Criminal Bail – Section 302 IPC – Delay in Trial – Bail Granted - The petitioner was accused of murdering the deceased Devinder Kumar with bamboo sticks and had been in custody since 11.04.2023 – Despite filing of the chargesheet on 03.07.2023, only 12 out of 52 witnesses had been examined – Held: Given prolonged incarceration, constitutional guarantee under Article 21 for speedy trial justified grant of bail – Court found no reason to believe petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-9, 16].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Pre-trial Incarceration Unjustified – The Court relied on precedents including Umarmia Alias Mamumia vs. State of Gujarat and Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, to emphasize the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial – Reiterated that personal liberty should not be curtailed unless absolutely imperative – The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty [Paras 9-13].

Bail Conditions – Ensuring Presence and Non-interference – Stringent conditions imposed to ensure that the petitioner attends all hearings, does not influence witnesses, and does not flee jurisdiction – Violation of any condition may result in cancellation of bail – Bail granted upon furnishing of personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- and one surety of like amount [Paras 14-17].

Nature of Bail – Not Punitive – Held: Object of bail is to secure presence of accused during trial, not to punish – Detention during trial causes psychological and social trauma to the accused and burden to their family – Unless necessary, incarceration before conviction must be avoided [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Revision – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Modified – Probation Granted – Petitioner convicted under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC – Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by Trial Court; appeal dismissed by Sessions Court – Before High Court, petitioner limited plea to grant of probation – Considering no prior criminal record, peaceful conduct, and prolonged litigation, High Court upheld conviction but granted benefit of probation for one year under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Paras 1–4, 12–13].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Reformative Intent – Applicability to First-time Offenders – Petitioner found fit for probation as he was not a hardened criminal and had already undergone part of the sentence – Held: Court empowered to release on probation in appropriate cases involving minor offences – Probation preferred to incarceration to avoid stigma and prevent criminalisation [Paras 5–11].

Sentencing Policy – Principles of Reformation – Emphasis on Rehabilitation – Citing apex court precedents, Court noted that modern criminal jurisprudence encourages reformation over retribution, especially for first-time and young offenders – Probation laws aim to prevent social defiance that may result from jail exposure [Paras 6–7, 9].

CrPC – Section 360 & Section 361 – Duty to Consider Probation – Court reiterated that sentencing courts must record reasons if they deny probation in eligible cases – Section 4 of the Probation Act overrides conflicting sentencing provisions when conditions are fulfilled [Paras 8–10].

Final Relief – Sentence Modified – Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond and surety for probation – Must maintain good behaviour for one year – Original conviction and fine maintained – Revision petition dismissed on merits but sentence altered to probation [Paras 12–14].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Mutual Consent – Section 13B HMA – Cooling-off Period Waived – During pendency of appeals, parties settled disputes and filed joint petition for divorce under Section 13B—High Court satisfied of voluntary, collusion-free consent—Held: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage established; parties living separately since 2017—Cooling-off period waived; divorce granted by mutual consent [Paras 4–5, 9–12].

Family Law – Property Settlement – Return of Gold and Maintenance Arrears – Husband returned 115 sovereigns of gold to wife in full and final settlement—Additionally paid ₹3,50,000 by demand draft for maintenance arrears of minor child—Court recorded and accepted settlement terms as lawful and binding [Paras 7–8].

Procedural Law – Appeals Disposed on Compromise – Joint Petition Accepted – Court noted that all three connected appeals (Mat.Appeal Nos. 729/2023, 784/2023 & 7/2024) were resolved based on joint petition—Following precedent, appeals disposed of accordingly—Marriage dissolved without further litigation [Paras 2–6].

Decision – I.A. No. 1/2025 under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act allowed – Marriage between appellant and respondent dissolved by mutual consent – Cooling-off period waived – Settlement recorded – Appeals disposed [Para 12].

Transfer of Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Overlapping Reliefs – Application Allowed – Applicant sought transfer of DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, to the Family Court at Bandra to be heard along with Divorce Petition and Restitution Petition – Court noted substantial overlap in reliefs and parties in both proceedings – Held: To avoid conflicting findings, duplication of evidence and conserve judicial time, DV proceedings transferred to Family Court [Paras 1-4, 9].

Jurisdiction – DV Act and Family Court – Overlapping Remedies – Court Held – Family Court competent to grant reliefs similar to those under the DV Act – DV reliefs related to protection, custody and residence can be adjudicated by Family Court – Proximity of courts and shared social context justify transfer – Respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice or inconvenience [Paras 3-5, 9].

