretation – While interpreting Section 263, Court applied the doctrine of purposive construction – Held: Legislative change in phraseology from “just cause is” (in prior Acts) to “just cause shall be deemed to exist” (in 1925 Act) indicates intent to broaden judicial discretion – A restrictive reading would defeat the provision’s purpose of ensuring fair probate proceedings [Paras 17–20, 27–33].

Probate Law – Procedural Lapses and Revocation – Default in removal of office objections by caveator’s counsel led to dismissal of caveat – Petitioner filed for revocation citing suspicious circumstances of death and invalid execution of Will (attestation not in presence of testator) – Held: Even if caveat was dismissed, substantive objections that point to a defective grant can constitute “just cause” under Section 263 – Revocation may be justified if trial is required to examine such allegations [Paras 34–35].

Precedent Overruled – George Anthony Harris v. Millicent Spencer and Sharad Shankarrao Mane v. Ashabai Shripati Mane – Division Bench overruled the restrictive interpretation in these earlier judgments – Held: They do not lay down the correct law on the scope of Section 263 – View of Justice Manish Pitale that explanations are illustrative upheld [Paras 3, 36, 38(C)].

Decision: Reference answered – Explanations to Section 263 are illustrative – Circumstances beyond explanations (a) to (e) may form “just cause” – Earlier decisions taking contrary view overruled – Matter remitted to Single Judge for further proceedings.

Company Law – Misfeasance proceedings under Section 542 of Companies Act – Non-executive nominee directors’ application for deletion at threshold rejected – Interim freezing orders vacated – Matter to proceed to trial [Paras 29–41].

Company Law – Fraudulent Conduct – Section 542 of Companies Act, 1956 – Interim Relief Partially Granted – Non-executive nominee directors Srinivasan and Sreenivasulu sought to strike out their names from misfeasance proceedings, alleging lack of specific pleadings and no evidence of fraudulent participation – Held: Though pleadings lack specificity, presence in board meetings and fiduciary obligations as directors justify trial – Relief under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC declined [Paras 29–32, 38–39].

Nominee Directors – Fiduciary Liability – Directors Cannot Evade Corporate Responsibility – Court held that nominee directors, though non-executive, fall within ambit of persons "knowingly party" under Section 542 and cannot escape scrutiny solely on designation – Absence of express allegations insufficient for rejection at threshold [Paras 20–24, 36–38].

Pleadings in Fraud Cases – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Liberal Approach for Official Liquidator Permitted – Court acknowledged limitations on Official Liquidator's access to internal records and granted permission to file additional affidavit with specific allegations before trial – Leave granted to applicants to reapply for deletion if no evidence is brought during trial [Paras 30–31, 39].

Interim Orders – Freezing of Assets – Interim Orders Vacated – Considering hardship to applicants and lack of prima facie evidence, the Court vacated prior ex parte orders freezing their bank/demat accounts and restraining them from dealing with movable/immovable assets – Balance of convenience not in favour of continuation [Para 40].

Final Decision – Applications Partly Allowed – Interim freezing orders vacated – Misfeasance proceedings to continue – Official Liquidator permitted to amend pleadings with specific charges; applicants allowed to reapply for deletion after evidence stage [Para 41].

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Murder – Section 302 vs 326 IPC – Conviction Sustained under Lesser Charge – Accused Nos. 1 to 4, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into family property and inflicted injury on deceased’s leg during a dispute – Victim died due to profuse bleeding from a grievous leg wound – Trial court convicted under Section 326 IPC and acquitted under Section 302 IPC – High Court upheld that single injury on the leg, even if grievous, did not establish intention to cause death – Held: Section 326 IPC rightly applied in absence of intent to kill – Conviction sustainable even without specific charge under Section 326 IPC by invoking Section 222 CrPC [Paras 47–55]

Appeal by Victim – Acquittal under Section 302 IPC – Reversal Sought – Victim's appeal contended that accused used deadly weapons with intention to kill and trial court erred in acquitting under Section 302 IPC – Held: Only one fatal injury inflicted despite presence of multiple assailants with weapons – Evidence does not prove intention or knowledge sufficient for murder conviction – Trial court’s reasoning upheld [Paras 38–48]

Criminal Procedure – Section 222 CrPC – Conviction for Minor Offence – Though no charge framed under Section 326 IPC, conviction sustainable as charge was under Section 302 IPC, a graver offence – No prejudice caused to the accused – Held: Section 326 IPC is not a “minor offence” in abstract but becomes so when lesser ingredients are proved in facts of case – Reliance placed on Kesani Murahari Rao and Ram Kishun [Paras 52–55]

