POCSO Conviction – Appeal Dismissed – Testimony of Child Victim Found Reliable – Conviction Upheld – The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 5(m), (n), and (p) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 377 and 380 IPC for sexually assaulting a 6-year-old boy – The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to 20 years RI – On appeal, the High Court held that the testimony of the child victim was clear, credible, and consistent, and corroborated by the MLC – Minor inconsistencies were immaterial and FSL's negative report did not discredit the prosecution case – Foundational facts having been established, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act applied – The appellant failed to rebut the presumption – Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1, 7-19].

Child Witness – Competency and Credibility – No Need for Corroboration – Conviction Sustained – The victim, aged 6 years, was found competent to depose and identified the appellant clearly – Held: Once the child’s testimony is found reliable, corroboration is not legally necessary – The consistent account of abuse and immediate disclosure to mother satisfied evidentiary standards [Paras 7-8, 14-15].

Medical Evidence – MLC Supports Allegation – FSL Report Inconclusive – The MLC noted fissure, bleeding, and increased anal tone – Held: Even if FSL did not confirm presence of semen/DNA, the MLC and testimony of the child were sufficient to sustain conviction – Medical corroboration is supportive but not essential where oral testimony is trustworthy [Paras 10-11, 14].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Foundational Facts Established – Burden Not Rebutted – The prosecution established foundational facts of penetrative sexual assault through direct evidence and medical findings – Held: The statutory presumption applied – Appellant failed to rebut it either through cross-examination or defence evidence – Conviction justified [Paras 17-18].

Contradictions and Improvements – Not Put to Witness – No Material Impact – Alleged inconsistencies in victim’s and mother’s statements were not substantiated during trial – Held: Without confronting witnesses, the claim of contradictions cannot be entertained – Testimony remained intact and credible [Paras 4, 13].

False Implication Defence – Alleged Money Dispute Unproven – Appellant claimed he was falsely implicated due to salary dispute and cramped living conditions – Held: The defence was speculative and unsupported – The child’s consistent narrative and medical evidence disproved this theory [Paras 4, 12, 16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Sentence of 20 Years RI Upheld – The High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence – Appellant directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent – No interference warranted [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law - Bail  – Allegation of Foreign Nationality – illegal entry into India - Prima Facie Case of Identity Fraud – Bail Rejected – The applicant was found in possession of digital documents indicating Bangladeshi origin and is accused of forging Indian identity documents to claim citizenship – Held: In absence of verified proof of Indian citizenship and pending verification from UIDAI and other authorities, the application for bail is rejected [Paras 1-5, 22-26, 30-31].

Citizenship Determination – Documentary Evidence – Mere Possession of Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID Not Conclusive – The applicant relied on Indian identity documents to assert citizenship – Held: These documents do not override statutory requirements of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Verification of issuance and authenticity is necessary before relying on them for legal status [Paras 18-20, 29].

Illegal Migration – Burden of Proof – Section 9 of the Foreigners Act – When prima facie evidence of foreign origin is presented by the State, the burden shifts to the accused – Held: The applicant has failed to discharge this burden by not producing any verified document of Indian citizenship [Paras 21, 29].

Forensic Evidence – Digital Birth Certificates Found – Bangladeshi Origin Suspected – Digital documents retrieved from the applicant’s phone include birth certificates showing Bangladeshi place of birth – Held: The explanation offered by the applicant at this stage is insufficient – Investigation needed to verify source and authenticity [Paras 3, 7, 23-25].

National Security Concerns – Real Risk of Absconding or Tampering with Evidence – Seriousness of Charges Considered – Allegations involve misuse of national identification systems and potential links to wider illegal immigration networks – Held: Given seriousness of offences and applicant’s capability to recreate false identity, bail at this stage would pose serious risk to investigation and national interest [Paras 27-28, 30].

Investigation Pending – UIDAI and Government Authorities Yet to Verify Documents – Ongoing Investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS – The Court noted that identity verification and forensic analysis are still in progress – Held: Bail cannot be granted until crucial investigative steps are completed [Paras 4, 26, 30].

Decision – Bail Denied – Liberty to Apply Again – Regular bail application rejected – However, liberty granted to revive the request if the trial does not conclude within one year [Paras 31-32].

Civil Law - Parentage and Paternity – Right of Child to Know Identity – DNA Test Ordered - Plaintiff, now a major, filed a suit asserting he is the biological son of the petitioner and sought a declaration to that effect – The trial court allowed his application for DNA test under Section 75(e) and Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC – Held: When the mother admits the relationship and the child claims paternity, there exists an “eminent need” to determine truth – Right to privacy of the petitioner cannot override the child’s right to identity .

Section 112 Evidence Act – Presumption of Legitimacy Inapplicable – Suit by Child Post Majority – Section 112 Not a Bar - The Court held that the presumption under Section 112 does not apply where a child, post attaining majority, approaches the Court to assert paternity – Especially when the mother supports the child’s claim and there is implied access between the parties outside of valid wedlock.

