Bail – Cancellation – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent Indira Kumari @ Tanu secured bail by suppressing material evidence against her, specifically the statements of last seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The bail was granted under the false premise that there was no evidence against her. This concealment and misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The court, upon discovering this suppression, recalled the bail order dated 07.03.2024 and directed her arrest. [Paras 1-22]

Principle of Parity – Negative Parity – Bail Application – The co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj sought bail on the ground of parity with Indira Kumari. The court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The court highlighted that parity cannot be claimed when the initial bail was obtained by suppressing material facts. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Bail Cancelled – Bail Applications Rejected – The bail granted to Indira Kumari on 07.03.2024 was recalled and cancelled. The bail applications of Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj were rejected. Directions were issued for the immediate arrest and detention of Indira Kumari. [Paras 22, 30-31]
 

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].

Bail in Economic Offenses – The court evaluated the petition for regular bail considering the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It acknowledged the Supreme Court's stance that while the gravity of economic offenses warrants sensitivity, it does not justify an automatic denial of bail. The court emphasized the need to balance the liberty of the individual against the interests of justice and the state's position​​.

Triple Test for Bail – The court applied the triple test: (i) whether the accused is a flight risk, (ii) whether the accused will tamper with evidence if granted bail, and (iii) whether the accused could influence witnesses if granted bail. The court found no substantial risk under these criteria warranting continued detention​​.

Comparative Analysis – The petitioner sought parity with a co-accused who was granted bail earlier. The court recognized that denying bail to one while granting it to another under similar circumstances would be unjust. Therefore, it allowed bail for the petitioner on parity grounds​​.

Legislative Framework – The petitioner's counsel argued that the offenses related to tax evasion under the Haryana VAT Act, a self-contained code excluding IPC provisions. The court noted that such arguments, though relevant, do not preclude the grant of bail, particularly when investigation and charge-sheets have been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence​​.

Decision:Petition allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court imposed conditions including the surrender of the passport, maintaining contact details, and refraining from altering any documents or business structures under investigation​​.

Service Law – Back Wages – Reinstatement Following Illegal Termination – Petitioner, a Lecturer, was terminated illegally and reinstated after 10 years without back wages – Held, reinstatement does not automatically entitle one to back wages; requires proving non-gainful employment during the period – Fault lies with the employer (governing body) for non-compliance – Order to regularize service and disburse consequential financial benefits [Paras 6-13].

Grant of Back Wages – No Work No Pay Principle – Supreme Court precedents cited indicating exceptions to the principle when the fault lies with the employer – Petitioner diligently pursued reinstatement, indicating lack of gainful employment – Employer’s inaction deemed unlawful, warranting full back wages [Paras 10-12].

Regularization of Service – Government and Governing Body’s Responsibility – State authorities directed to ensure compliance with the Director’s order for reinstatement and regularization – State’s plea of helplessness rejected; model employer obligation emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders for regularization of petitioner’s service from 23.09.1995 to 09.01.2006 with all consequential financial benefits – Compliance required within two months [Para 15].
 

Labour Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioners, employed as binders and printers on a piece-rate basis, sought regularization after working for over 22 years – Government rejected their claim citing lack of direct employment records – Petitioners contended employment was continuous despite being through contractors to circumvent direct employment evidence [Paras 1-7].

Evidence of Continuous Employment – Petitioners provided salary and attendance records, inspection reports, and affidavits indicating continuous employment from 2000 to 2023, albeit through different contractors – Government acknowledged petitioners' service but cited a lack of continuous employment between 2011 and 2015 [Paras 8-19].

Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Petitioners relied on judgments in Nagendra S.G. and Sheo Narain Nagar cases to assert their right to regularization – Court considered the principle of granting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement from Ranbir Singh case due to the closure of the printing press [Paras 20-33].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Petitioners entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000 per year of service from 2000 to 2010 and Rs. 50,000 per year from 2016 to 2023 – Compensation to be paid within two months in lieu of reinstatement and regularization, serving as full settlement of all claims [Paras 34-38].
 

