Anticipatory Bail – UAPA Provisions – Application of Section 43D(4) UAPA – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. contending lack of prima facie evidence – High Court upheld rejection of anticipatory bail by NIA Special Judge – Emphasized statutory bar under Section 43D(4) UAPA precluding anticipatory bail – Detailed examination of evidence including seizure list, digital data, and witness statements substantiating prima facie case of conspiracy and unlawful activities against the accused – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Investigation and Evidence – Relevance of Seizure List and Digital Data – Raid revealed documents and digital data indicating plans to disrupt public order and establish Pan-Islamic rule – Appellants implicated based on statements of co-accused and materials recovered – High Court affirmed sufficiency of prima facie evidence against appellants – Considered necessity of custodial interrogation for thorough investigation [Paras 2.1-7.16].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 43D(4) UAPA – Precludes anticipatory bail for offences under UAPA – High Court analyzed legislative intent and legal precedents underscoring non-applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in UAPA cases – Referenced decisions reinforcing stringent bail conditions under anti-terrorism laws [Paras 7.8-7.10].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Held – Anticipatory bail applications under UAPA not maintainable – High Court emphasized importance of thorough investigation and custodial interrogation in cases involving national security and terrorism – Rejected contentions challenging evidentiary basis of accusations [Paras 7.12-9].
 

Criminal Law – Bail application – Regular bail granted based on parity with co-accused who was previously granted bail – FIR involved charges under various sections of IPC and CGST Act related to economic offenses including evasion of tax and forgery – Previous judgments emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception, stressing the importance of fair trial and liberty while being mindful of the nature of the offenses [Paras 1-3] –

Legal Precedent – Referenced case law highlighted the judiciary’s approach towards bail in economic offenses, underscoring the balance between ensuring effective legal procedure and safeguarding individual rights against the backdrop of the severity of allegations and economic impact [Paras 2, 5-6] –

Investigation and Judicial Custody – Observations made on the completion of investigation and the unnecessary prolongation of judicial custody without trial commencement – Emphasized that continued custody post-investigation completion contradicts the principles of liberty and fair trial [Paras 7-12] –

Decision – Bail granted under conditions including surety to the satisfaction of the trial court and other measures to ensure the accused’s availability for trial proceedings – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case to maintain judicial impartiality [Para 13] –

Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act – Application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for regular bail in case registered under various sections of the NDPS Act, involving the recovery of 230 kg of poppy husk – Petitioner neither driver nor owner of the truck; co-accused granted bail – Prolonged incarceration without charge framing or witness examination considered – Held, considering petitioner’s period of custody (over one year) and absence of criminal antecedents, bail granted subject to conditions – Precedents from Supreme Court applied concerning bail under NDPS Act in prolonged custody cases – [Paras 1-11]

Property Law – Validity of Gift Deeds – Prior Execution – The case involved multiple appeals and cross-objections arising from disputes over two gift deeds executed by Raj Kishan. The first gift deed, dated 01.09.1997, favored Raj Pal, while the second, dated 14.10.1997, favored Raj Kishan's five daughters. The court held that the earlier executed gift deed took precedence under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, rendering the subsequent gift deed subservient [Paras 13-20].

Doctrine of Feeding the Grant by Estoppel – The court invoked this doctrine, determining that after the death of Ram Kala, his five daughters, as his legal representatives, became the owners of the property. The sale deed in favor of defendant Nos. 10 to 12 was upheld based on this doctrine, ensuring the proper transfer of ownership [Para 20].

Legal Representatives and Procedural Aspects – Delay in Filing – The court condoned the delay in re-filing and filing cross-objections, recognizing the supporting affidavits and justifiable reasons presented in the applications [Paras 1-4].

Adverse Inference and Evidence – The court noted that Ram Kala's failure to appear in evidence allowed for an adverse inference against him. It emphasized the necessity of cross-examination opportunities for the defendants, which were missed due to procedural lapses [Paras 22-23].

Decision: The judgments of the lower courts were set aside due to subsequent developments. Raj Pal remained the owner of the land by virtue of the earlier gift deed, and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 were confirmed as owners through the sale deed dated 17.03.1998. Cross-objections regarding Ram Kala's mental state were deemed unnecessary to address following his death [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Theft and Housebreaking – Delay in FIR registration – Impact on Prosecution Case – The petitioner filed a revision petition against the acquittal of respondents by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The High Court emphasized the critical impact of the delay in FIR registration, which remained unexplained and was deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case. The FIR was registered two days after the alleged theft and naming of the accused, which was found suspicious [Paras 1-13].

