UAPA – Bail – Prima Facie Accusation Not Made Out – Section 43-D(5) – Appellant arrested for alleged links with banned terrorist organizations and accused of maintaining accounts for drug and arms smuggling operations – Prosecution relied only on co-accused’s disclosure and vague secret information – No recovery made from appellant – No material corroborating disclosure – Held: Accusation not prima facie true – Bail cannot be denied solely based on vague, uncorroborated claims [Paras 14-15].

Right to Speedy Trial – Long Incarceration – Delay in Trial – Appellant in custody for nearly 3 years – Only 3 out of 39 witnesses examined – Trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Long pre-trial custody and delay in proceedings violate Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent continued deprivation of liberty [Paras 16-17].

Constitutional Courts – Power to Grant Bail Despite Statutory Bar – UAPA – Supreme Court jurisprudence in K.A. Najeeb, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen and others reiterated – Held: Constitutional Courts can override statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) if trial is unduly delayed or rights under Article 21 are violated – Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail [Paras 15, 17-21].

Parity – Bail to Similarly Placed Co-Accused – Appellant’s co-accused Lovepreet Singh and Sukhjinder Singh granted regular bail in similar circumstances – Held: Parity a relevant factor in bail decisions – No justification to deny bail to appellant when similarly situated co-accused are on bail [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned bail rejection order set aside – Appellant ordered to be released on regular bail with stringent conditions – Clarification that observations are limited to bail and not on merits [Paras 23-27].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Cognizance under Sections 427, 448, 294, and 506-B IPC – Petitioner sought quashing of cognizance order passed by JMFC, Panna, which was affirmed in revision – Held: Trial Court rightly took cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC based on prima facie evidence from complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC – However, ingredients of offences under Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside – Petition partly allowed [Paras 1, 2, 25 to 29].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Exercise of power to quash cognizance – Petitioner contended that dispute was purely civil regarding property and false complaint was filed to pressurize her – High Court held that ingredients for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC made out from complaint and supporting statements – At cognizance stage, sufficiency for conviction not required to be tested – Prima facie allegations sufficient to proceed – No abuse of process shown – Invocation of Section 482 CrPC for quashing cognizance refused for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC [Paras 3 to 5, 23 to 25].

Criminal Procedure – Issuance of Process – Section 204 CrPC – Principles reiterated – Magistrate is only required to see if sufficient ground exists to proceed – Not necessary to record detailed reasons – Detailed scrutiny of evidence or defence not required at this stage – Relying on Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 and Deepak Gaba (2023) 3 SCC 423 – Held: Magistrate rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 204 for offences prima facie made out [Paras 8 to 10, 22].

Police Investigation – Enquiry Report under Section 202 CrPC – Delay and Gaps – Police enquiry report submitted nearly two years after incident claimed no cognizable offence committed – However, no spot panchnama, inspection report, or supporting documentation produced – No notice given to complainant to produce witnesses – Report based solely on accused’s version without reasoning for discarding complainant’s version – Held: Enquiry report lacks evidentiary value to negate occurrence of incident [Paras 13 to 19].

Penal Code – Section 427 IPC – Mischief – Breaking of wall causing ₹50,000 loss alleged – Petitioner allegedly demolished complainant’s wall with help of laborers – Incident witnessed by others – Prima facie ingredients of mischief made out – Cognizance justified [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Section 506-B IPC – Criminal Intimidation – Threat to kill with firearm alleged – Specific allegation in complaint and supporting statements – Consistent testimony from complainant and witnesses – Held: Prima facie offence made out under Section 506-B – Cognizance upheld [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Sections 448 and 294 IPC – No Prima Facie Case – Mere trespass or entry not made out in context of wall breaking – No specific abusive words mentioned in complaint – Alleged obscenities not detailed or supported sufficiently – Held: Ingredients of Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside [Paras 20, 21, 26, 27].

