Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Offences Against Minor – Repeated Assault and Blackmail – Custodial Interrogation Required – Application Rejected – FIR alleged repeated sexual assault of a minor girl between 2023–2025, facilitated by threats using secretly recorded videos and conspiracy with a co-accused – FIR supported by CDR data, municipal records, and victim’s statements – Applicant sought anticipatory bail citing delay in FIR, alleged consensual adolescent relationship, and alternative age documents – Court held that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant – Allegations of coercion and digital exploitation require thorough custodial investigation – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would hinder investigation and defeat the statutory protection under POCSO [Paras 1–7, 13–15, 18–19].

Minor’s Consent – Irrelevant under POCSO – Age Dispute Must Be Tried at Trial Stage – Court reaffirmed settled position that consent of minor under 18 has no legal relevance under POCSO – Attempt to portray relationship as consensual adolescent interaction rejected – Reliance placed on multiple precedents affirming that courts cannot dilute POCSO rigour at bail stage – Alleged inconsistencies in age documents to be examined during trial – Not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail [Paras 8–12].

Digital Evidence – Disappearing Message Platforms – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation at Nascent Stage – Allegations of blackmail through Snapchat and videos necessitate forensic analysis and metadata extraction – Devices yet to be recovered – Investigation in early stages, with risk of tampering and influence if bail granted – Court found custodial interrogation essential to secure evidence and protect minor victim [Paras 13–14, 21].

Precedents – Protective Approach in POCSO Cases – Anticipatory Bail to Be Exercised Sparingly – Court relied on Varun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Javed v. State, Prince Kumar Sharma v. State, Ram Kumar v. State, and Saiful Khan v. State – Reiterated that anticipatory bail must not be granted routinely in cases involving minors – Granting bail would send harmful societal message and jeopardise investigation [Paras 10–17].

Bail Jurisprudence – Liberty v. Investigation – Custodial Interrogation More Effective – Precedents emphasised that anticipatory bail differs fundamentally from post-arrest bail – Liberty of accused must be balanced against seriousness of offence and need for free, fair investigation – Courts must protect integrity of probe in sensitive POCSO matters [Paras 17, 22].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Court finds no ground to grant pre-arrest bail considering the seriousness of allegations, minor victim’s age, and need for custodial interrogation – Investigation must proceed without interference [Paras 18–19].

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal – Appellant Raj Bala convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for allegedly firing at injured Kailash during a group assault where another accused had fired fatal shot – Trial court relied on ocular evidence but injury report (Exh. Ka-20) showed no firearm injury – Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution’s version – Held: Common intention not proved – No evidence of premeditation, meeting of minds or active participation by appellant – Conviction under Section 34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–20, 25–30]

Evidence Law – Contradiction between Medical and Ocular Evidence – Medical report by PW-7 showed injuries were simple, caused by hard and blunt object – No X-ray report submitted for injury kept under observation – Doctor not certain about firearm involvement – Court held this contradiction casts serious doubt on prosecution’s case and undermines charge of firing by appellant [Paras 19–21, 26]

Presumption of Guilt – Mere Presence at Scene – Trial court erred in holding appellant guilty solely on her presence at the crime scene and alleged relationship with co-accused – Supreme Court precedents cited (Surendra Singh, Chandra Pratap Singh) reiterate that presence alone, without proven common intention, is not enough to invoke Section 34 IPC [Paras 15, 24, 27–30]

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Court found prosecution failed to establish key ingredients for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC – Absence of overt act, lack of evidence of firearm use by appellant, and doubt regarding motive led to acquittal – Court set aside conviction and sentence, extended benefit of doubt to appellant [Paras 33–38]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Raj Bala under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 36–39]

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Restoration of Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed on 25.11.2019 for non-removal of defects despite peremptory order dated 14.10.2019 – Petitioners filed application to condone delay of 2096 days in seeking restoration – Plea that mother was conducting litigation and failed to inform sons held implausible – Petitioner No.1 had earlier deposed as DW-1 stating he managed the case – Held: No sufficient cause shown for condoning long delay – Delay not condoned – Application dismissed [Paras 2–8]

Restoration – Dismissal for Default – Non-removal of Defects – Counsel for appellants was present and heard at time of dismissal – Case not dismissed for non-appearance but for failure to comply with Court’s directions – Plea that counsel’s name was missing from cause list rejected – Court found no justifiable explanation for non-compliance [Paras 5–6]

Litigation Conduct – Implausibility of Explanation – Petitioners’ claim that their elderly mother managed litigation without informing adult sons found baseless – Particularly in light of petitioner’s own prior admission under oath of conducting case himself – Held: Such justification cannot support condonation under law [Para 7]

Decision: Delay of 2096 days not condoned – Application for restoration dismissed – CMAPL also dismissed as consequence.

