Criminal Law – Bail – POCSO and JJ Act Offences – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner charged under multiple IPC, JJ Act and POCSO provisions for alleged torture and abuse of a 3-year-old foster child – Other co-accused including petitioner’s husband (prime accused) granted bail – Held: On ground of parity and similar footing in charges, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 5, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Sections 50, 50A, 41B(b)(i), 46(4) CrPC – Arrest made without furnishing grounds, informing relatives, attesting arrest memo or obtaining prior judicial permission for arrest of woman at night – Held: Cumulative procedural lapses render arrest illegal – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) violated – Arrest unsustainable [Paras 26–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 2½ years, with only 15 of 74 witnesses examined and trial expected to take further considerable time – Held: Long incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent injustice and safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 22–24]

Interpretation of Precedent – Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah Cases – Mandate to inform arrestee of grounds in writing applicable irrespective of arrest date – Argument that Pankaj Bansal applies only prospectively rejected – Section 50 of CrPC pre-existed and must be followed – Non-compliance affects validity of arrest [Paras 33–34]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Accused directed to furnish ₹1 lakh bond with two sureties (one government servant), surrender of official documents, non-contact with victim or witnesses, restriction on travel without court permission and cooperation in trial mandatory [Para 36]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner Dr. Sangeeta Dutta directed to be released in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 112/2023 on furnishing bond and fulfilling strict conditions – Court noted gross procedural violations during arrest and prolonged custody with pending trial – Petition allowed with liberty to State to seek cancellation in case of violation of conditions [Paras 35–37]

SARFAESI Act – Redemption of Mortgage – Right extinguished – Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging sale of mortgaged property by bank under SARFAESI Act – Appellants contended undervaluation and fraudulent sale of property worth ₹15 crore at ₹5.78 crore – Bank had attempted sale on four occasions and reduced reserve price due to lack of bidders – High Court held: Once sale certificate is registered, mortgagor's right of redemption extinguished – No procedural lapse or fraud established – Writ petition rightly dismissed – Appeal rejected [Paras 1–19]

SARFAESI Act – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – Bank had issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Symbolic possession taken – Physical possession obtained under Section 14(1) – Repeated attempts made to auction the property – Proper valuation, publication and notice of auction conducted – Sale held on 29.09.2021 after 4 failed attempts – Sale certificate issued and registered in favour of respondent No.4 – No procedural violation found – Borrowers' contention of fraud and undervaluation rejected [Paras 7–8, 18–19]

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Appellants sought to redeem property after sale certificate was issued – Held: Right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is overridden by amended Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Right to redemption ceases upon publication of auction notice – Writ petition filed after sale certificate was registered – No right of redemption remained [Paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 16–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternate Remedy – High Court reiterated settled law that writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained when effective alternate remedy under SARFAESI Act exists – Appellants had already approached DRT twice (S.A. No.174/2018 and S.A. No.212/2019), both dismissed – No exceptional ground shown for invoking writ jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Satyawati Tondon and Mathew K.C. – Writ rightly dismissed by Single Judge [Paras 9–11]

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – Borrower’s Entitlement – Appellants sought mandamus to consider OTS proposal – Held: No legal right to claim OTS – Grant of OTS lies within commercial wisdom of the bank – Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce OTS – Borrower must satisfy eligibility criteria under scheme – Reliance placed on Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agarwal – Request for OTS rightly rejected [Paras 5, 7, 15]

Undervaluation Allegation – Reduction of Reserve Price – Appellants alleged fraudulent undervaluation – Bank demonstrated that reserve price was reduced proportionally after repeated failed auctions – Final sale fetched higher than reserve price – Court found no mala fides or irregularity in sale process – Allegation of collusion between bank and purchaser not substantiated [Paras 8, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No procedural violation or fraud by bank – Right of redemption extinguished after registered sale – No entitlement to OTS – No error found in Single Judge’s order – Writ petition and intra-court appeal devoid of merit [Paras 17–19]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Cheating and Forgery in Judicial Process – Petitioner accused of filing a writ petition using complainant’s name and forged signature to obtain favourable court orders – Judicial enquiry held by Registrar revealed lapses by petitioner’s advocate, advocate’s clerk, and oath commissioners in verifying documents – Held: Court declines to quash FIR as it raises serious issues requiring investigation – Judicial process cannot be compromised through procedural manipulation [Paras 1, 3, 7–10, 16–19]