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Allegation of property dispute being given colour of criminal case – Court held that complaint disclosed criminal intent beyond civil dispute – Prima facie case of criminal trespass and intimidation made out independently – Mere pendency of civil suit not ground to quash criminal proceedings – Held: No misuse of criminal process proved [Paras 3, 4, 5, 23].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Sections 448 and 294 IPC set aside – Cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC upheld – Proceedings to continue for these offences [Paras 27 to 29].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Drug Overdose Death – Section 304 IPC – Petitioner accused of causing death of friend by administering excessive intoxicants – Investigation revealed death due to overdose, but unclear whether consumption was voluntary or forced – No criminal antecedents – Petitioner in custody for over two years and five months – Held: Pre-trial incarceration cannot become punishment – Prolonged custody coupled with uncertain trial timeline justifies release on bail [Paras 7–12].

Bail – Article 21 – Right to Personal Liberty – Delay in Trial – Court emphasized that detention of undertrial prisoners for indefinite periods violates Article 21 – Refusal of bail despite long custody risks irreparable loss of liberty – Bail is the rule, jail the exception – Reiterated principles from Hussainara Khatoon and Gudikanti Narasimhulu line of cases [Para 11].

Bail Conditions – Reformative and Proportionate Approach – Bail granted subject to strict conditions: furnishing personal and surety bonds or fixed deposit of ₹10,000; surrender of firearms; no contact with victim’s family or witnesses until completion of evidence; compliance with all statutory obligations – Violation to entail cancellation of bail – Court relied on Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 INSC 735, emphasizing proportionality and purpose-driven bail conditions [Paras 14–24].

Investigation – Nature of Allegations – FIR disclosed that deceased died of drug overdose after consuming intoxicant with petitioner and friends in hotel – Prima facie evidence of association but no clarity on compulsion or intent – Pre-trial custody already substantial – Continued incarceration unjustified [Paras 3–9].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on regular bail on furnishing bonds or fixed deposit of ₹10,000 to satisfaction of the concerned court – Subject to compliance with conditions including non-tampering of evidence, non-contact with witnesses, and surrender of firearms – State or victim entitled to seek cancellation upon breach or repetition of offence – Petition allowed [Paras 13–27].

Criminal Law  – Quashing of FIR and Charge Sheet – Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Proceedings Without Court’s Concurrence Illegal – FIR registered by CBI against petitioner A.G. Ponmanickavel, a former IGP of Idol Wing and Court-appointed Special Officer, based on complaints by R2 (Kader Batcha), who himself was accused in prior idol theft cases – Allegations pertain to fabrication of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and creation of false records in judicial proceedings – Held: Offences alleged fall under Sections 193, 195A, 196, 211 IPC (now corresponding BNS provisions), which are covered under the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. – No complaint from competent court nor prior sanction obtained – Prosecution is without jurisdiction – FIR and charge sheet quashed as they violate mandatory statutory procedure [Paras 28, 31–38, 52, 70, 73, 79, 93, 112–114].

CBI Investigation – Legality of Action Contrary to High Court Orders – Idol Wing Investigation – High Court in W.P. Nos. 20392 & 20963 of 2018 had appointed the petitioner as Special Officer post-superannuation, affirming his service until conclusion of idol theft cases – Specific direction issued that no action or enquiry against petitioner or his team shall be taken without prior concurrence of the Court – CBI proceeded to register FIR, conduct preliminary enquiry, and file charge sheet without seeking court’s approval – Held: Investigation conducted in violation of binding judicial order – Entire process including FIR and charge sheet is in contravention of court-monitored framework and liable to be quashed [Paras 17, 55, 58, 105].

FIR and Charge Sheet – Abuse of Process – False Allegations by Interested Party – Complaint initiated by R2, who was earlier implicated by the petitioner during his tenure as Idol Wing head – Allegations emerged after lapse of several years and during pendency of related proceedings in which R2 sought to reverse the course of prosecution – Held: The timing and nature of allegations raise serious suspicion – Prima facie appears as a counterblast to prior official actions taken by petitioner – FIR and charge sheet amount to malicious prosecution and abuse of legal process – Process of law cannot be used as tool of harassment [Paras 19, 76, 94–96, 98, 106–108].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Trial – Preliminary Enquiry Report Withheld – Petitioner denied access to preliminary enquiry report filed by CBI before Magistrate – Magistrate rejected request citing pendency of investigation – No privilege or confidentiality claimed – Held: Refusal violates right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – In special circumstances where FIR stems from prior court-directed proceedings, preliminary materials forming basis of FIR cannot be withheld – High Court erred in refusing to furnish the report – Accused must be provided meaningful opportunity to defend [Paras 60–63, 66].