DNA Testing – Balancing of Interests – Use of Police Force Disallowed - While upholding the trial court’s order allowing the DNA test, the High Court disapproved the direction for use of police force to compel sample collection – Held: Defendant No.1 cannot be forcibly subjected to DNA testing, but adverse inference may be drawn by the trial court in case of non-compliance Decision – Revision Dismissed with Modification – DNA Test Permitted Without Police Force - The Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order directing DNA test of the petitioner, but modified it to disallow use of police force – Trial Court to consider implications of refusal to undergo testing at the appropriate stage .

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Jurisdiction – Judicial Review under Articles 226/227 – Scope of Intervention Limited – The writ appeal challenged the Single Bench’s interference with an arbitral tribunal’s order under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act – Held: High Court’s intervention under Article 226/227 is impermissible unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or bad faith – The tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in deciding the nature of the agreement – Interference unjustified [Paras 1, 6-7, 18-19, 24-25].

Nature of Agreement – Sale vs. Agreement for Sale – Interpretation by Tribunal Final – The respondent claimed the agreement was a sale deed and thus liable for higher stamp duty under Article 23 – The tribunal held it was an agreement for sale and not a conveyance – Held: Interpretation of contractual clauses is within arbitral tribunal’s exclusive domain – Court should not substitute its view unless the finding is perverse or without jurisdiction [Paras 3-4, 20-23].

Stamp Act – Stampability Dispute – Tribunal Empowered to Decide – Arbitral tribunal rejected the plea of insufficient stamping raised belatedly based on N.N. Global judgment – Held: The tribunal’s finding that the agreement did not attract duty under Article 23 is not demonstrably perverse – Impounding was not warranted – Writ Court erred in substituting its view [Paras 6-7, 21-24].

Arbitration Framework – Challenge to Section 16 Orders – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Section 37 of the Act does not provide for appeal against rejection of a Section 16 plea – Such orders can only be challenged after the final award under Section 34 – Held: Entertaining a writ petition against a Section 16 order undermines the arbitration process – High Courts must discourage such challenges [Paras 13-17].

Extraordinary Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Only in Exceptional Cases – The Court reiterated that judicial review over arbitral orders should be exercised only in rare cases involving bad faith, perversity, or inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: No such ground existed in the present matter – Single Bench exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Interference by Single Bench Set Aside – The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Bench and restored the arbitral tribunal’s order – Held: Tribunal’s finding on stampability and nature of contract was within its jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, no costs [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law - Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Fresh Evidence Not Mandatory – Application Allowed Based on PW1’s Testimony – The petitioners were previously declared innocent by SIT and placed in Column 2 of the challan – Held: Trial court rightly exercised discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on examination-in-chief of complainant (PW1) implicating the petitioners – No need for cross-examination at this stage – Summoning valid [Paras 2, 4, 7-9].

Investigative Finding – Not Binding on Court – SIT's Declaration of Innocence Does Not Preclude Summoning – The SIT had declared six accused including the petitioners as innocent relying on alibi supported by CCTV and CDRs – Held: Investigative findings are not final and cannot override the power of the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon persons named in evidence [Paras 3, 7-9].

Alibi – To Be Decided at Trial – Petitioners' Plea of Alibi Based on CCTV and CDRs – Held: Such plea is a matter of trial – Cannot bar summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. where eye-witnesses have implicated the petitioners in direct testimony – Trial court rightly summoned petitioners to face trial along with co-accused [Paras 4, 8-9].

Dismissal of Prior Application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – No Bar to Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Earlier application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. had been rejected and confirmed in revision – Held: Rejection under Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not preclude fresh summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on evidence adduced during trial [Paras 3-4, 8].

Summoning Based on Examination-in-Chief – Permissible – No Requirement of Cross-examination – Citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab – Held: Examination-in-chief is valid basis for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; Evidence need not be tested by cross-examination at this stage [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – No Infirmity in Order of Trial Court – Petitioners failed to show legal perversity or arbitrariness in trial court’s exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order upheld – Revision petition dismissed [Para 9].

NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity Case – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Rejected – Petitioners arrested with 203.306 kg of ganja filed for bail under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC and Sections 480 and 483 BNSS – Petitioners argued prolonged incarceration of 641 days infringed Article 21 rights – Court held that twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act were not satisfied – Held: Prolonged incarceration insufficient for bail in commercial quantity cases unless accused undergoes a substantial part of sentence or trial is unduly delayed beyond threshold – Petitioners' detention of 641 days not enough to override Section 37 limitations – Bail Denied [Paras 1-3, 6, 21-23].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial vs. Statutory Bar on Bail under NDPS Act – Petitioners cited Apex Court judgments supporting bail due to violation of right to speedy trial – Court distinguished those cases based on longer durations of custody (2.5+ years) – Held: While right to speedy trial is sacrosanct, the NDPS Act’s restrictions cannot be lightly ignored unless prolonged and unjustified delay is clearly shown – Mere delay insufficient without crossing statutory thresholds – Petitioners not entitled to conditional liberty overriding Section 37 [Paras 7-10, 21-22].