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Attempt to Murder – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Complainant and wife allegedly assaulted by accused using knife and iron pipes – Injuries confirmed by medical officer but contradictions in witness accounts regarding time, identity, mode of assault, and absence of key eyewitness (son) examined – Prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused properly in FIR – Evidence of independent eyewitness Kantibhai found unreliable due to prior connection with complainant – Doctor’s evidence contradicted claim of indoor treatment and severity of injuries – Investigating Officer admitted no seizure of clothes or FSL report of weapons – No proof of caste identity or use of caste-based slurs – Held: Serious inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative gaps justify trial court's acquittal – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court in Acquittal Appeals – Principles Restated – Appellate Court can reappreciate evidence but must exercise caution and respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be reversed only when judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence or leads to manifest miscarriage of justice – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable one based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 7–8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.11.1999 in Atrocity Case No. 89 of 1996 confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Criminal Law – Murder – Identification of Accused – Acquittal – Appellant Bhola convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly firing at deceased Rakesh Kumar during a late-night assault – FIR did not name Bhola – Appellant identified after two-month delay in test identification parade – Held: Test identification not reliable due to unexplained delay and prior acquaintance between witnesses and accused – Conviction based solely on such identification is unsafe – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 14–29]

Evidence Law – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Appellant arrested 36 days after incident – TIP held two months post-arrest without explanation – Witnesses familiar with accused from nearby village – No corroborating evidence or motive established – Held: Delay vitiates credibility of TIP, making it insufficient for conviction [Paras 18–23, 26–27]

Criminal Trial – Acquittal of Co-accused – No Specific Allegations – Other co-accused named in FIR and against whom motive was alleged were acquitted – Appellant not named, no motive proved – Held: Conviction of appellant alone without consistent or independent proof unsustainable – Trial court erred in relying on doubtful testimony and inconclusive identification [Paras 7–11, 14–16, 28]

Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Applied ratio of Harinath v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14 – Held: Identification of accused known to witnesses, residing in nearby village, after significant delay, without explaining such delay, renders TIP unreliable – Applied in acquitting appellant [Paras 24, 28]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Bhola under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 30–31]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Custodial Violence Alleged – Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, sought quashing of complaint citing absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Complaint alleged illegal detention, physical assault, custodial abuse, and humiliation of complainant and her brother by police inside the police station – Held: Acts of custodial violence are wholly unrelated to discharge of official duties – No reasonable nexus between impugned acts and official duty – Hence, protection under Section 197 CrPC not attracted – Complaint not barred for want of sanction [Paras 12–23]

Official Duty – Scope of Section 197 CrPC – Reasonable Connection Test – Law reiterated that for the protection under Section 197 CrPC to apply, the act must be reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty – Mere fact that the accused is a public servant is not sufficient – Assault, custodial beating, or abuse inside lock-up fall outside the ambit of official functions – No protection when police officer exceeds authority and commits abuse without lawful justification [Paras 14–22]

Judicial Precedent – Custodial Violence – Supreme Court Rulings – Reiterated that custodial violence is unconstitutional and not protected by Section 197 CrPC – Cited: P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000) 8 SCC 131 – D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 – Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87 – Dr. S.M. Mansoori v. Surekha Parmar 2023 SCC OnLine SC 436 – Held: Protection under Section 197 does not extend to illegal acts of torture or abuse inside police station [Paras 16–20]

Magistrate's Power – Cognizance and Recall – Magistrate has no power to recall summoning order under Section 204 CrPC – No review jurisdiction under CrPC – Relief, if any, lies under Section 482 CrPC – Findings upheld in light of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal AIR 2004 SC 4674 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 4711 [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint against petitioner not barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Trial to proceed as per law.

Civil Law - Partition – Joint Family Property – Claim by Daughters – Dismissal of Suit – Plaintiffs (daughters) sought 1/7th share in ancestral and purchased properties claiming fraudulent alienation by brother (Defendant No.1) – Courts below found that partition of ancestral property had occurred in 1966 via registered deed – Plaintiffs failed to challenge partition or subsequent settlement/consolidation records despite knowledge – Held: No co-parcenary or joint ownership subsisted – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 5–10, 17–18].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 6 – Reopening of Partition – Not Permissible – Partition occurred prior to 20.12.2004 – Plaintiffs relied on amended Section 6 to seek reopening – Held: Explanation to Section 6 bars reopening of partitions effected before 2005 amendment – Appeal court correctly held that plaintiffs’ claim not maintainable on this ground [Paras 10, 22].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Article 59 – Plaintiffs alleged cause of action arose in 2013 when brother threatened to sell property – However, settlement and consolidation records were finalized in 1977 and 1982 and never challenged – No specific plea or proof of date of knowledge of RORs – Held: Vague assertion of threat in 2013 insufficient – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 59 and 110 of Limitation Act [Paras 18, 22].

Civil Procedure – Non-joinder of Parties – Legal Heirs of Other Branch Not Necessary – Defendants argued that non-joinder of successors of common ancestor’s second son rendered suit defective – Held: Plaintiffs confined claim to properties allotted to their own father’s branch – No relief sought against other branch – Non-joinder not fatal [Para 17].

Civil Courts’ Jurisdiction – Bar under Consolidation and OEA Laws – Validity of Settlement and OEA Proceedings – Plaintiffs sought to invalidate RORs and settlements finalized decades earlier – Held: Section 59 of OCH & PFL Act and bar under OEA Act applicable – None of the exceptions laid down in Gulzar Khan v. Commissioner of Consolidation, 1993 (II) OLR 194, attracted – Civil court has no jurisdiction to re-open finalized consolidation or OEA decisions [Paras 18, 21, 22].

Sale Deed – Challenge to Alienation by Co-sharer – Defendant No.1 sold Schedule-B land to Defendant No.3 in 2012 – Plaintiffs sought cancellation alleging lack of consent – Held: Defendant No.1 had exclusive title as per RORs and earlier partition – Sale valid – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 19–20, 22].