Criminal Procedure – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Court’s Exclusive Domain – Fabrication of Evidence – Alleged fabrication and falsification of evidence pertain to judicial proceedings – As per Section 195 r/w 340 Cr.P.C., court whose proceedings were allegedly misused must first form an opinion and file a complaint – Police or CBI cannot suo motu register FIR or investigate such offences – Held: Cognizance of alleged offences without prior action from the competent court is barred – Charge sheet filed in contravention of statutory safeguard and non-est in law [Paras 31–38, 52, 70, 73, 79].

Distinct and Integral Offences – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – CBI invoked Sections 167, 218, 506 IPC to argue these are separable from core offences attracting bar – Held: All allegations form part of same transaction involving alleged misuse of judicial process – Charges not distinct or severable – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. applies in toto – Prosecution cannot split charges to circumvent statutory restriction [Paras 73, 79, 93, 106].

Judicial Precedents – Reiterated – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is jurisdictional and not merely procedural – Supreme Court has consistently held that where offences relate to fabricating evidence in judicial proceedings, FIR is incompetent without complaint by the court – Applied: Iqbal Singh Marwah, Sachida Nand Singh, Devendra Kumar, State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, Bhajan Lal, S.P. Velumani – Held: Present case falls squarely within protected domain of Section 195 – FIR and charge sheet quashed in entirety [Paras 44–48, 72, 106–107].

Prosecution Launched Without Fresh Material – Mala Fide Intent – No new independent material surfaced after 2018 Division Bench judgment affirming petitioner’s integrity – Petitioner's performance as Special Officer was court-monitored, and he had recovered over 1125 idols, including from foreign jurisdictions – Court held that any new allegation would be presumed to be motivated unless vetted by the court – CBI produced no such vetted material – Held: No prima facie case disclosed – Investigation appears driven by collateral motives [Paras 13–14, 34, 76, 107].

Decision: Crl.O.P. No. 4583 of 2025 allowed – FIR No. RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024 and all proceedings pursuant thereto including charge sheet quashed – Held to be in violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C., judicial orders, and principles of natural justice – Crl.O.P. No. 2263 of 2025 rendered infructuous and closed [Para 115].

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Striking Off Defence – Recall Allowed – Petitioner’s defence struck off under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for failure to file written statement – Delay attributed to counsel’s engagement in municipal election work – Held: In non-commercial disputes, timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory – Petitioner not to suffer for counsel’s lapse – One last opportunity granted to file written statement with costs of ₹5,000 [Paras 2–3, 7–13].

Court’s Discretion – Non-Commercial Suit – Timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Reiterated that in non-commercial cases, courts retain discretion to condone delay – Supreme Court in Desh Raj v. Balkishan, (2020) 2 SCC 708 and Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 applied – Held: Procedural laws must be applied to advance justice, not defeat it [Paras 3, 8, 11–13].

Wrong by Counsel – No Prejudice to Litigant – Litigant Should Not Suffer – Court emphasized settled principle that party should not be penalized for counsel’s mistake – Reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad, (2010) 1 SCC 391 and Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 [Paras 8–9].

