Section 21(c), 23(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, 54 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Bail – Section 37 – Rejection – Applicant alleged to be part of international drug trafficking syndicate – Co-accused arrested with 1970 grams of cocaine – Though confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible, prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including WhatsApp chats, forensic analysis, call logs (117 calls), and bank transactions – Applicant linked to operations via logistical support, communication with foreign national ‘Mr. Morris’, and financial trail through wife’s bank account – Held: Prima facie material establishes Applicant’s role in smuggling network – Reasonable grounds to believe Applicant is not guilty not made out – Long incarceration alone not a ground for bail in commercial quantity offences – Section 37 bar not overcome [Paras 8–12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence to deny relief under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Observations to not affect merits at trial [Paras 13–14].

Matrimonial Law – Maintenance – Minor Husband – Maintainability of Proceedings – Section 125 CrPC – No Bar to Proceedings Against Minor Husband – Husband’s minority at the time of filing of maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC cannot be a ground to hold the proceedings as non-maintainable – Chapter IX of CrPC is applicable independent of procedural limitations under the Civil Procedure Code – Held: There is no bar in CrPC preventing initiation of Section 125 proceedings against a husband who was a minor at the relevant time – Family Courts Act also does not restrict such proceedings [Paras 14-17].

Family Law – Maintenance – Financial Capacity – Assessment of Income – Reasonable Estimate Permissible – In absence of direct income proof, Court presumed that able-bodied revisionist could earn Rs. 18,000/month by physical labour – Applied Supreme Court precedent to determine maintainable allowance at 25% of notional income – Original award of Rs. 9,000 reduced to Rs. 4,500 in total [Paras 27-29].

Wife’s Entitlement – Refusal to Live With Husband – Sufficient Cause – Cruelty and Dowry Demands – Trial court found wife’s separation justified due to sustained cruelty and dowry demands – Revisionist admitted dowry was taken – Court held that wife had sufficient cause to live separately and was entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC [Paras 20-21].

Execution of Orders – Applicability of Family Court Act – Chapter IX CrPC Orders Executable per CrPC, Not CPC – Order under Section 125 CrPC passed by Family Court is governed by CrPC and not CPC – Revisionist’s objection on execution proceedings for want of guardian representation found untenable [Paras 14-15].

Minor Husband – Legal Obligation on Attaining Majority – Liability Commences Post Majority – Court held that while minor husband may not have obligation to maintain wife and daughter during minority, he becomes liable upon attaining majority – Maintenance ordered from date of majority (01/01/2021), not from date of application [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Judgment of Family Court modified – Maintenance reduced to Rs. 2,500/month for wife and Rs. 2,000/month for daughter from 01/01/2021 – Excess paid amount, if any, to be adjusted – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – POCSO – Acquittal – Conviction of appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act based solely on testimony of victim – High Court finds victim admitted to being tutored by her mother and others – Multiple contradictions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. – Independent witnesses (PW4, PW5, PW9) did not support prosecution case – Medical report showing injury on appellant never produced despite victim claiming to have bitten him – Held: Conviction on uncorroborated, doubtful testimony unsafe [Paras 9–10, 14, 33–34, 45–47, 56–60].

Evidence – Contradictory Testimonies – PW2 (grandfather), PW6 (grandmother), and PW8 (mother) gave inconsistent accounts of who first received the victim’s disclosure – PW2 and PW3 (Panchayat member) gave irreconcilable timelines regarding events after the incident – Held: Contradictions in foundational facts cast doubt on prosecution’s credibility [Paras 35–36, 41–44, 48–53].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR – FIR lodged after more than 24 hours – No explanation provided – Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate – Combined with attempts at local settlement, suggests afterthought – Held: Unexplained delay undermines spontaneity of FIR and weakens prosecution case [Paras 12–13, 36–39, 63–64].

Evidence Act – Adverse Inference – Prosecution withheld medical report of appellant despite victim alleging physical struggle – Held: Withholding best available evidence invites adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act – Prosecution case further weakened [Paras 58–60].

Child Witness – Coaching – Victim admitted she was coached by her mother and relatives before giving deposition – Tutored testimony found unreliable and unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration – Held: Conviction cannot rest on coached statement [Paras 9–10, 33–34].

Presumption – Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttable presumption – Court held presumption under Section 29 arises only after foundational facts are established – Contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution’s evidence meant presumption could not operate – Held: Prosecution failed to meet threshold to invoke presumption [Paras 24–27, 29–31].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Violation – Appellant’s examination conducted in vague, compound questions – No opportunity to respond distinctly to each incriminating circumstance – Held: Violates right under Section 313 – Prejudiced defence – Conviction vitiated [Paras 65–67].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to execute bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. for six months [Paras 68–72].

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].

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 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.