Distinguishing Precedents – Anurag Agarwal vs. Poonam Agarwal – Not Applicable – Court held that unlike the precedent cited by the Respondent where proceedings were at an advanced stage, here the DV matter was at preliminary evidence stage – Hence, transfer was not prejudicial [Paras 6, 10].

Consolidation of Proceedings – Avoiding Multiplicity – Supreme Court Guidelines Followed – Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. Saravana Karthik Sha, Court emphasized the need for consolidation when proceedings involve common questions of law and fact – Held: Transfer promotes judicial economy and consistency in adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Final Decision – Transfer Allowed – DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Bandra – Family Court directed to issue notice within 3 weeks and proceed expeditiously [Paras 13-15].

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Heirs – Order 22 CPC – Writ Petition Maintainable - The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased plaintiffs, sought substitution in the original suit which had been remanded after appeal – The Trial Court rejected the substitution application citing absence of separate applications for delay condonation and setting aside abatement – Held: An application seeking substitution inherently includes prayer for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay – Writ petition is maintainable despite availability of appellate remedy under Order 43 Rule 1(k), especially considering long pendency and prior High Court admission [Paras 10-11].

Procedural Liberalism – Delay and Abatement – Liberal Interpretation – Technical Objections Rejected - Courts are to adopt a justice-oriented approach in abatement and substitution cases – Rigid technicalities should not defeat substantial rights – Delay in moving for substitution after remand was justified as the petitioners were unaware of proceedings – One heir had already been brought on record in appellate stage – Suit did not abate automatically when legal heir was already on record [Paras 17-21].

Right to Sue – Survival of Cause – Will and Legal Representation – Petition Allowed - Petitioner 2.1, holding a registered Will of original plaintiff No. 2, was entitled to be substituted – Right to sue survives in favour of legal representatives – Rejection by Trial Court caused substantial injustice – High Court set aside both orders of the Trial Court and restored the suit to be decided on merits [Paras 14, 33-34].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders Set Aside – High Court quashed the orders dated 01.10.2015 passed below Exh. 190 and Exh. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1983 – Petitioners allowed to be substituted as plaintiffs – Trial Court directed to restore and decide suit on merits [Paras 41-42].

Civil Law – Will - Probate Proceedings – Genuineness and Execution of Will – Sections 63 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act – Probate Granted – The Will dated 11.12.2004, purportedly executed by DKJ, was challenged by his daughter as being forged – The Court found the Will duly proved through testimony of an attesting witness and upheld the grant of probate – No obligation exists for a testator to provide reasons for exclusion of heirs, and unequal distribution does not invalidate a Will where due execution is established [Paras 2, 4, 8, 14-17, 31-34].

Challenge to Signatures – Handwriting Examination Not Insisted Upon – Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – No Forensic Expert Produced – Appellant raised doubts over DKJ’s signatures and appearance of the paper but failed to produce any expert evidence – Court held that failure to pursue forensic examination despite liberty granted, undermines the claim of forgery [Paras 10(v), 22].

Conduct of Appellant – Admission of Will in Subsequent Documents – No-Objection Affidavit and MOU – Appellant had earlier acknowledged the validity of the Will and undertook to assist in the probate process – Reliance on MOU and transfer of assets indicated conscious acceptance of the Will, which estopped her from contesting it subsequently [Paras 23-25].

Executor’s Standing – Section 311 of the ISA – One Executor May Apply – The objection regarding maintainability of probate petition by only one executor was rejected – Section 311 allows grant of probate to one executor where the co-executor has not joined but has not objected either – Supporting affidavit filed by co-executor [Para 29].

Suspicious Circumstances – Delay in Will Surfacing – Unregistered Will – None Fatal – The emergence of the Will post-DKJ’s death and its custody with his widow was held as natural – The Court held that registration is not mandatory and unregistered status alone does not cast doubt, especially where due attestation is proved [Paras 28, 33].

Execution of Board Resolutions and Alleged Undue Favours – Insufficient to Discredit Will – The fact that Board resolutions were passed on the day of DKJ’s cremation and promotions given to attesting witnesses were not considered indicative of fabrication – No evidence established that these were related to the Will [Paras 30].

Testamentary Intent and Residual Clause – Broad Disposition – Court emphasized that DKJ, being a seasoned industrialist, meticulously outlined succession and made comprehensive dispositions including a residual clause to cover unenumerated assets – The Will reflected deliberate planning and not arbitrariness [Paras 15-18, 20-21].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Will Held Genuine – The Court upheld the order granting probate and dismissed the partition suit as infructuous, holding that the Will was valid, duly executed, and free of suspicious circumstances [Paras 34-35].

