Criminal Law – Grant of Interim Bail – Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Application for interim bail on humanitarian grounds due to medical necessity of applicant’s wife and care requirements for their child – Detailed scrutiny of family support availability and applicant’s alleged involvement in money laundering offenses – Court considered humanitarian grounds over strict compliance with Section 45 PMLA twin conditions due to urgent family health situation, yet emphasized strict conditions to mitigate risks of interference with ongoing investigations [Paras 1-15].

Humanitarian Considerations in Bail Decisions – Despite rigorous provisions of PMLA and previous denial of bail by the Special Court, interim bail granted based on urgent medical needs of applicant’s wife and childcare requirements – Court balanced statutory compliance against immediate humanitarian needs, imposing stringent conditions to ensure continued cooperation with law enforcement and prevention of evidence tampering or witness influence [Paras 10-12, 14-15].

Judicial Discretion and Conditional Release – High Court exercised judicial discretion to allow interim bail purely on humanitarian grounds, conditional on verification of medical procedure date and compliance with strict bail conditions aimed at ensuring applicant’s non-interference with trial process and ease of law enforcement monitoring [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Grant of Interim Bail – Held – Interim bail granted subject to specific conditions including personal bond, restricted movement, and mandatory surrender post-surgery without seeking extension for post-operation recovery. The decision underscored the balance between stringent legal standards and compassion in circumstances demanding immediate family support [Para 15].

Eviction under Public Premises Act – Unauthorised Occupation – Prima Facie Satisfaction – The Estate Officer must have prima facie satisfaction that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation before issuing an eviction notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act – Satisfaction must be based on substantive material – Subsequent notices may waive earlier ones, impacting the basis for the eviction notice – Notice dated 9 February 2001 was found waived due to subsequent notices – Prima facie satisfaction formed on waived notice indicates non-application of mind [Paras 1-19].

Eviction Process – Statutory Compliance – Fairness and Reasonableness – Public authorities must act in public interest and follow principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness – Requirement for eviction under Public Premises Act involves dual-stage satisfaction: preliminary before issuing notice, and final after hearing the occupant – The necessity for eviction must align with constitutional principles and demonstrate bona fide need and fairness [Paras 20-29].

Protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Waiver of Notice – Tenant’s Status – Respondent failed to prove tenancy prior to 1980 to claim protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as interpreted in Suhas H. Pophale’s case – Multiple notices indicated tenancy was treated as subsisting, leading to waiver of earlier notices [Paras 30-31].

Decision: The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, setting aside the eviction order of the Estate Officer, is upheld. The Estate Officer’s prima facie satisfaction was found to be based on non-application of mind due to reliance on waived notice. The applicant failed to demonstrate the fairness and reasonableness required for eviction [Paras 32-33].
 

Violation of Natural Justice – Reversion from IG to DIG without a proper hearing – Petitioners reverted as per orders dated 31.03.2023 without being given a subsequent opportunity for a hearing after initial postponement – Initial show cause notice dated 17.09.2021 followed by multiple notices and a scheduled hearing which was postponed due to non-availability of the Chief Minister – Respondents failed to reschedule the hearing and instead issued final reversion orders – Held, impugned orders set aside due to a violation of natural justice principles, directed to pass new orders after a proper hearing by 15.06.2024 – [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Petitioner, Sahil @ Sahil Singh @ Shalu, summoned to face trial as an additional accused in FIR No. 65/2020 under Sections 302, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Gate Hakima, Amritsar – Allegations include involvement in a group assault leading to death – Petitioner alleged to have given fist blows to one of the injured – Declared innocent during initial police investigation but later summoned by trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after testimony of the complainant – Application for anticipatory bail made on grounds that petitioner’s involvement was minimal and custodial interrogation deemed unnecessary – High Court grants anticipatory bail, citing minimal role and previous acquittal by investigating police – Petitioner to surrender within 15 days for regular bail – If not surrendered, interim relief to be vacated. [Paras 1-8]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of bail due to significant evidence indicating siphoning of funds – Petitioners Ashok Kumar Sahni and Supriya Nakra accused of redirecting Rs.2.02 crores meant for purchasing mobile phone accessories into accounts controlled by themselves and associates – Detailed investigation reveals large scale financial misappropriations across several related accounts – Both petitioners have previous criminal records with similar charges – Applications for anticipatory bail dismissed based on prima facie establishment of offenses and potential influence on ongoing investigation [Paras 2-15].