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.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Maintainability – Plaintiff sought declaration of ownership of two properties in different districts, including one in Noida and one in Auraiya – Trial court rejected suit citing lack of jurisdiction over Auraiya property and failure to challenge lease deed – Held: Under Section 17 CPC, suit maintainable where part of property is within court's jurisdiction and cause of action is common – Rejection of plaint unsustainable [Paras 21–24, 40]

Benami Transactions – Rebuttable Presumption – Property Registered in Wife’s Name – Plaintiff claimed properties were purchased by him from his own funds but registered in wife’s name under emotional pressure – Held: Burden lies on person alleging benami – Whether property falls under fiduciary or spouse exception is triable issue – Cannot be decided at Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stage – Rejection of plaint not permissible [Paras 30–39]

Cause of Action – Common Transactions – Single Cause of Action – Plaintiff’s claim of emotional coercion, marital relationship, and fiduciary capacity formed common basis for claims over both properties – Trial court erred in treating them as separate causes – Suit held maintainable for both properties under single cause of action [Paras 24–26]

Relief of Cancellation – Necessity – Plaintiff did not seek cancellation of lease deed or sale deeds but only declaratory relief – Trial court held this omission fatal – Held: Whether cancellation required depends on outcome of trial and plaintiff’s success in proving ownership – Not a ground for rejection of plaint at threshold [Paras 28–29, 39]

Fiduciary Relationship – Exception to Benami Bar – Plaintiff produced power-of-attorney mentioning him as husband of defendant – Claimed continued possession and expenditure on properties – Held: Nature of relationship and intention behind transactions requires full trial – Exception under Section 4(3)(b) of Benami Act plausible – Suit not barred at this stage [Paras 25–27, 34–38]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court's order dated 04.05.2022 rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC set aside – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

Election Law – Election Petition – Rejection at threshold – Pleadings insufficient – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition filed under Section 100 RP Act to challenge election of Respondent No.1 on five grounds: three alleging corrupt practices, one for improper acceptance of nomination, and one for improper refusal of votes – Court held that the petition lacked necessary pleadings and material particulars under Section 83(1)(a) and (b) – Absence of disclosure of names, dates, places in allegations of bribery and undue influence – No averment of material effect on election result in relation to improper acceptance of nomination or non-counting of votes – Held: Petition does not disclose cause of action and is liable to be rejected [Paras 1, 20–24, 51].

Corrupt Practices – Allegation of Bribery – Distribution of Sarees – Lack of particulars – Plea that sarees were distributed to voters with stickers bearing Respondent’s photo and party symbol – No names of distributors or connection to Respondent No.1 pleaded – Court held that without stating whether the distributor was candidate, election agent, or acted with consent, the plea fails statutory requirements – Allegation was vague and inferential – Not sufficient under Section 83(1)(b) RP Act [Paras 25–28, 69].

Corrupt Practices – Undue Influence – Threat to party worker – Not linked to electoral right – Threatening of one Manohar Patil, party worker of Petitioner, pleaded as corrupt practice under Section 123(2) RP Act – No averment that he was an elector or that his right to vote was interfered with – Court held this does not constitute a valid ground for corrupt practice – Also, inconsistency found between the complaint and pleading [Paras 29–32, 70].

Corrupt Practices – Fielding dummy candidates with similar names – No pleading of inducement with specifics – Allegation that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 with similar names were fielded to confuse voters – No pleading of who offered gratification, when, or how – SMS messages relied on were not connected to Respondent No.1 by specific averments – Respondent Nos.2 and 3 polled far fewer votes, and even if added to Petitioner’s total, would not change result – Held: No case made out under Section 100(1)(b) or (d) RP Act [Paras 33–39, 71–73].

Nomination Defect – Error in criminal case year – Not a substantial defect – Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 failed to disclose RCC No.318/2013 and instead mentioned 318/2012 – Court held it was a typographical error; full details of the case were otherwise disclosed – No material effect on election result pleaded – Held: Not a valid ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act [Paras 40–43].

Votes Not Counted – Polling Station 217 – No impact on election result – Technical error led to non-counting of 1,014 votes from one polling station – Petitioner did not plead how this materially affected result, especially since the winning margin was 5,694 votes – Held: Ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) RP Act not made out [Paras 44–46].

Election Law – Requisites of valid Election Petition – Section 83 RP Act – Non-compliance fatal – Court reiterated settled law that strict compliance with Section 83 RP Act is mandatory – Absence of even a single material fact or particular is fatal – No amount of evidence can cure pleading defects – Petition can be rejected at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 47–51].

Election Petition – Amendment – Section 86(5) RP Act – Cannot be used to introduce new corrupt practice or fresh particulars – Petitioner filed amendment application after realising fatal defects – Proposed amendments introduced new allegations or particulars not originally pleaded – Held: Amendments impermissible under Section 86(5); amendment power is limited to amplification of already pleaded particulars, not introduction of new instances or corrupt practices [Paras 53–74].

Practice and Procedure – Belated amendment aimed to defeat rejection application – Not permissible – Amendment application filed one day prior to hearing of Order VII Rule 11 application – Court found it to be a tactical move – Held: Amendment not bonafide and prejudicial to Respondent – Petition liable to be rejected irrespective of proposed amendment [Paras 75].

Decision: Election Petition rejected – Application for amendment also rejected – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Petition dismissed as not disclosing cause of action [Paras 76(i)–(iii)].