Judicial Discretion – Limitations under NDPS Act – Section 37 Must Be Strictly Complied With – Respondent relied on binding precedents mandating that courts must not grant bail in commercial quantity drug cases unless both conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are satisfied – Held: Section 37’s bar is mandatory and non-derogable unless twin conditions are cumulatively satisfied – Court not satisfied that petitioners are not guilty or unlikely to reoffend – Bail refused [Paras 11-20].

Final Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Trial Court Directed to Expedite Trial – Court dismissed the bail petition due to non-fulfillment of statutory requirements – Directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months in accordance with law [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Non-Bailable Warrant and Proclamation – Simultaneous Issuance Impermissible – Orders Quashed – Trial Court issued NBWA and proclamation against petitioner without prior proof of absconding or service of summons – Held: Such simultaneous issuance violates Sections 82 and 87 CrPC – Proclamation must follow failed execution of warrant based on material satisfaction – Orders set aside [Paras 9–10, 17].

Absconding Accused – Legal Requirements for Declaration – No Proof of Knowledge – Action Unjustified - Court held that before issuing proclamation, evidence must exist showing that the accused knew of the warrant and still absconded – No such material existed in this case – Action under Section 82 CrPC not sustainable [Para 10].

Issuance of NBWA – Must Be Based on Material Satisfaction – Absent in Record - Trial Court did not demonstrate satisfaction that petitioner was evading summons or that summons were duly served – No proof police visited correct address – Issuance of NBWA found to be mechanical and in violation of judicial standards laid in Inder Mohan Goswami and Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin – [Paras 11–14].

Procedural Impropriety – Consequential Proceedings Also Invalid – Fundamental Rule - Court reiterated that if initial action is void in law, all subsequent steps fall through – All orders post 23.02.2023 held to be vitiated and quashed [Para 15].

Voluntary Appearance – Liberty Balanced with Compliance – Relief Granted - Petitioner expressed willingness to appear and submit to jurisdiction – Court directed appearance before Trial Court by 31.08.2025 and held NBWA should not obstruct such voluntary appearance – Bail to be considered on merits [Paras 16–18].

Civil Revision - Court Fee – Maintainability of Revision by Defendant – Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn – The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of improper court fee – Held: As per settled law, revision against decisions on court fee at the instance of the defendant is not maintainable – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the plea at trial stage [Paras 1-2, 5].

Jurisdiction – Objection on Valuation and Court Fee – To Be Considered During Trial – Petitioners permitted to withdraw revision and pursue objections during trial – Held: Plea of improper valuation and non-payment of ad valorem court fee raised in written statement shall be considered independently by trial court, uninfluenced by impugned order [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn – Liberty Granted – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise pleas in accordance with law at the stage of final adjudication – Trial court directed to consider the same de hors observations in impugned order [Para 5].

Labour Law - Workmen’s Compensation – Workmen’s Compensation Act  - Employer's Liability to Pay Interest – Condition in Insurance Policy Fabricated – Appeal Allowed – The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation directing them to pay interest on compensation amount, claiming the insurance company was liable – Held: The insurer relied on a condition printed in a post-2006 version of the policy that did not exist in the original 2005 policy – The Commissioner erred in exonerating the insurer based on a subsequently added clause – Insurer directed to pay interest along with compensation – Appeal allowed, impugned order modified [Paras 1-3, 6-10].

Insurance Law – Contractual Exemption from Interest – Not Retrospectively Applicable – Inadmissible Policy Document Disregarded – The Court held that although insurance companies can contractually exclude interest liability, the clause must exist in the policy in force at the time of the incident – Held: Clause 10 relied upon by the insurer was from a version of the policy printed in 2006, whereas the incident occurred in April 2005 – Such retrospective application not permissible – Policy terms introduced later cannot govern earlier contracts [Paras 5-7, 10].

Fraud on Court – Unauthorised Late Filing of Modified Policy Terms – Improper Procedure Followed – The insurer introduced a new policy document after evidence was closed, without notice to the appellants – Held: This act amounted to procedural impropriety – The Commissioner improperly relied on an unverified document which did not reflect the terms of the original policy issued in 2005 – Such reliance vitiated the order [Paras 3, 6-7, 10].

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Obligation to Pay Interest – No Exclusion in Original Policy – Liability Affirmed – The appellants produced the original policy showing only nine clauses, none excluding interest liability – Held: In the absence of a valid exclusion clause in the original policy, the insurer is bound to pay interest along with compensation under the Act – Commissioner’s finding to the contrary set aside [Paras 7, 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Insurer Directed to Pay Interest – Order Modified – The direction requiring the principal employer to pay interest is set aside – The insurance company is directed to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till deposit – Compliance, insofar as the first appellant is concerned, shall be through its Insolvency Resolution Professional [Paras 10, Conclusion].