Criminal Law – Cognizance under BNSS – Section 223(1) BNSS – Mandatory Prior Notice to Accused – Procedural Safeguard – Complaint under Section 222 BNSS for defamation – Magistrate took cognizance and ordered pre-summoning evidence without prior notice – ASJ set aside cognizance for want of notice but upheld pre-summoning evidence – Held: Under BNSS, first proviso to Section 223(1) introduces significant change from CrPC by mandating opportunity of hearing to accused before cognizance – Magistrate must record complainant/witness statements, then issue notice before deciding on cognizance – ASJ rightly set aside cognizance but correctly held pre-summoning evidence valid at pre-cognizance stage – Petition dismissed [Paras 15, 20-24, 37-38].

Pre-Summoning Evidence – Permissibility before Cognizance – Sections 223 & 225 BNSS – Purpose of examining complainant/witnesses prior to cognizance is to test authenticity and filter frivolous complaints – Examination at this stage does not require accused’s presence – Cognizance arises only after such preliminary verification – No illegality in MM recording pre-summoning evidence prior to notice – ASJ’s view upheld [Paras 28-34].

Cognizance – Meaning and Stage – Defined as application of judicial mind to complaint to decide whether to proceed – Under BNSS, comes after preliminary examination and before summons – Change from CrPC is insertion of prior hearing requirement before cognizance – Provision intended as procedural safeguard, not to negate preliminary verification [Paras 16-19, 21-23, 37].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of ASJ upheld – Cognizance rightly set aside for want of prior notice, but pre-summoning evidence recording sustained as valid pre-cognizance process – No infirmity found in impugned order [Para 38].

Service Law – Withholding of Gratuity – Rule 2.2(b), 2.2(c) & 9.14 Punjab CSR – Criminal Case Unrelated to Official Duty – Petition Allowed – Petitioner retired in 2004, gratuity withheld due to criminal proceedings—convicted in 2013 but acquitted by High Court in 2018—State’s appeal pending in Supreme Court—Court held Rule 2.2(b) applies only to grave misconduct/negligence during service and related to official duties—four-year limitation in proviso to Rule 2.2(b) indicates departmental nexus—Offences unrelated to official duties fall outside its scope—Since employee was acquitted and later deceased, pendency of State’s appeal lost significance—Directed release of gratuity with 7.5% interest from filing of petition, failing which additional 2.5% interest from date of retirement to payment [Paras 8–18].

Anticipatory Bail – Financial Scam – Co-operative Society – Pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions – Sneha MACS allegedly collected ₹6.32 crore from depositors, failed to repay – Accused No. 3, aged 71, retired bank officer, served as Director/CEO only from April 2022 to October 2024 – Majority of deposits mobilised before his tenure – Petitioner claimed to have invested ₹2 crore from own and family’s funds, making him also a victim – Investigation revealed no evidence of siphoning deposits for personal benefit – Petitioner cooperated with Investigation and Inquiry Officers; seizure of documents and material completed – Fixed residence and landed property; no risk of absconding – Health issues noted (kidney, thyroid, diabetes) – Court held custodial interrogation unwarranted; anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with strict conditions [Paras 19–21].

Conditions Imposed – Personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance before Station House Officer every Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. till charge sheet; no threats or inducement to witnesses; no travel outside district without SHO’s permission; surrender of passport or affidavit if none [Para 21].

Decision – Criminal petition allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Para 21].

Regular Bail - Sections 21, 29, 36A, 52A of the NDPS Act – Recovery of Commercial Quantity – Bail Denied – The petitioner was apprehended along with 1 kg of heroin based on secret information – Co-accused handed over heroin to petitioner in a public area – The Court held that the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act was clearly attracted due to recovery of commercial quantity – No grounds made out to satisfy twin conditions for grant of bail [Paras 13–14, 22].

Procedural Irregularity – Delay in Sampling under Section 52A – Not a Ground for Bail – Petitioner argued that delay in drawing and depositing samples vitiated the case – Court rejected this contention citing Supreme Court judgment in NCB v. Kashif (2024 SCC OnLine 3848) – Held: Procedural delay is not sufficient to vitiate proceedings or justify bail – Samples were sealed and sent to FSL with judicial magistrate’s seal [Paras 7, 15–17].