Advocates and Clerks – Misuse of Authority – Signing of Petitions and Affidavits – Court strongly deprecated practice of advocate’s clerk or unauthorized persons signing pleadings and affidavits on behalf of parties – Held: Advocates are duty-bound to uphold the sanctity of judicial records – Unauthorized filing with incorrect signatures amounts to serious misconduct and undermines public trust in the justice system [Paras 11–14, 22–23]

Investigation – Role of Registrar’s Enquiry – Court directed Investigating Officer to proceed based on findings of internal judicial enquiry – Held: If cognizable offence is found, action to be taken after issuing notice under Section 35 of BNS – Otherwise, matter to be closed if no prejudice caused – Court emphasized High Court’s duty as Court of Record to prevent misuse of judicial process [Paras 7–8, 18–21]

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not quashed – Investigation to proceed independently based on judicial enquiry – Investigating Officer to act in accordance with law and without being influenced by Court’s observations [Paras 17–21]

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.

Succession Law – Probate – Will – Appeal – Probate petition filed by appellant (son of deceased Testatrix) seeking Letters of Administration based on unregistered Will dated 10.05.1989 – Learned Single Judge dismissed probate petition and allowed partition suit filed by other legal heirs – Held: Will proved through attesting witnesses and scribe – Suspicious circumstances found by Single Judge were neither pleaded nor put to witnesses in cross-examination – Suspicion unfounded – Will upheld – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed [Paras 1, 2(i)-(ii), 4, 35, 38-40]

Execution of Will – Attestation and Proof – Section 68, Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Will was attested by two witnesses (PW2 and PW6) and scribed by daughter-in-law (PW5) – All deposed consistently affirming execution of Will in presence of Testatrix – No cross-examination on alleged suspicious circumstances – Held: Due execution proved as per law – No rebuttal by objectors – Testatrix’s second signature not explained as no opportunity was given to witnesses – Burden was on objectors [Paras 10, 21-22, 23-24, 35]

Suspicious Circumstances – Grounds raised suo motu by Court – No foundation laid by objectors – Single Judge doubted Will based on folding of document, lack of prior draft, venue of execution, absence of photographs, and exclusion of daughters – Held: Such grounds not pleaded or proved – Exclusion of daughters not unusual given social context of 1989 – Testatrix had right to bequeath property to any heir – Folding of Will and storage by Class VIII educated scribe (daughter-in-law) not suspicious – Signature mutilation due to folds explained – Absence of birthday photos immaterial in pre-mobile era [Paras 6(i)-(ix), 25-30, 32-34]

Testatrix’s Capacity – Educational Background – Testatrix studied up to Class II – Held: Mere limited formal education not a bar to executing a Will – Document was in Hindi, contained no legal jargon – Scribed by Class VIII educated daughter-in-law – Recitals in Will explained reasons for bequest – Objectors failed to disprove stated reasons [Paras 20, 27-28]

Comparison with Earlier Unproved Will – Will dated 06.02.1989 withdrawn by husband of Testatrix – Single Judge compared signatures of subject Will with that unproved Will – Held: Improper to compare with document not proved in accordance with law – No handwriting expert examined by objectors – Signatures on subject Will not disproved [Paras 5, 26, 36]

Legal Principle – Testamentary Freedom – Testatrix is free to bequeath property to any heir – No legal obligation to divide equally or include all children – Absence of strained relationship does not invalidate selective bequest – Disinheritance of married daughters not uncommon for era – Will reflects genuine last wish of Testatrix – Must be respected [Paras 31-32]

Partition Suit – Not Maintainable – In light of proved Will bequeathing entire property to appellant, suit for partition by other legal heirs fails – Will operates to exclude them – Partition decree set aside [Paras 2(ii), 39]

Conclusion – Will validly executed and proved – Suspicious circumstances not established – Impugned Judgment set aside – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed – Appeal allowed [Paras 37-40]

Administrative Law – Termination of License – Writ Against APTDC – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged termination of license granted under agreement dated 03.10.2020 for operation of shop at Rushikonda Beach – Held: Though APTDC is ‘State’ under Article 12, disputes arising from license agreements are contractual and remedy lies in civil suit for damages – Writ not maintainable to challenge termination of license [Paras 9, 16]

Contract Law – License Agreement – Nature of Rights – Licensee Cannot Seek Interim Relief Against Termination – Petitioner admitted arrears of rent and operational default – Clause 7 of license agreement permits termination for non-compliance – Law well settled that licensee has no vested right to prevent termination – Once terminated, continued occupation is unlawful – Licensee may claim compensation but cannot seek injunction or continuation [Paras 4, 9-14, 16]