Role of Accused and Company Operations – Ashok Kumar Sahni, serving as director, was not actively involved in day-to-day operations but had substantial control and influence over financial transactions – Supriya Nakra, despite not being named initially in the FIR, was found deeply involved as the authorized signatory and administrator of company’s accounts, implicating her in the operational fraud – Detailed transaction records from company accounts indicate deliberate misdirection of funds [Paras 4, 6-9, 13].

Decision – High Court concludes involvement of petitioners in systematic siphoning of funds, fraud, and forgery based on transaction trails and their roles within the company – Previous grants of bail to co-accused based on insufficient evidence at the time, now overturned due to emerging details from the ongoing investigation – Anticipatory bail denied, underscoring the severity of allegations and ongoing criminal behavior [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Economic Offences – Applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail by convicts found guilty of serious economic offences including fraud and misappropriation of funds from a cooperative financial institution – Offences committed by individuals in positions of trust, resulting in significant financial losses to depositors – Court denies relief based on the gravity of offences and societal impact [Paras 1-50].

Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Judicial Discretion – Legal Precedents – Legal principles governing suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. require consideration of factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, evidence supporting charges, and societal impact – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences – Reliance on legal precedents emphasizing the need for stringent scrutiny in granting relief in such cases [Paras 41-45].

Economic Impact and Public Trust – Fraudulent activities by the cooperative society's board and committee members undermined public trust and caused significant financial harm – Court emphasizes the necessity of maintaining legal discipline and accountability in financial institutions – Relief denied to prevent further erosion of public confidence [Paras 46-48].

Decision: All applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail are rejected – Court finds that the magnitude and seriousness of the offences, involving the misappropriation of substantial amounts of public money, warrant denial of relief under Section 389 Cr.P.C. [Paras 49-50].

Contractual Disputes – Withholding of Payment – Dispute arose over withholding of Rs. 1,40,42,000/- payment due to allegations of data breach by the respondent – Appellant cited contractual provisions permitting withholding payment for default – Held, withholding payment pending investigation justified under terms of agreement [Paras 1-7, 10-11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise in Contractual Matters – High Court emphasized limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes – Held, writ jurisdiction not appropriate where arbitration clause exists and parties have alternate remedy – Reference to Apex Court rulings on writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Clause – Dispute Resolution – Agreement contained arbitration clause for dispute resolution – High Court directed parties to resolve dispute through arbitration, setting aside writ court’s order for immediate payment – Emphasized need for arbitration as per contract terms [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Parties directed to resolve dispute through arbitration as per agreement terms – No costs [Para 12].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Validity of Marriage – Appeal challenging the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the respondent – Appellant contended that no marriage took place and that the respondent's claims were fabricated – Respondent provided evidence of marriage through testimonies and documents – Trial court found the marriage to be valid – High Court upheld the Family Court's decision based on consistent and credible evidence supporting the respondent's claims – Appellant's arguments regarding non-maintainability and lack of valid marriage were rejected [Paras 1-40, 100-110].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Allegation of Non-Marriage – Appellant's denial of marriage contradicted by respondent's detailed evidence including marriage certificate, witnesses' testimonies, and photographs – High Court emphasized the importance of examining all evidence in matrimonial disputes – Family Court's reliance on consistent testimonies and documentary evidence deemed appropriate – Appellant's failure to provide credible rebuttal noted [Paras 50-90].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bhagalpur, affirmed. Appellant directed to restore conjugal rights with the respondent as per the decree.

Maintenance – Quantum Determination – True Disclosure of Income and Assets – Petitioner challenged the order directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent – Contention that the petitioner's unemployment and lack of documentary evidence regarding income were not considered – Court emphasized the requirement of true disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities by both parties as per Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Impugned order set aside to the extent of quantum of maintenance – Matter remitted for fresh determination based on affidavits of disclosure – Interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 10,000 per month until final disposal [Paras 1-14].

Legal Principles – Affidavit of Disclosure – Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha mandate filing of detailed affidavits by both parties in maintenance proceedings – Affidavits to cover financial status from the date of filing the original case to the date of filing affidavits – Misrepresentation or false statements may attract proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and contempt of court [Paras 8-10].

Procedure – Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Trial courts must ensure adherence to the guidelines for fair determination of maintenance – Importance of responsible pleadings and disclosure in matrimonial disputes stressed – Directions issued for expeditious disposal of remitted matter [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 16.01.2019 set aside to the extent of quantum of maintenance – Parties directed to file affidavits of disclosure – Interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 10,000 per month until final disposal [Paras 11-14].