Lack of Independent Witness – Not Fatal to Prosecution – It was argued that no public witness was joined at the time of recovery – The Court observed that efforts were made to involve public witnesses who refused to participate – Citing Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563 and other rulings, the Court held that recovery by police witnesses cannot be disbelieved solely on this ground [Paras 3, 18].

No Videography or CCTV – Not Mandatory – Petitioner claimed absence of videography and CCTV footage casts doubt on recovery – Court held that videography is not mandatory and absence of CCTV camera at the site was a factual explanation – Investigating Officer not expected to deposit personal devices – Version of police cannot be discarded on this ground [Paras 4, 10–11, 19–20].

Duration of Custody – Not Ground for Bail Where Commercial Quantity is Involved – Petitioner had been in custody since April 2023 – Court held that the duration was not exceptionally long and did not justify release under Section 37 NDPS Act – Trial delay not sufficient by itself for bail [Paras 8, 21].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found sufficient material establishing prima facie guilt and no reasonable ground to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed as bar under Section 37 not satisfied [Paras 22–23].

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Unauthorized Absence – Validity of Dismissal – Tribunal’s Interference – Set Aside – Respondent workman, a permanent underground loader, remained absent without authorization from 28.02.1997 till conclusion of enquiry on 13.03.1999 – Disciplinary proceedings held ex parte after repeated notices – Tribunal held dismissal disproportionate and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages – Held: Tribunal’s order unsustainable for lack of detailed reasons, failure to consider enquiry report, and erroneous finding of “absence of short period” contrary to record – Enquiry was conducted by competent authority, in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice – There was sufficient evidence to establish misconduct – Interference by Tribunal unwarranted [Paras 24–29].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – High Court’s Limited Role – Court reiterated that under Articles 226/227, reappreciation of evidence is impermissible – Interference only if findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or proceedings violate natural justice – Applied principles from Abrar Ali, Heem Singh, and P. Gunasekaran – Found no procedural irregularity or perversity in disciplinary authority’s decision [Paras 18–21, 28].

Relief – Reference answered holding dismissal legal and justified – Employee entitled only to benefits permissible to a dismissed employee under law, including adjustment of any leave due – Writ petition allowed, award set aside [Paras 30–31].

Criminal Law - Furlough Leave – Pending Criminal Case under NDPS Act – Conviction Required – Petition Allowed – The petitioner, a life convict under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, was denied furlough leave based on a pending case under the NDPS Act – Held: Rule 4(2)(e)(l) of Notification dated 02.12.2024 bars furlough for convicts under NDPS Act, but does not apply to undertrials – As petitioner is not yet convicted in the NDPS case, the bar is inapplicable – Rejection order held illegal and quashed [Paras 5–6].

Interpretation of Prison Rules – Definition of “Prisoner” – Notification of 2024 Clarified – Court held that Rule 2(f) and Rule 1(3) of Chapter I of the 2024 Notification define "prisoner" as a “convicted prisoner” and the Rules apply only to such convicts – Mere pendency of NDPS proceedings does not disentitle prisoner from furlough benefits – Respondent authority erred in law by applying rules to an undertrial context [Paras 6–7].

Adverse Police Report – Non-application of Mind – Vague Apprehensions Not Sufficient – The DIG relied on a police report claiming the petitioner’s release may endanger public peace – Held: Police report was based on speculative assertions without material support – No history of post-conviction misconduct or complaints – Authorities must apply mind and record specific, substantiated reasons to reject statutory benefits like furlough – Citing Sanjay Kisan Kadse v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 1 Mah LJ 789, Court held vague police reports cannot override fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition Allowed – Furlough Leave Granted – The Court quashed the rejection order dated 31.01.2025 and directed release of the petitioner on furlough for 21 days subject to conditions imposed by authorities – Held: Application of Rule 4(2)(e)(l) to pending cases is erroneous – Adverse police report unsupported by facts – Authorities reminded of duty to avoid routine and mechanical denials of statutory rights [Paras 10–11].