Distinction Between Lease and License – License Does Not Confer Interest or Possession – Agreement was clearly a license and not a lease – Reference to “lease” in correspondence was casual – Legal possession remains with licensor – Licensee has only a personal right which ceases upon termination – Petitioner cannot assert tenancy-like rights after expiration or cancellation [Paras 7, 12-14]

Writ Jurisdiction – Commercial Contract Disputes – No Public Law Element – Alternative Remedy Available – Court held that licensee’s grievance is private in nature – Remedy lies in filing a civil suit for compensation – No violation of constitutional or public duty shown – Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked for enforcing purely contractual rights [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Termination of license upheld – Interim order dated 06.10.2025 vacated – Petitioner may seek compensation by filing civil suit – No costs [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law – UAPA – Regular Bail – Section 43-D(5) – Prolonged Custody – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 10 months without trial due to pendency of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA – No evidence linking weapons recovered from appellant to terrorist activity or declared terrorists – Held: Long incarceration without trial violates Article 21 – Bail granted despite UAPA charges [Paras 3, 10, 12]

UAPA – Prima Facie Case – Section 43-D(5) – Standard of Review – Prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe accusations under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA to be prima facie true – No evidence linking accused to any act of terrorism – No record of WhatsApp communication or joint jail presence with alleged terrorists – Court held mere possession of arms without terror link insufficient for continued detention under UAPA [Paras 9-10]

Criminal Law – Parity in Bail – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Appellant's role not graver than co-accused already granted bail – Persons from whom arms were recovered, and others who allegedly supplied the weapons, all released on bail by Trial Court or Coordinate Bench – Held: Parity and lack of distinguishing features support grant of bail [Paras 10, Table under Para 10]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail as Safeguard – Delay in framing charges and conclusion of trial despite completion of investigation violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Supreme Court precedents in K.A. Najeeb, Jalaluddin Khan, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen, and Javed Shaikh applied – Held: Bail cannot be denied solely on seriousness of charges where trial is indefinitely delayed [Paras 11–16]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed stringent conditions including ₹10 lakh bond, weekly police attendance, undertaking for trial participation, and prohibition on inducement or fresh offences – Prosecution permitted to seek cancellation if conditions breached [Paras 17–19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 22.12.2023 denying regular bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions including high bond, weekly marking, and undertaking for trial compliance – Observations made not to affect merits of trial – Trial Court permitted to impose additional safeguards – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 17–21]

Contract Law – Term Sheet – Specific Performance – Appeal from Order dismissed – Term Sheet between Plaintiff developer and Defendant landowners provided for refundable deposit and joint development of land – Dispute arose on whether Term Sheet was a concluded and enforceable contract or merely an agreement to agree – Held: Validity Clause with Long Stop Date was a condition precedent – Plaintiff failed to perform obligations before Long Stop Date – No extension pleaded or agreed – Term Sheet automatically stood terminated – Plaintiff entitled only to refund of ₹11 crores – No right to seek specific performance survives – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17, 21–31, 35, 50–52, 53].

Contract Construction – Long Stop Date – Significance – Long Stop Date under Clause 12 of Term Sheet operated as contractual deadline for due diligence and execution of transaction documents – Clause began with non-obstante expression – Held: Clause 12 overrode other terms including Clause 11 on enforceability – Failure to comply by Long Stop Date resulted in automatic termination of contract – No open-ended or implied extension recognized in absence of mutual agreement – Court upheld commercial certainty and enforceability of Long Stop Date [Paras 24–34, 51–52].

Evidence – Concluded Contract vs Agreement to Agree – Clause analysis and conduct of parties – Despite use of term "enforceable" in Clause 11, contract was contingent on fulfilment of conditions precedent under Clause 12 – Plaintiff failed to accept title or execute transaction documents – Additional terms like third-party award payment introduced later – Held: No concluded contract – Specific performance not maintainable [Paras 19–20, 36–38, 43–44, 46].

Relief – Refund of Advance – Defendants permitted to deposit ₹11 crores – Trial court's refusal of injunction upheld – Appellant’s claim limited to alternate prayer for refund of deposit – Balance of convenience in favour of Defendants – No prima facie case made out for injunction – No enforceable obligation to convey development rights survives – Injunction rightly refused [Paras 47–49, 53–54].

Specific Relief Act – Contract not Specifically Enforceable – Section 14(1)(a) and (c) – Clause 12 made Term Sheet determinable – Monetary compensation sufficient remedy – Held: Agreement not enforceable in terms of Specific Relief Act – Injunction barred under Section 41(e) [Paras 49].