Distinction from Commercial Disputes – Ratio of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi distinguished as inapplicable – Held: That judgment pertained to Consumer Protection Act where statutory timelines are mandatory – Not applicable to civil suits governed by unamended CPC [Para 10].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order striking off defence set aside – Petitioner permitted one last opportunity to file written statement on 03.10.2025 upon payment of ₹5,000 to High Court Employees Welfare Association – If hearing does not take place on 03.10.2025, one effective opportunity to be granted on adjourned date [Paras 13–16].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Civil Suit Pending – Petitioner challenged the review order passed by Collector under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, concerning mutation of lease deed – Review application was filed after 25 years – Petitioner had already filed a civil suit questioning the legality of the same order dated 26.02.2008 – Held: Since the civil suit is pending and challenges the same order, writ petition not maintainable – Non-disclosure of pending civil suit in writ petition amounts to suppression of material fact – Dismissal of writ petition will not affect pending civil suit [Paras 2-4, 6-7].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Applicability to Writ Petitions – Court relied upon State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, (2023) 15 SCC 273 and M.J. Exporters (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2021) 13 SCC 543 – Held: Principles of constructive res judicata under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC apply to writ petitions – If same relief is sought through civil suit or earlier writ petition, fresh writ is barred unless permission to refile is taken or justified with full disclosure [Para 5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Pending civil suit shall continue on its own merits.

Criminal Law – Gangsters Act – Proceedings Based on Acquitted Base Case – Applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act based on a solitary FIR in which he was later acquitted – Held: Once the accused is acquitted in the base case forming the foundation of gang chart, continuation of prosecution under the Gangsters Act becomes unsustainable – Gangster proceedings quashed as per ratio in Farhana v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 118 and other High Court precedents [Paras 3, 5-6].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Ruling – Court relied on binding precedent of Farhana (Supreme Court) to hold that exoneration in the primary case bars continued prosecution under the Gangsters Act – Also followed prior rulings of Allahabad High Court in Salim @ Piyaoo, Jai Prakash, and Sartaj cases [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire trial proceedings in Gangsters Act case – Clarified that authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings based on any other future or independent cases [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Application allowed – Charge-sheet dated 10.03.2023, cognizance order dated 05.04.2023, and entire proceedings in Session Case No. 249 of 2023 under Gangsters Act quashed as against applicant – Liberty reserved for authorities to initiate action in future based on other grounds or cases [Paras 6-8].

Civil Law - Specific Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Specific Performance – Sale of Immovable Property – Agreement of Sale – Time not Essence – Plaintiff demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness by making multiple payments, issuing legal notices, and attending Sub-Registrar’s office – Defendants received consideration even after agreed deadline of 02.04.2009 – Execution of two registered sale deeds by Defendant No.1 after deadline showed parties mutually extended time – Held: Time not essence of contract – Plaintiff was always ready and willing – Trial Court rightly decreed specific performance [Paras 39–51, 52–66]

Contract Law – Binding Effect of Agreement – Defendant No.1 did not sign original agreement (Ex.A.1) but later accepted sale consideration and executed two registered sale deeds in plaintiff’s favour – Conduct estopped him from denying knowledge or liability under agreement – Held: Defendant No.1 bound by conduct and cannot approbate and reprobate – Specific performance rightly ordered against him [Paras 67–70]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability – Cancellation of Agreement – Defendants' plea that plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable without seeking declaration to set aside cancellation of agreement made in reply notice (Ex.B.4) – Held: Plea not raised in pleadings or trial – No forfeiture clause in agreement – Unilateral cancellation invalid in absence of contractual provision – Such plea cannot be entertained for first time in appeal – Trial Court’s decree upheld [Paras 71–80]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 26.11.2013 in O.S. No. 46 of 2010 confirmed – Plaintiff given one month to pay remaining balance sale consideration of ₹12,76,000 – Defendants directed to execute registered sale deed within two months thereafter – No costs [Para 81].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Alleged Inflammatory Social Media Message – Communal Harmony – FIR registered under Sections 299 and 353(3) BNS alleging that petitioner circulated an inflammatory WhatsApp message after arrest of his brother under the Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Petitioner contended that the message merely expressed resentment over brother’s arrest and faith in judiciary – No inflammatory content per se – Held: Though the message did not explicitly refer to religion, its underlying tone conveyed that the petitioner’s brother was targeted for belonging to a particular religious community – Such message, by its implication, prima facie capable of promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between communities – May not attract Section 353(3) BNS but falls within scope of Section 353(2) BNS – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 7–9].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Judicial Interference under Article 226 – FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence – Quashing at incipient stage would foreclose legitimate investigation – No grounds made out for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with investigation in Case Crime No. 421 of 2025 – Matter to proceed in accordance with law.