Suo Moto Cancellation of Bail– Alleged Sexual Assault on Children – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Grant of Bail to Accused Yumken Bagra, Hostel Warden of Government Residential School – Sexual Assault on 21 Children (15 girls and 6 boys) Aged 6 to 12 years between 2019 to 2022 – Offences under Sections 10/12/14(1)/15(1)/2 of POCSO Act and Section 376AB of Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Non-adherence to Section 439(1A) of Cr.PC mandating presence of informant or authorized person during bail hearing – Objected by Special Public Prosecutor due to successive bail applications and risk of witness tampering – Casual grant of bail by Special Court despite serious nature of offences and non-appearance of co-accused Daniel Pertin – Concerns for victims’ safety after accused’s release on bail – Notice issued to accused for bail cancellation proceedings – Advocate General of Arunachal Pradesh instructed to ensure service of notice – Accused’s right to engage counsel or avail free legal aid – Directions for strict Witness Protection Scheme implementation – Advocate General to inform court of measures for protecting minor victims of sexual assault in Arunachal Pradesh – Emphasis on sensitization of Special Judges handling POCSO Act cases in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh – Juvenile Justice Committee to take necessary action – Copies of order communicated to Itanagar Permanent Bench Registrar and Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh – Next listing date: 27^th July 2023.

Abuse of Process of Law – Misuse of legal proceedings to achieve something for which no cause exists – Unjust continuation or initiation of criminal prosecution – Abuse of process amounts to unfairness and injustice to the complainant or prosecution – Examination of facts and circumstances in each case. (Para 110-112)

Fair Trial – Adjudicative functions of criminal courts must be cautiously exercised – Unfairness to accused or proposed accused can affect their reputation and life – Institution of criminal case must be examined in the context of validity of the order challenged before the court. (Para 112)

Sufficiency or Insufficiency of Incriminating Material – Distinction between inadequacy and absence of material – Improper use of criminal legal process – Duty of the Magistrate to consider sufficiency or insufficiency of material before ordering registration of an FIR. (Para 113-116)

Balancing Interests – Magistrates must exercise discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. judiciously – Personal liberty and reputation of the accused or proposed accused must be considered – Orders regarding registration of FIRs should be passed with caution and after application of judicial mind. (Para 118-120)

Conclusion of the Court – Detailed examination of the complaint, application, police inquiry, and impugned order – No allegation against the petitioner in the complaint – Allegations do not constitute any offence against the petitioner – No incriminating material against the petitioner – Initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law – Lack of application of judicial mind by the Magistrate – Courts should pass reasoned orders based on law and material. (Para 121-133)

Maintaining Communal Harmony – No place for hatred or communal disharmony in a civilized society – Protection of citizens from malicious prosecution – Courts should be cautious and circumspect while ordering registration of FIRs in sensitive cases – Non-discrimination and tolerance of cultural and religious values are key to nation-building. (Para 124-126)

Exercise of Magisterial Powers – Magisterial power must be used with utmost caution, vigilance, and circumspection – Careful consideration of complaint and Action Taken Report by the police – Invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order directing registration of FIR when no material or allegations exist against the accused – Abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice if continuation of criminal proceedings is allowed. (Para 127-132)

Disposal of the Petition – Impugned order set aside – Judgment to be circulated to the concerned authorities – Original record to be sent back to the Trial Court – The judgment to be uploaded on the website. (Para 133-136)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 439 – Regular Bail – Second bail application – Petitioner seeking regular bail in relation to FIR No. 312 dated 27^th July 2016, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Earlier bail application dismissed as withdrawn – Petitioner claiming parity with co-accused who was granted regular bail – Court considering the fact that petitioner in custody for 03 years and 13 days and only 04 out of 29 prosecution witnesses examined – No specific injury attributed to petitioner in FIR and witness statements – Grant of bail based on merits and parity with co-accused – Petitioner ordered to furnish bail/surety bonds and abide by specified conditions – Bail granted.

Review Proceedings – Scope and Ambit – Distinction from an Appeal: Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and must be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). An erroneous decision cannot be corrected through a review, as review jurisdiction is limited and should not be used as an appeal in disguise. (Para 5, 7).

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record – Interpretation: A judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. To be considered an error apparent on the face of the record, the error must be evident per se and not require detailed examination or reasoning for detection. The court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment while exercising the power of review. (Para 5, 9, 9.2).

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of “Mistake or Error Apparent”: Various judicial precedents have clarified the concept of “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record” under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The power of review cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision, and a review cannot be claimed merely for a fresh hearing or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The power of review is limited to correcting patent errors of law or fact. (Para 5, 9, 9.2, 31).

Principles Governing Review Jurisdiction: The review jurisdiction vested in the tribunal is akin to that of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The tribunal can review its decision only on the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. The expression “any other sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 should be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. A review petition must be based on reasons sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule. (Para 5, 9, 9.2, 35).

No Error Apparent on the Face of the Record Found: In the instant case, the petitioners failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review. The court clarified that the judgment passed in the Regular Second Appeal was based on answering the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal. The contentions raised by the petitioners were considered and decided during the appeal. (Para 6, 8, 9).

Review Jurisdiction – Not to be Confused with Appellate Powers: The power of review cannot be used as an inherent power or an appellate power in the guise of review. Review jurisdiction has its definite limits and should not be treated as a substitute for an appeal. (Para 5, 9, 31).

Review Petition Dismissed: The review petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs, as the court found no merit in the instant petition. (Para 10).