Appreciation of Evidence – Related and Inimical Witnesses – Duty of Court – Trial court rightly exercised caution in scrutinising evidence of interested witnesses (relatives of deceased) – Minor contradictions and embellishments noted – Trial court rightly separated truth from exaggeration – Findings upheld [Paras 39–44]

Decision:

Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2017 dismissed – Conviction under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC confirmed

Criminal Appeal (V) No. 09 of 2021 dismissed – Prayer to convict under Section 302 IPC rejected

Service Law – Transfer – Panchayat Secretaries – Effect of District Bifurcation – Appellants transferred outside their preferred native district after bifurcation of Y.S.R. Kadapa District into Kadapa and Annamayya – Petitioners contended that transfer orders issued by the District Collector failed to consider online counselling options and contravened G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 – Held: District Collector of the erstwhile district alone is competent to effect transfers post-bifurcation – Purpose of centralized counselling was to ensure fair accommodation based on preferences – Transfer orders found contrary to policy intent – Single Judge’s dismissal of writ petition set aside [Paras 3, 7–9]

Administrative Law – Non-Consideration of Transfer Preferences – State failed to explain why petitioners’ submitted preferences were disregarded during counselling – Respondents’ justification based solely on general reference to G.O.Ms.No.5 held insufficient – Division Bench held that government failed to act in conformity with its own policy – Directed reconsideration of preferences within 3 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Single Judge dated 23.07.2025 set aside – District Collector of erstwhile Y.S.R. Kadapa District directed to re-consider transfer options submitted by petitioners and accommodate them within Y.S.R. Kadapa District – Exercise to be completed within 3 weeks [Paras 11–12]

Domestic Violence – Shared Household – Right of Residence – Section 2(s) read with Section 17, PWDV Act – Wife began residing at property owned by her in-laws immediately after marriage – Held: Property qualifies as “shared household” irrespective of ownership – Right of residence under Section 17 not dependent on title – Once aggrieved person has lived there in a domestic relationship, protection from dispossession can be granted – Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, followed; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, overruled [Paras 11–14, 28].

Ownership of In-laws – Effect on Residence Right – Property purchased and registered in name of father-in-law held to be self-acquired – Still constitutes shared household for purpose of protection under DV Act – Ownership is immaterial for Section 17 protection so long as relationship and cohabitation exist – Civil decree on title (even if stayed) has no bearing on right of residence [Paras 13–14].

Domestic Relationship – Termination of Cohabitation – Whether destroys right to reside – Held: No – Section 2(f) includes relationships where parties “have at any point of time lived together” – Right of residence continues to protect woman even after separation, till eviction through due process of law [Para 14].

Residence Orders – Power of Magistrate – Sections 17 & 19 PWDV Act – Magistrate empowered to restrain dispossession and alienation – Directions do not confer ownership but preserve possession until due process is followed – Restraint on alienation falls within Section 19(1)(d) – Challenge to such restraint unsustainable [Paras 15, 28].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Sections 397/401 CrPC – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or admit fresh evidence – Findings of Mahila Court and Appellate Court upheld as reasoned and based on record – Electricity bills produced for first time in revision rejected as extraneous [Paras 8, 19–20].

Physical Residence – Electricity Consumption as Proof – Low electricity usage not conclusive proof of non-occupation – Findings of actual residence by lower courts based on evidence cannot be disturbed – Weak inference cannot rebut statutory protection [Paras 17–20].

Balance of Interests – Coexistence – Both parties occupying separate floors (Respondent on ground floor, Petitioner on first floor) – Arrangement ensures protection to daughter-in-law and peaceful residence to senior citizen – Equilibrium achieved consistent with Section 19 PWDV Act and proportionality principle [Paras 23–25].

Alternate Relief – Section 19(1)(f) – Though Court could have directed alternate accommodation, choice to preserve possession till due process not perverse – Judicial discretion properly exercised; no interference warranted [Paras 26–27].

Civil Proceedings – Pendency before Civil Court and Supreme Court – Does not oust jurisdiction under DV Act – Sections 17, 19, and 26 allow parallel protective remedies – Residence order independent of proprietary adjudication [Para 27].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld – Property qualifies as shared household under Section 2(s) – Respondent’s right of residence under Sections 17 and 19 sustained – Restraint against dispossession and alienation confirmed – Observations confined to protection under DV Act; title and mesne profits left to be decided in civil proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 28–30].

