Criminal Law – Bail – Section 152 BNS – Social Media Post – Allegation of 'Pakistan Zindabad' post by applicant under a foreign national’s post – No material to show active promotion of secession or armed rebellion – Held: Section 152 BNS requires intentional incitement of secession or subversive activity – Mere expression of sentiment, even if offensive, does not fulfill statutory requirements – Bail justified in absence of prima facie intent to endanger sovereignty or unity [Paras 5-8].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Standards of Reasonable Interpretation – Apex Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held that speech must be judged on reasonable person standard – Court emphasizes liberty under Article 19(1)(a) and cautions against overbroad criminalization of speech on social media – Police must act within constitutional limits [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – No Criminal History – Long Trial Delay – Applicant in custody since May 2025 with no prior convictions – Court applies principle of presumption of innocence and right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Cites Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and highlights prison overcrowding – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial participation – Breach of conditions to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 10-12].

Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test Sought by Father – Request Denied – Maintenance Proceedings – Presumption of Legitimacy Upheld – Petitioner-husband challenged trial court’s refusal to order DNA testing of minor child during pendency of wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC – Held: No prima facie material produced by petitioner to rebut presumption under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Mere denial of paternity not sufficient – Long delay of over 12 years from divorce and 3 years after maintenance petition remains unexplained – Legal presumption of legitimacy applies [Paras 6, 25–28, 32, 34–35].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Test – Not a Routine Measure – Right to Privacy and Dignity Considered – DNA testing involves serious privacy implications – Court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on suspicion or as a shortcut to prove adultery – Child’s right to identity and dignity must be prioritised – DNA test not the only method to prove infidelity or lack of paternity – Courts must balance scientific tools with constitutional rights [Paras 18–22, 35–36].

Delay – Unexplained Silence of Petitioner – Conduct Impugns Credibility of Claim – Divorce was granted in 2012 and maintenance petition filed in 2021 – DNA test application filed only in 2025 – Court found no reasonable or acceptable explanation for delay – Silence for over a decade suggests ulterior motive to humiliate the respondent and delay maintenance proceedings [Paras 25, 34, 38].

Legal Presumption – Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Conclusive Proof of Paternity During Marriage – No Proof of Non-Access – Child born during valid marriage attracts statutory presumption of legitimacy – Husband failed to prove non-access during the relevant period – Law discourages unwarranted inquiries into paternity where marriage subsisted [Paras 26–28].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Right to Privacy – Courts Cautioned Against Intrusive Tests Without Justification – Referring to Supreme Court precedents (Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Aparna Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia), court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be directed unless strong prima facie case is made – Intrusive procedures like DNA testing impinge upon Article 20(3) and 21 – Such tests cannot be permitted to settle personal scores or as a weapon in matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–23, 29–31, 35–37].

Abuse of Process – DNA Petition Found Frivolous – Filed to Harass and Delay – Court found DNA application to be filed only to prolong proceedings and malign character of wife – Held: No legal justification shown to interfere with trial court order – Revision petition dismissed with observations on misuse of legal process [Paras 32, 38].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – No prima facie case made for DNA testing – No interference warranted with trial court’s well-reasoned order dated 12.06.2025 – No costs awarded – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Paras 38–40].

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Maintenance and Alternative Accommodation – Quantum Justified – Petitioner/husband challenged concurrent orders granting ₹2,500 per month as maintenance and ₹500 as rent for alternate accommodation to the wife under Sections 18 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act – Trial Court found wife to be unemployed and dependent – Maintenance deducted from husband’s army salary until retirement, later discontinued – Husband failed to disclose his pension or produce evidence of wife’s alleged independent income – Held: Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are reasoned, justified, and supported by material on record – Maintenance amount reasonable considering husband’s earning capacity and wife’s needs [Paras 6, 11–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC do not extend to reappreciation of evidence unless perversity or illegality is demonstrated – No such infirmity found in concurrent findings of lower Courts – Held: No grounds to interfere in well-reasoned orders passed below [Paras 9–10, 19].

Presumption of Capacity to Earn – Retired Army Personnel – Appellant-husband, aged 38 and ex-army personnel, presumed to be physically fit and employable – Argument of low pension unsupported by documents – Courts below rightly drew adverse inference for non-production of income details – Held: Capable of maintaining wife; statutory obligation continues despite retirement [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Judgment dated 10.04.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2011 and order dated 21.09.2011 in D.V.C. No. 16 of 2010 upheld – Interim orders vacated and pending applications disposed.

Criminal Writ - Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Continued Detention of Juvenile – Petitioner detained since 2017 in murder case – Claimed before Trial Court that he was a juvenile on date of offence (DOB: 13.12.2002) – Scholar register and Principal’s statement showed age as 14 years 3 months 19 days at time of offence – Trial Court failed to determine age as per Section 9(2) of JJ Act and instead referred matter to Juvenile Justice Board – Board declared petitioner juvenile vide order dated 15.05.2025 – Held: Board had no jurisdiction under Section 9(2) where claim raised before court – Order of Board is a nullity

Illegal Detention – Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – While initial detention may have been legal, subsequent detention becomes illegal after claim of juvenility is raised – Detention in jail violates Section 10(1) of JJ Act which prohibits lodging juvenile in jail – Present detention not supported by valid judicial order under JJ Act – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable despite judicial custody – Detention of juvenile in jail illegal and unconstitutional

Interpretation of JJ Act – Powers under Section 9 – Jurisdictional Error – When juvenility claim is made before a court under Section 9(2), only the court can determine age – Board can act only when person is produced before it under Section 10 or forwarded under Section 9(1) – Referral by Trial Court to Board without age determination is mechanical and without jurisdiction – Order of Board unenforceable

Relief – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Detenue lodged in Naini Central Jail since 2017 despite Board’s order and no other pending case – Continued detention beyond three years violates Section 18 of JJ Act – Held: Habeas corpus writ issued – Detenue to be released immediately – Trial Court directed to determine age per Section 9(2) and take further action as per JJ Act

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Habeas corpus issued – Detenue to be released from jail – Trial Court to determine age of detenue and, if found juvenile, proceed under JJ Act – If not juvenile, continue trial in accordance with law.