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC – Challenge to judgment and order of Trial Court upheld by Appellate Court – Examination of objections related to unavailability of carbon copy of General Diary (G.D.) and discrepancy in time of occurrence – Adequate satisfaction by Trial Court – Admissibility and credibility of prosecution’s case affirmed. (Para 1, 2)

Witness Testimonies – Testimony of two witnesses established place of occurrence – No discrepancy found in the evidence of witnesses regarding place of incident. (Para 9, 10)

Discrepancy in Time of Occurrence – Variation between N.C.R. and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – Immateriality of time variation established – Absence of evidence that witnesses wore a watch at the time. (Para 11)

Admissibility of Medical Evidence – Objection regarding name difference in doctor’s record – Merely a slip of pen – Medical evidence deemed admissible. (Para 12)

Non-examination of Investigating Officer – Non-fatal to prosecution’s case when evidence corroborates each other – Precedents cited to support non-examination. (Para 15)

Sentencing – Plea for leniency due to elapsed time, accused’s old age, and lack of criminal history – Precedents considered where accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder released on probation – Lenient view adopted – Accused released on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. due to trivial nature of offence and being a first offender – Academic and professional achievements considered in favor of probation. (Para 17, 18, 19)

Employment Law – Extension Lecturers – Remuneration – Petitioners, retired eligible teachers, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of Clause/paragraph 11 of the ‘Policy guidelines regarding engaging Eligible Extension Lecturers in Govt. Colleges purely on work requirement basis’, dated 04.03.2020, and direction to pay them monthly remuneration at par with eligible serving teachers/extension lecturers at the rate of Rs.57,700, instead of Rs.35,400, with effect from 01.01.2021 – Petitioners’ engagement as Extension Lecturers was based on their eligibility as per the policy instructions – The Policy introduced a distinction between retired extension lecturers and eligible serving extension lecturers, leading to payment of lower remuneration to the retired teachers – Issue of discrimination and violation of equal pay for equal work.

Constitutional Law – Article 14, 16 – Discrimination – Equal Pay for Equal Work – The Court observed that the distinction made by the respondents in categorizing the petitioners as a separate class and paying them lower remuneration as retired teachers was irrational and arbitrary – Violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work – Discrimination against retired extension lecturers – Constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Case Law – Suman Devi case – Distinguished – The respondents relied on the judgment in Suman Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 2020(4) S.C.T 523, to justify the impugned Clause 11 of the Policy – The Court, however, distinguished Suman Devi case as it did not address the issue of payment of remuneration to eligible retired government teachers engaged as extension lecturers.

Writ Petition – Quashing of Clause/paragraph 11 – The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Clause/paragraph 11 of the Policy dated 04.03.2020 as it was found to be arbitrary and illegal – Directed the respondents to pay the petitioners remuneration at the rate of Rs.57,700 per month with effect from the date of their appointment as extension lecturers – Ordered the release of arrears of the difference in remuneration within six weeks – Clarified that the order did not mandate continuation of the petitioners’ engagement, leaving it to the respondents’ discretion to make an independent decision in accordance with the Policy and the law.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 - Transfer Deed - Validity - Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order upholding the decision of the Tribunal declaring a transfer deed void - Appellants contended that certain points were not considered and procedural requirements were not followed - Respondents argued lack of maintenance by the appellants - Court observed the death of respondent No.2, rendering proceedings infructuous - Legal heirs granted liberty to pursue civil remedies - Impugned orders deemed irrelevant for future proceedings.

Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Allegations of involvement in an examination scam - Cyber-thugs hacking into the examination center to solve question papers remotely - Petitioner accused of running the center and facilitating fraudulent activities - Sections 420, 465, 438, 471, 120-B, 409 IPC 1860, and Section 66-D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 invoked - Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Evidence - Prima facie evidence against the petitioner - Communication records and transactions linking the petitioner to the offense - Investigation ongoing - Need for custodial interrogation to uncover involvement of other individuals in the recruitment scam - Importance of stringent action against cyber criminals in safeguarding sensitive matters.

Bail - Grant of anticipatory bail - Parameters to be satisfied for anticipatory bail in serious offenses - Court to record reasons for granting such relief - No entitlement to bail on grounds of parity with co-accused granted regular bail after prolonged custody.

Importance of safeguarding sensitive matters like police recruitments from cyber-crime - Vulnerability of examination systems and use of breach-able and unsafe software - Need for fool-proof and secure software - Stringent action against cyber-thugs required - Custodial interrogation necessary to stop future breaches and uncover involvement of other persons.

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed - Observations in the judgment not expressions of opinion on the case's merits - Trial court not to consider these comments.

Criminal Law – Bail – Petitioner charged under NDPS Act for possession of intoxicant tablets – Seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC – Petitioner in custody for over 2 years and 7 months – No criminal antecedents – Co-accused already granted bail – Willing to comply with stringent conditions – State opposes bail due to the commercial quantity of contraband involved – Court applies the principles of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022] – Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] – Madhu Tanwar and Anr. V. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] – Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28] – Court imposes bail conditions for securing bail – Bail granted subject to specific terms and conditions to ensure the safety of society.

Criminal Law – Bail – Bail conditions must have a nexus to the purpose they seek to serve and be proportional to the purpose of imposing them – Courts can impose restrictive conditions subject to evidence produced – Bail conditions should minimize reliance on sureties and consider alternative options – Bail can be canceled if the accused commits an offense with a sentence of more than seven years or violates bail conditions – Petitioner granted bail on fulfilling conditions under Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022] – Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] – Madhu Tanwar and Anr. V. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] – Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735  – Court emphasizes balancing the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial when imposing bail conditions.