Arbitration – Execution of Arbitral Award – Stay of Award – Modification of Conditions – Petition filed by NHAI under Article 227 seeking modification of order of Additional District Judge, Patiala, which had stayed operation of arbitral award dated 12.07.2019 subject to deposit of 100% of enhanced compensation and release of 50% to land-losers upon furnishing indemnity bonds – High Court modified the condition by directing that 50% amount shall be released instead upon furnishing bank guarantee – Held: Impugned order modified in terms of judgment in NHAI v. Piara Lal, CR-2594-2025 – Release of 50% amount shall await compliance with deposit condition [Paras 2–5]

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Invocation of Article 227 permitted to seek modification of procedural condition in interest of equity and uniformity – Undertaking given by NHAI to deposit full amount within four weeks accepted – Execution Court directed not to release 50% amount upon indemnity bond during this period – However, land-losers may secure release upon furnishing bank guarantee even before expiry of four weeks [Paras 5–7]

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Impugned order modified – 50% amount to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee instead of indemnity bond – NHAI directed to deposit full amount within four weeks – Execution court restrained from releasing funds under original condition during this period – Miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Motor Accident – Determination of Income – Presumptive Basis – Admissibility – Deceased was owner of loader vehicle and paying monthly EMI of ₹18,250 – Tribunal presumed additional earnings of ₹7,000/month to support his family of five dependents – Held: Tribunal justified in estimating income at ₹25,250/month in absence of documentary proof – Supported by SC ruling in Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – No interference warranted [Paras 2, 4, 6–8]

Motor Accident – Future Prospects – Age-based Calculation – Tribunal awarded 40% future prospects though deceased was aged 36 – Under Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claimants were entitled to 50% – Held: Award of 40% is conservative; no scope for reduction – Appeal against adequacy of compensation not sustainable [Paras 3, 9–10]

Compensation – No Deduction Warranted – Tribunal’s Approach Reasonable – Appellant-insurer raised ground that compensation was excessive due to presumed income – Held: Income based on proven expenditure (EMI) and family responsibilities is a valid basis – Future prospects correctly applied – No illegality in award [Paras 4–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹48,56,250/- with 7.5% interest affirmed – Statutory deposit to be remitted to Tribunal forthwith.

Criminal Law – Section 61(2) r/w 318(3), 316(5), and 112 BNS - Paper Leak – Departmental Examination – Economic Offence – CBI Investigation – Bail Granted – Delay in Trial – Procedural Irregularities – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused railway officials and candidates allegedly conspired to leak the CLI departmental examination paper in exchange for bribes – Leaked paper allegedly handwritten by paper-setter and circulated via intermediaries – Recovered documents and cash used as key evidence – CBI relied on confessions, call intercepts, and seizures – Applicants contended lack of direct recovery, lack of expert opinion, procedural violations under BNSS – Court held that trial unlikely to begin soon due to lack of sanction and large volume of evidence – 16 co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted to all remaining applicants on parity and due to prolonged incarceration without trial [Paras 1–85].

Evidence Law – Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Admissibility – Custodial Statements – Recovery Before Arrest – Handwriting and Voice Analysis Inconclusive – Several recoveries based on pre-arrest disclosures – No expert verification of handwriting or voice samples produced – Statements recorded without magisterial supervision – Held: Statements inadmissible under law and cannot be sole basis for denial of bail [Paras 30–31, 58–61].

Search and Seizure – Section 105 BNSS – Audio-Visual Recording Mandatory – Procedural Non-compliance by CBI – Accused argued seizure proceedings were not fully recorded on video as required under BNSS – Lack of sketch map in some cases – CBI failed to justify procedural lapses – Held: Such deficiencies weaken evidentiary value – Favors bail [Paras 32–33, 52–53].

Bail Principles – Economic Offences – Serious Allegation Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – CBI opposed bail citing economic offence seriousness – Court reiterated principles from Sanjay Chandra, Satender Antil, Dataram Singh, and Manish Sisodia – Held: Bail is rule, jail is exception – Long trial delay, lack of prior criminal history, and co-accused parity are valid considerations for bail [Paras 34–35, 70–78].

Bail – Role of Accused – Individual Allegations Considered – Bail Conditions Imposed – Specific roles detailed for each accused: from paper-setter to bribe collector to candidate – Some named in FIR, others only in charge-sheet – Many with no recovery or direct link – All applicants in custody for over 7 months – Bail granted subject to conditions of non-tampering, attendance, and non-intimidation of witnesses [Paras 1–85].

Decision: Bail allowed – All 8 applicants (Sushant Parashar, Ramayan, Ajit Kumar Singh, Niraj Kumar Verma, Raj Narayan Singh Yadav, Surjeet Singh, Rakesh Kumar, and Sanjay Kumar Mishra) granted bail on personal bonds and two sureties each – Conditions imposed to prevent interference with trial or witnesses [Paras 84–86].