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law

Criminal Law – Rape – POCSO – Acquittal – Accused stepfather convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 POCSO for alleged repeated rape of 17-year-old stepdaughter over 4 years – FIR lodged by son of accused – Defence argued marriage with victim’s mother took place only in 2021, making 4-year timeframe implausible – Defence evidence and explanation under Section 313 CrPC not considered by Trial Court – Held: Failure to consider defence explanation and testimonies amounts to violation of fair trial – Conviction vitiated [Paras 6–8, 39–41, 51].

Sterling Witness – Test of Reliability – Contradictions – Victim claimed abuse over 4 years and marriage 8 years ago – Official records proved marriage occurred in 2021 – Statements under Section 164 CrPC materially inconsistent with trial testimony – Medical evidence only showed old hymenal tears – Held: Victim’s testimony lacked consistency and credibility – Not a “sterling witness” within meaning of Rai Sandeep – Conviction unsustainable without corroboration [Paras 19–23, 48–50].

Criminal Trial – Delay in FIR – Omission and Improvement – Delay of 4 years in reporting incidents – Serious omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements – Several facts surfaced only at trial – Held: Delay unexplained, coupled with improvements in evidence, rendered prosecution case doubtful – Reasonable doubt exists [Paras 11, 27, 48].

Defence Evidence – Equal Weightage – Section 313 CrPC – Explanation by accused that false case filed by son over property dispute supported by defence witnesses – Trial Court failed to evaluate this defence – Held: Non-consideration of material defence violates principles laid down in Reena Hazarika and Munshi Prasad – Conviction cannot stand [Paras 29–32, 39–45].

Prosecution Lapses – No Action Against Alleged Abettor – Victim alleged her mother abetted rape – No proceedings initiated against mother – Held: Selective prosecution and omission weakens prosecution case and raises credibility concerns [Paras 35–36, 44, 46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Trial Court judgment dated 22.11.2023 in Sessions Special Case No. 46 of 2022 quashed – Trial Court record to be returned [Paras 51–52].

Civil Writ - SARFAESI – Classification of MSME Account as NPA – RBI Guidelines – Petitioners, an MSME unit, challenged classification of loan as NPA without following RBI circulars dated 29.05.2015, 21.07.2016 and 17.03.2016 – Alleged denial of mandatory restructuring process under RBI framework – Held: No evidence that petitioners raised the issue of MSME protection before issuance of Section 13(2) notice or in reply – Prima facie, contention of lessee operations by third party supported by bank – Ext.P10 framework not mandatorily applicable absent revival potential – Writ jurisdiction not invoked in such disputed facts [Paras 7–9, 11]

Banking Law – Interest Hike – Usurious Charges – Petitioners alleged arbitrary hike of interest from 10% to 18.15% and imposition of penal interest for SMA classifications – Contended that interest manipulation violated Central Bank of India v. Ravindra ratio – Held: Issue requires adjudication on evidence – Not fit for determination under Article 226 at threshold stage [Paras 2.1, 4.3]

Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – DRT Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that writ is maintainable as challenge pertains to jurisdictional illegality in NPA classification – Held: Since bank has already acted under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act, and no prima facie illegality shown in NPA classification or denial of MSME framework, petitioner relegated to DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act – Writ dismissed with liberty [Paras 10–11]

CERSAI – Challenge to Mortgage Registration – Petitioners alleged absence of valid CERSAI registration under Section 26D SARFAESI Act – Bank produced documents showing registration of security interest – Held: No cause to interfere in writ jurisdiction on this ground [Para 2.4]

Disputed Facts – Lease to Third Party – Petitioners denied leasing operations to third party; bank relied on site visit photos and claimed unit was non-operational – Held: Disputed factual matrix regarding actual operations and eligibility under MSME revival framework not suitable for resolution under Article 226 – Left open for appropriate forum [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners at liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – No opinion expressed on merits.

Civil Law - Telegraph Act – Compensation for Land Damage – Finality of District Judge's Decision – Appeals were filed by farmers challenging judgments passed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 awarding compensation for damage caused by installation of transmission lines – High Court held that under Section 16(5), such decisions are statutorily final – Consequently, no appeal under Section 96 CPC is maintainable against such judgments or decrees, irrespective of whether the District Court styled the proceedings as ‘Civil Suits’ or passed a ‘decree’ [Paras 10–14, 18].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Limitations Imposed by Special Statutes – Court observed that Section 96 CPC is subject to “express provisions” in any other law – Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act being a special provision clearly excludes appellate remedy – Drawing of a decree by the District Judge does not override statutory finality under Telegraph Act [Paras 11–13].

Judicial Guidance – Alternative Remedy under Writ Jurisdiction – In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731, Court observed that parties aggrieved by District Court’s decision under Section 16(3) may explore remedies under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution – Supreme Court had urged the Law Commission and Government of India to consider statutory appellate remedy for such cases [Paras 15–17, 19].

Civil Procedure – Return of Plaint/Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction – Court held that since it lacked jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC due to the statutory bar under Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act, the only course was to return the First Appeals under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and not to dismiss them – Return of appeals ordered with liberty to appellants to approach appropriate forum [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Objection to maintainability sustained – First Appeals returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of jurisdiction – Appellants at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy under constitutional jurisdiction as per guidance in Kalpataru judgment.