Regular Bail – Multiple Allegations Including SC/ST Act and BNS – Bail Granted – The appellant sought bail in FIR No. 19/2025 for alleged involvement in violent acts against members of the complainant’s family, including allegations under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act – Held: Though the allegations were grave and included mob violence and attempt to murder, the FIR related to three separate incidents and the appellant was linked only to the third – No medical report supported this part of the allegation – Further, a compromise was effected between the parties and the appellant had been in custody since 06.02.2025 – Bail granted pending trial [Paras 1, 6, 7, 9].

Custodial Rights – Bail and Article 21 – Delay in Trial – No Purpose in Further Detention – The Court noted that the trial had not progressed significantly and continued detention without a foreseeable conclusion would violate the appellant’s fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Held: Bail cannot be denied merely on the ground of pending trial when investigation is complete and incarceration becomes punitive rather than preventive [Paras 9–10].

SC/ST Act – Bar to Bail – Compromise and Procedural Completion Considered – The Court noted that while the SC/ST Act imposes a higher threshold for bail, the bar is not absolute – Once investigation is complete and complainant has no objection, bail may be granted in appropriate circumstances – Reference made to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831 [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Bail Granted – Appeal Allowed – The Court allowed the appeal and directed release of the appellant on regular bail during trial upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court – Clarified that observations made in the order shall not prejudice the trial – Held: Continued detention unjustified in light of completed investigation, pendency of quashing petition, compromise between parties, and prolonged custody [Paras 9–10].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Liberal approach reiterated – Amendment sought to add challenge to 1997 sale deed in suit for declaration of title and injunction – Petitioner contended amendment introduced time-barred claim, created new cause of action, and was moved only to delay proceedings after High Court’s direction for expeditious disposal – Held: Plaintiffs sought to base amendment on facts disclosed in written statement; amendment necessary for effective adjudication of real dispute; does not change basic nature and character of suit – Technical objections, including limitation, not a bar at amendment stage when facts on knowledge require trial – Trial court’s discretion to allow amendment upheld [Paras 7–11].

Limitation – Article 58, Limitation Act – Suit for declaration – Limitation of three years applies from date of knowledge – Court declined to presume prior knowledge of deed in absence of evidence – Whether claim barred to be determined at trial, not at amendment stage [Para 10].

Principles – Reiterated tests in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (4) ICC 645 (SC) – Amendments necessary for real controversy to be allowed unless causing irremediable prejudice, withdrawing admissions, or raising ex facie time-barred claims – Courts to adopt liberal approach [Paras 7–8, 11].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed; order of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 5th Court, Howrah, allowing amendment affirmed; no order as to costs [Paras 12–14].

Default Bail - UAPA – Extension of Custody – Section 43D(2) – Default Bail Refused – Appellant challenged extension orders of 24.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 and rejection of default bail on 11.03.2024 – Contended that trial court acted mechanically, without individualised assessment, and that investigation was substantially complete – Held: Public Prosecutor’s 90-page report detailed specific investigative steps, pending analysis of voluminous digital evidence, fund trail, absconding accused, and ISIS-linked activities – Trial court applied mind, recorded satisfaction on necessity, and complied with safeguards in Zeeshan Qamar – No mechanical extension – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-34, 38].

National Security – Necessity of Continued Detention – Allegations of ISIS Membership – Material showed appellant’s involvement in recce of cities, handling of explosives, receipt of ISIS literature, and encrypted communications – Investigation linked to wider conspiracy with cross-border elements – Releasing appellant at crucial stage would impede investigation and risk evidence destruction – Custody extension justified [Paras 34-37].

Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – UAPA Framework – Court reiterated that statutory right arises only if charge-sheet not filed within prescribed/extended period – Under UAPA, extension up to 180 days permissible on valid Public Prosecutor’s report – Trial court’s extension order within legal limits – Gravity of offence relevant to necessity assessment, though not to default bail entitlement – No violation of safeguards [Paras 27, 38-39].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial court orders upheld – Continued custody under Section 43D(2) UAPA lawful – Pending applications disposed [Para 39].