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Petitioner challenged the dismissal of her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by her mother, Smt. Saraswathamma – The suit sought cancellation of gift and partition deeds and declarations against sale deeds executed in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2010 – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the issues could only be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial [Paras 1-16].

Limitation – Barred by Time – The suit was filed in 2019, 15 years after the gift deed and more than a decade after the other deeds – Saraswathamma did not plead fraud or undue influence in the execution of the gift deed – Court found the suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed well beyond the three-year period allowed for challenging such deeds [Paras 9-14].

Recurring Cause of Action – Trial Court’s reasoning of recurring cause of action due to partition was found untenable – Saraswathamma did not seek partition but only declarations regarding the deeds – Court held that the concept of recurring cause of action did not apply [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint filed by Saraswathamma stands rejected – Civil Revision Petition allowed [Paras 18-19].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner (accused No. 3) sought bail in a case involving allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC, including dowry harassment, assault, and abetment of sexual assault by the father-in-law (accused No. 2) – Petitioner argued false implication, delay in filing FIR, and absence of injuries as reasons for bail [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Lodging FIR and Investigation Status – Incident occurred on 4th February and 9th March 2024, but FIR lodged on 15th March 2024 – Court noted no materials produced by prosecution to support allegations against petitioner – Petitioner, a 51-year-old woman, had been in judicial custody since 16th March 2024 [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner granted bail with conditions to ensure attendance in court, prevent tampering with evidence, and ensure no commission of similar offences – Bail granted on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions to safeguard against potential flight risk or interference with prosecution witnesses – Directions given to Trial Court for verification of sureties and addresses before accepting the bail bond [Paras 7-7].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction and Sentence – Criminal Revision – Petitioner issued a cheque to the complainant, which was dishonoured due to “Account Closed” – Contention that the cheque was issued as surety for a debt owed by her husband – No legally enforceable debt directly between petitioner and complainant – Trial and appellate courts found the petitioner guilty – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, directing the petitioner to pay compensation in lieu of imprisonment. [Paras 1-25]

Issuance of Cheque – Legal Presumption – Section 139 of N.I. Act – Presumption of cheque issued for discharge of debt or liability – Burden on accused to rebut presumption – Petitioner failed to provide credible evidence to support claim that cheque was issued as surety for husband’s debt – Non-reply to statutory notice considered adverse inference. [Para 12-17]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Revisional court should not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No manifest error of law or gross injustice found in lower courts’ judgments – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact. [Para 21-22]

Decision – Modification of Sentence – Conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act upheld – Petitioner directed to pay compensation of Rs.76,000 within one month in lieu of three months’ simple imprisonment – Failure to comply will result in execution of original sentence. [Para 24-25]

Educational Admission – Cancellation due to invalid Non-Creamy Layer Certificate – Challenge under Article 226 – Petitioner’s admission to MBBS course at Respondent No. 4 college, based on Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, cancelled after enquiry revealed misrepresentation by Petitioner’s father regarding marital status and spouse’s income – Enquiry conducted due to writ petition by another MBBS aspirant alleging misuse of OBC reservations – Petitioner continued studies under interim order from this Court [Paras 1-7].

Misrepresentation and False Information – Findings by Enquiry Committee – Petitioner’s father misrepresented marital status and spouse’s income on certificate application, leading to undue benefit under OBC quota – Enquiry confirmed father’s income alone under threshold but combined income with spouse would breach OBC income limit, affecting eligibility – Court upholds cancellation of certificate and consequent admission cancellation [Paras 11-18].

Balance of Convenience – Issuance of Degree – Despite unfair means in obtaining admission, Court permits retention of MBBS degree due to completion under interim orders, highlighting importance of not wasting medical education already imparted – Orders Petitioner to be considered as Open Category student, with directions to pay fee difference and a cost to Respondent No. 4 [Paras 19].

Decision and Relief Granted – The Court upheld the cancellation of the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate and MBBS admission but acknowledged the Petitioner’s completion of the degree under interim orders – Ordered the Petitioner to be treated as an Open Category student, with directions to pay the fee difference and a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the hospital – Recognized the need to maintain the integrity of admissions while balancing the national interest in retaining medical professionals [Paras 18-20].