Anticipatory Bail – Section 13(2), Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act - Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - Cow Slaughter Allegations – Habitual Offender – Bail Denied – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR alleging transport of cows for slaughter in contravention of Haryana Cow Protection laws – Petitioner was apprehended at the spot, and cows were found tied in cruel conditions – Held: Seriousness of offence, moral implications, and criminal antecedents disqualify petitioner from discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Judicial Discretion – Anticipatory Bail Not Sanctuary for Repeat Offenders – Court stressed anticipatory bail is a protective remedy, not meant to shield habitual offenders – Past bail in three similar FIRs misused by petitioner – Supreme Court’s dictum in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) relied upon to deny relief where prior conduct showed disrespect for judicial leniency.

Social and Constitutional Context – Cow Protection – Public Morality – Citing State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, Court noted cow protection laws reflect constitutional directives and societal ethos – Offences of cow slaughter strike at constitutional morality and public order – Bail jurisprudence must balance liberty with social stability.

Parity Argument – Bail to Co-Accused Not Ground for Anticipatory Bail – Petitioner claimed parity with co-accused Aman who was granted regular bail – Rejected – Held: Co-accused was arrested, investigated, and released later – Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail with active involvement and prior record – No parity exists.

Decision – Grave Offence, Prior Record – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Considering petitioner’s role, seriousness of offence, and likelihood of reoffending, petition dismissed – No protection under Section 482 BNSS extended.

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction – Robbery, Use of Deadly Weapon, and Recovery – Section 394/397/411/34 IPC & Section 25 Arms Act – Conviction Upheld – The appellant challenged his conviction for robbery and allied offences, arguing improper recovery, lack of proof of mobile phone ownership, and misapplication of Section 397 IPC in conjunction with Section 34 – The Court found that consistent and credible ocular testimony of the complainant (PW-5) and the injured witness (PW-7), supported by medical evidence and recovery of weapon and property, established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The specific role of inflicting stab injury was attributed to the appellant, and evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 2-10, 11, 13].

Section 397 IPC – Applicability and Use of Deadly Weapon – Legal Principles Restated – The Court reaffirmed that use of a deadly weapon, even during escape with stolen property, attracts Section 397 IPC, as per established precedent in Asif v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 270 – The sequence of events, including the stabbing during the course of robbery and escape, squarely attracted Section 397 – Section 397 can operate even if co-accused actually snatched the property, where the appellant used the weapon to facilitate the offence [Para 10].

Reduction of Sentence – No Leniency Warranted in Light of Past Convictions and Gravity – The appellant’s plea for reduction of sentence to the statutory minimum was rejected – The Court noted the appellant’s previous convictions and involvement in other pending cases – Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the absence of mitigating factors, no interference with sentence was warranted – Prayer for reduction of sentence rejected [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – The appeal was dismissed; conviction and order on sentence were upheld – Directions issued for compliance by jail authorities and trial court [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Revision – Maintainability Without Surrender – Permissible – Petitioner convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI challenged concurrent findings of guilt without surrendering – Held: In absence of specific High Court Rule mandating surrender, revision petition and application for suspension of sentence are maintainable even if convict has not surrendered – Rule of law does not permit judiciary to create procedural fetters where legislature is silent [Paras 9-12].

Suspension of Sentence – Discretionary Relief – Not Automatic – Although revision maintainable without surrender, Court clarified suspension of sentence is not a matter of right – Desirability depends on petitioner’s conduct, bona fides, and explanation for absence – Mere maintainability does not guarantee relief – Such petitions must pass test of judicial discretion [Paras 11-12, 14].

Judicial Discipline – Evading Process of Law – Court’s Discretion Critical – High Court emphasized distinction between “maintainability” and “entertainability” – A convict’s evasion or deliberate non-appearance to receive appellate judgment weakens case for suspension of sentence – Held: Admission of such petitions must not reward defiance or disrespect of judicial process [Paras 11-12].

Medical Grounds – Conditional Relief Granted – Petitioner claimed absence due to heart-related medical issues – Court accepted explanation and granted time to surrender – Directed petitioner to surrender before Trial Court by 18.08.2025 – Failure would authorize coercive steps – Petition to be listed thereafter for further hearing [Paras 13-14].

Final Directions – Time Granted to Surrender – Revision Petition Maintainable – Court allowed application seeking time to surrender and directed petitioner to do so by stipulated date – Matter to be listed for hearing on merits thereafter – No stay on sentence at this stage [Para 14].