Execution of Decree – Prohibitory Injunction – Restoration of Possession Permissible – The petitioner challenged execution of a 1999 injunction decree, arguing that it did not include delivery of possession – Held: Where injunction decree is violated and decree-holder is forcibly dispossessed, executing court can direct restoration of possession under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC – Power to enforce decree includes all measures necessary to ensure compliance [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Executing Court – Power Not Limited to Text of Decree – The petitioner argued that decree merely restrained interference with possession and did not mandate possession delivery – Held: Executing court can act beyond literal words if required to neutralize unlawful disobedience and uphold judicial process – Contempt alone not sufficient in such cases – Civil court must ensure that its judgments are not rendered nugatory [Paras 11-13].

Delay in Execution – No Bar Where Decree Breached by Force – Execution petition filed nearly a decade after final appellate order – Petitioner alleged delay – Held: Decree-holder’s right revived upon unlawful dispossession – Forceful dispossession reopens right to seek enforcement – Delay does not defeat execution where breach frustrates decree [Para 5, 13].

Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Decree Executable by Restoration of Possession – Court upheld the executing court’s rejection of objections and affirmed its authority to restore possession to decree-holders under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC – Revision petition found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecution’s case against the appellant for murdering his wife was based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Key circumstances including alleged motive due to frequent quarrels, last seen together, and recovery of blood-stained clothes were not proved beyond reasonable doubt – The time gap between last seen and recovery of body, absence of forensic confirmation, and unreliable recovery witnesses rendered the circumstantial chain incomplete – High Court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted. Acquittal. [Paras 1, 3, 11-13, 17-29, 36-37].

Last Seen Theory – Time Gap Between Last Seen and Death – Not Sufficient to Establish Guilt – Witness claimed to have last seen deceased with the accused at 5:30 p.m., but the body was recovered the next morning – High Court held that such a long unexplained interval weakened the inference of guilt – In absence of other corroborative links, the “last seen” theory could not form sole basis of conviction [Paras 13-17].

Motive – Marital Discord – Not Conclusive – No Strong Evidence of Intention to Kill – Alleged motive rested on prior quarrels and suspicion of infidelity – Court held that general domestic discord, without any credible proof of direct threats or violent conduct, was insufficient to establish strong motive – Weak motive contributed to break in chain of circumstantial evidence [Paras 11-12].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Procedural Defects – No Forensic Link – Recovery was based on alleged disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – No independent witness supported recovery process reliably – Clothes were not properly sealed or sent for forensic matching – Court held recovery inadmissible due to procedural lapses and lack of evidentiary value [Paras 18-22].

False Explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Cannot Fill Gaps in Prosecution – Though the accused gave a vague explanation during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the Court reiterated that a false or evasive explanation cannot substitute for legal proof – Unless the prosecution proves its case conclusively, the burden does not shift to the accused [Para 23].

Decision – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Bail bond cancelled and fine, if paid, ordered to be refunded [Paras 36-37].

Civil Law - Easementary Right – Use of Pathway – Right to Access through Cart Track – Decree Restored – Appellant purchased land through registered sale deed in 1963 which described cart track as boundary – Evidence including Advocate Commissioner’s report confirmed existence of 15-feet wide cart track used for men, cattle, and carts – Held: Right to use the cart track forms part of legal incidents of property transferred under Section 8 of Transfer of Property Act – Appellants entitled to such easementary right – Decree for declaration and injunction granted [Paras 34–36, 41–44].

Alternate Access – Whether Availability Bars Easement – Alternate Pathway Only 1.5 Feet Wide – Held: Not Suitable for Cattle or Carts – Mere existence of narrow footpath not equivalent to reasonable alternate access – Trial Court rightly held plaintiffs entitled to use existing cart track – Appellate Court misconstrued Commissioner’s report – Judgment set aside [Paras 35–36, 44–45].

Interpretation of Commissioner’s Report – Appellate Court Erred – Advocate Commissioner confirmed existence of well-used cart track with sufficient width – Appellate Court overlooked critical observations in Exs. C1–C4 – Held: Misreading of evidence led to erroneous reversal – Second Appeal allowed [Paras 34–36].

Transfer of Property – Easement Included – Section 8, Transfer of Property Act – Where easement is apparent and in use at time of sale, and mentioned in the deed, right to its use transfers with property – Held: Pathway existed prior to sale and was mentioned in sale deed – Right to use same vested in transferee – Appellate Court ignored settled law – Judgment reversed [Paras 38–44].

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Existence of Easement, Interpretation of Commissioner’s Report – All substantial questions answered in favour of appellants – Trial Court decree restored – Second Appeals allowed with costs [Paras 27, 36, 44–46].