Evidentiary Deficiencies – Role of Panchayat – Witness Discrepancies – The court noted significant discrepancies in the statements of the petitioner and other key witnesses, including the Sarpanch and police officials involved in the recovery process. The Panchayat's role and the involvement of the factional rivalry within the village were scrutinized, affecting the credibility of the prosecution's evidence [Paras 10-12].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Proving Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen items beyond a reasonable doubt. Key witnesses, including HC Jagsir Singh who conducted the recoveries, were not examined, leading to significant gaps in the prosecution's case [Para 12].

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed due to the unexplained delay in the FIR, discrepancies in witness statements, and the lack of concrete evidence regarding the recovery of stolen property. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondents.

Second FIR – Prohibition – Petitioner seeks quashing of orders for registering a second FIR based on same transaction – First FIR registered by the bank involving allegations of financial misappropriation – Complaint by third party initiated subsequent proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Investigating officer had already considered the third party's complaint during the investigation of the first FIR – High Court references T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, emphasizes prohibition of multiple FIRs on same transaction – Orders for second FIR quashed [Paras 1-12].

Misuse of Process – Malicious Prosecution – High Court notes that permitting a second FIR would lead to abuse of judicial process and malicious prosecution – Upholds the principle that investigation and further evidence collection should be under the original FIR – Cites State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to support quashing orders that result in misuse of judicial process [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Application allowed – Orders dated 05.03.2016 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra and dated 21.01.2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra are quashed – Second FIR and all consequential proceedings set aside – Court reaffirms the prohibition against registering multiple FIRs for the same occurrence [Paras 11-12].
 

Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation – The claimant, a mechanic, was injured due to the negligent driving of another mechanic without a heavy vehicle driving license – Claimant sustained multiple injuries and sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000; awarded Rs. 3,40,000 by the Tribunal – The claim was contested on the grounds of alleged pre-existing conditions and delay in reporting the accident – Tribunal awarded based on evidence of rash and negligent act leading to injuries. [Paras 1-8]

Appeal by APSRTC – Disputed facts regarding negligence and the quantum of compensation – Appeal led to reduction in compensation from Rs. 3,40,000 to Rs. 2,15,000 based on scrutinized medical and other expenditure proofs presented – Tribunal’s findings on negligence upheld; adjustments made in compensation allocations. [Paras 9-22]

Negligence Established – Confirmed by the first respondent’s rash and negligent driving, supported by FIR and chargesheet – Tribunal’s conclusion based on substantive evidence of claimant’s injuries and related medical treatments [Para 14].

Compensation Breakdown – Final award included Rs. 50,000 for loss of earnings, Rs. 75,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000 for extra nourishment, Rs. 20,000 for transportation, and Rs. 50,000 for permanent discomfort [Para 21].

Reduction of Compensation – Court reduced total compensation due to lack of sufficient proof for some of the claimed expenses [Paras 19-21].

Medical Treatment Entitlement – Writ of Mandamus sought for advance payment of 90% of estimated costs for a lung transplantation, cited non-response to petitioner’s requests as illegal and unconstitutional – Petitioner, a school teacher with significant accolades, diagnosed with severe lung disease, requires transplantation; cited two Office Memorandums promising financial aid for such conditions – Court recognizes a mismatch in funds allocation by the respondent authorities, with only Rs. 20,00,000 approved against an estimated Rs. 70,00,000 from KIMS and Rs. 50,00,000 from Apollo Hospital [Para 2-11].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to several cases supporting state responsibility in providing health services under Article 21 of the Constitution – Mentioned Manoj M vs. State of Kerala, Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) vs. Union of India & Ors, and Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India to assert the state’s duty to finance rare disease treatments [Para 7-10].

Court’s Decision – Directed immediate issuance of additional funds totaling Rs. 45,00,000 inclusive of post-operative costs, aligning more closely with the lower estimate provided by Apollo Hospital – Emphasized the state’s responsibility to ensure adequate medical treatment without solely relying on state resources, suggesting possible supplementation through public and private contributions [Para 12-13].

Income Tax – Reassessment under Section 148 – Examination of legality of notices issued under Sections 148A(b) and 148A(d), and Section 148 post-final assessment order – Initially, reassessment notice issued on 31 March 2021, followed by an assessment order on 31 March 2022 imposing additional income based on alleged penny stock transactions – Subsequent notices on 1 June 2022 and 16 July 2022 challenging under reassessment terms based on SC decision in Ashish Agarwal – Held, notices and subsequent order under Section 148A(d) quashed as invalid due to lack of new information or grounds and reassessment proceedings were already concluded – No authority under Ashish Agarwal to reopen concluded assessments – Relied on Anindita Sengupta v. ACIT for confined application of Ashish Agarwal decision to ongoing proceedings without finality. Petit Allowed. [Paras 1-21]