Transgender & Intersex Persons Policy – Implementation & Reforms – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Court Directions Issued – In writ petition concerning rights of transgender persons, the Court noted with appreciation the State’s notification of the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025 – Considered community suggestions on horizontal reservation, representation in monitoring committees, marriage registration, recognition of domestic partnerships, and renaming of policy – Directed State to take early decision on reservation; ensure representation of trans women, trans men, and intersex persons in district/state committees; issue directions to Registrars for smooth marriage registration; and consider renaming policy to reflect transgender and intersex focus – Also urged framing of LGBQA+ policy at the earliest – Ordered relevant departments to file status reports on NCERT module and medical curriculum sensitisation – Matter posted for further orders [Paras 1-10, 14].

Reservation – Clause 3.7 of Policy – Court noted ambiguity on whether horizontal reservation in education and public employment is envisaged – Directed Government to decide to avoid repeated litigation [Para 4].

Monitoring Committees – Representation Mandated – Directed State to ensure district and state-level committees under the policy include at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person – Necessary notifications to be issued for effective functioning [Para 5].

Marriage of Transgender Persons – Apex Court Recognition – Directed State to issue instructions to Registrars for legal sanction and registration of such marriages in line with NALSA and Arunkumar rulings [Para 6].

Recognition of Domestic Partnerships – Suggested that State provide for deeds of familial association or civil unions to safeguard rights where succession laws are silent [Para 7].

Policy Title – Court observed that renaming to “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” may better reflect intent and community identity [Para 8].

Decision:Court issued directions to Government to consider and implement community suggestions, take decisions on reservation and policy amendments, ensure committee representation, and expedite framing of LGBQA+ policy – Status reports directed – Matter adjourned to 15.09.2025 for further orders [Paras 4-10, 14].

Matrimonial Dispute – Return of Gold Ornaments – Wife’s Claim Not Proved – Decree Set Aside – The wife alleged that 81 sovereigns of gold were misappropriated by the husband, including 75 sovereigns received at marriage – Held: Husband admitted only 22 sovereigns and produced documentary evidence (RC extract, receipts, account statements) proving jeep was purchased on hire purchase – Ext.B7 photo relied upon by wife was found unreliable – Wife failed to prove misappropriation – Decree for return of gold ornaments set aside [Paras 6-12].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Petition Filed as Counterblast – Rejected – OP for restitution was filed by wife after receiving notice in divorce petition – Conduct and chronology indicate lack of bona fides – Wife lodged complaint to husband’s superior officer and remained at parental home since 2008 – Her conduct not consistent with desire to resume cohabitation – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights reversed [Paras 13-14].

Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Long Separation and Unjust Accusations – Divorce Granted – Parties had been living separately since 2008 with no cohabitation thereafter – Wife accused husband before military superiors, despite evidence of financial support – Letters by husband reflected cordiality and intent to continue relationship – Relationship had irretrievably broken down – Held: Husband entitled to divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion [Paras 13-14].

Appreciation of Evidence – Family Courts Act – Evidence Act Not Applicable – Family Court erred in rejecting Ext.A3 RC extract despite certification by RTO – Ext.A4 series and Ext.A5 account statements corroborated hire purchase – Court held that standard of proof in family proceedings is liberal – Documentary evidence accepted [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Marriage Dissolved – Wife’s Claims Dismissed – Held: Husband’s petition for divorce allowed – Wife’s petitions for return of gold ornaments and restitution of conjugal rights dismissed – Family Court’s judgment set aside [Para 14].

Civil Law – Mandatory Injunction and Mesne Profits – Licensee Status – Appeal Dismissed - Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for mandatory injunction directing appellant to vacate premises and recovery of mesne profits – Appellant inducted as licensee by license deed dated 06.08.2014 at ₹1,800 per month – Continued unauthorized possession after expiry of license – Compromise executed on 07.11.2017 (Ex.P4) where appellant agreed to vacate by 31.12.2019 and pay enhanced compensation of ₹2,500 per month – Appellant alleged tenancy rights and claimed license deed and compromise obtained by fraud on blank papers – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts concurrently found appellant was licensee who failed to substantiate allegations of fraud and tenancy rights – Appeal dismissed holding appellant liable to vacate and pay mesne profits from date of suit till possession handed over – Held: Concurrent findings upheld, no substantial question of law arises; appeal without merit [Paras 3-11].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant's claim of tenancy and allegations of fraudulent execution of license deed rejected by both Courts below. Findings affirmed; appeal held meritless and accordingly dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Appointment Cancelled – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her appointment as Supervisor (Women) under ICDS on the ground that she had sufficient experience as an Anganwadi Worker – Court held that Advertisement No.03/2024 clearly stipulated eligibility for in-service Anganwadi Workers with 10 years of experience – Petitioner was serving as Forest Guard on the relevant date, thus not qualifying as “in-service” – Appointment found contrary to statutory rules – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Recruitment Process – Interpretation of Advertisement – No Ambiguity – Court held that the language of Advertisement No.03/2024 and Rule 23 of RICDS Rules clearly required the candidate to be an in-service Anganwadi Worker – The petitioner’s participation despite not being in service rendered her ineligible – There was no alteration or ambiguity in recruitment terms during or after the process [Paras 5, 9, 11].

Statutory Rules – Rule 23 & Schedule-II of RICDS Rules – Binding Force – Court emphasized that Rule 23 and Schedule-II mandate that 50% of Supervisor posts be filled from among in-service Anganwadi Workers – Appointment made in violation of statutory rules held void ab initio – Respondents acted within rights by cancelling appointment [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Precedents – Void Appointments – Relied Upon Supreme Court Rulings – Court relied on precedents such as Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh and State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan to reinforce that appointments made in breach of statutory rules are null from inception – Petitioner’s plea was therefore untenable [Paras 6, 12].

Misapplication of Advertisement – Fault of Applicant – No Relief – Court noted that petitioner was fully aware of eligibility criteria under Advertisement No.03/2024 yet chose to apply – It was not a case of misleading or changed conditions post-application – Her disqualification stemmed from her own ineligibility and not administrative unfairness [Para 13].

Final Judgment – Petition Lacked Merit – The writ petition was found devoid of legal merit and dismissed – Pending applications were disposed of accordingly [Para 14].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Attachment of Residential House – Section 60(c) CPC – Warrants Kept in Abeyance – Judgment debtor’s residential property earlier noted as exempt from attachment by Executing Court on 15.01.2025 – Subsequently, on 11.07.2025, same property ordered to be attached – Held: Once court had observed exemption, it could not review its own order in such manner – Petitioner directed to move recall application before Executing Court – Attachment order to remain in abeyance till next day if not already executed [Paras 4-10].

Procedure – Opportunity to Seek Recall – High Court refrained from adjudicating merits, leaving matter to Executing Court – Interim protection granted to prevent irreparable prejudice pending recall application [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Petition disposed of with liberty to seek recall; interim abeyance of warrants granted – No observations on merits [Paras 9-13].

Property Law - Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar – Section 16A of Apartment Act – Delegation of Powers under MCS Act – Jurisdiction Upheld – Petitioners contended that the Deputy Registrar lacked authority under Section 16A of the Apartment Act, as no express delegation existed – Held: Notification dated 24.11.2021 issued under Section 3 of the MCS Act conferred powers of the Registrar on the District Deputy Registrar of Pune City – Hence, order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar was within jurisdiction [Paras 3.1, 4, 17].

Interpretation of Section 10 of Apartment Act – Common Maintenance Charges – Proportionate Contribution Mandated – Petitioners challenged the directive to pay maintenance based on apartment size – Held: Deed of Declaration dated 29.07.2011 and statutory provisions under Sections 6 and 10 of the Apartment Act require owners to bear common expenses in proportion to their undivided interest – The clause explicitly provides for sharing expenses based on unit size – Equal maintenance practice by resolution is contrary to law and cannot override statute or registered deed [Paras 6-12, 14-17].

Validity of Deed of Declaration – Binding Nature of Registered Instruments – Obligation of Apartment Owners – Held: Deed of Declaration and Supplementary Deed are binding on all owners – Covenant in clause 8(XVIII) of the Declaration clearly provides a formula for sharing expenses based on area and contribution to maintenance corpus fund – Registered instrument must prevail unless modified through another registered document – Members cannot escape obligations under the Deed or the Apartment Act [Paras 6-9, 11, 14].

Equality Argument – Larger Flat Owners Not Entitled to Equal Charges – Rejected – Petitioners contended that larger flat owners did not enjoy more benefits in common areas – Held: Argument untenable – Larger apartments have greater value and higher undivided share; statutory scheme mandates proportionate contribution – Equal maintenance collection historically practiced cannot negate statutory obligation [Paras 10-12, 16-17].

Condonation of Prior Resolutions – Estoppel and Practice – No Defence Against Statutory Compliance – Petitioners argued that the general body resolutions permitted equal charges – Held: Past practice or resolutions cannot override provisions of the Apartment Act – Registered Deed of Declaration and statutory mandate must be followed – Petitioners have benefited from previous inequality but cannot now resist legal compliance [Paras 13, 15, 17].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Deputy Registrar and Co-operative Court Upheld – Held: Both orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.05.2022 are reasoned and consistent with the Apartment Act and the Deed of Declaration – Writ Petition fails – No interference warranted [Paras 17-19].