Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction and Acquittal - Sections 324, 307 IPC - Delay in FIR registration, absence of independent witnesses, and motive are critical factors - Inordinate and unexplained delay of five days in registering the FIR - Prosecution's failure to explain delay undermines credibility - Absence of independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area - Defense evidence, including injuries on accused, not adequately addressed by prosecution - Conviction under Section 324 IPC set aside and accused acquitted - Appeal against acquittal under Section 307 IPC dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Delay in FIR Registration - Legal Implication - Analysis - Unexplained delay in lodging FIR can corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case - Prosecution failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the five-day delay - Delay deemed significant and impacts the overall credibility of the prosecution's story. [Paras 11-14]

Motive - Importance in Criminal Cases - Analysis - While motive is not always essential in cases with direct evidence, its significance increases when there is delay and concealment of true facts - Lack of motive in prosecution's case and concealment of facts further weaken the prosecution's stance. [Paras 15-16]

Independent Witnesses - Necessity in Corroboration - Analysis - Independent witnesses lend credibility to the prosecution's case - Failure to involve any independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area - Sole reliance on interested witnesses (relatives of the complainant) insufficient - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. [Paras 17-18]

Defense Evidence - Equitable Consideration - Analysis - Defense witnesses' testimony must be treated at par with prosecution witnesses if they withstand cross-examination - Injuries on accused not explained by prosecution - Defense version found more probable - Accused's prompt reporting of incident supports his defense. [Paras 19-21]

Decision - Setting Aside of Conviction - High Court sets aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC - Acquittal of accused ordered - Appeal against acquittal under Section 307 IPC dismissed - Trial Court's judgment based on misappreciation of evidence and unsustainable in law. [Paras 21-25]

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Death – FIR under Sections 302, 379, and 188 IPC – Claim petition dismissed as FIR pertained to murder, not a negligent accident – Death caused by accident by offending vehicle proved – Intention of the driver immaterial – Use of vehicle on road and resulting accident sufficient for compensation – Appeal allowed – Matter remanded to Tribunal for assessment of compensation. [Para 11]

Negligence Irrelevant for Compensation – Analysis – Accident caused by offending vehicle admitted by driver and owner – Sufficient evidence proving accident – Liability cannot be avoided by claiming no negligent driving – Intention behind accident irrelevant – Use of vehicle leading to death makes vehicle liable for compensation – Tribunal's finding of no compensation due to intentional murder unsustainable. [Para 11]

Judicial Precedents – Compensation for Road Accident – Previous rulings affirm that negligence is not the basis for compensation – Compensation is for loss due to use of vehicle on road – Criminal case aspects irrelevant for claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Tribunal's dismissal of claim petition set aside – Matter remanded for assessment of compensation – Parties to appear before Tribunal on specified date. [Para 13-15]

Arbitration Law – Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 37 of Arbitration Act and Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act – Appeal against arbitral award – Non-compliance with Section 18(2) of MSMED Act – Appellants participated in arbitration after dismissal of writ petition – Same issue cannot be raised de novo – Scope of judicial review minimal – Appeal dismissed. [Para 9-10]

Liquidated Damages – Inclusion in Written Arguments – Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Dispute regarding liquidated damages raised in written arguments – Arbitrator within rights to adjudicate disputes raised during proceedings – No illegality in award – Appeal dismissed. [Para 11]

Award of Interest – Arbitrator's Domain – Arbitrator empowered to award interest – No grounds for interference – Interest awarded on amount from date specified until payment – Appeal dismissed. [Para 12-14]

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Interference – Appeal under Section 37 akin to second appeal – Interference limited to findings contrary to contract terms or patently illegal – Minor errors not corrected – Reassessment of evidence not permissible. [Para 10, 14-17]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of arbitrator upheld – No grounds for interference under Section 37 – Appeal dismissed. [Para 18-19]

Bail Conditions - Modification - Furnishing of Local Surety - Jurisdiction - Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - The petitioner, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, seeks modification of the bail condition requiring a local surety with immovable property within the jurisdiction of the trial court in Chandigarh. The petitioner argues that his relatives have immovable property in SAS Nagar, Mohali, and can act as sureties. Relying on the case of "Moti Ram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (1978) 4 SCC 47," the petitioner contends that the condition violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all citizens. (Para 4)

Court's Observation - Purpose of Bail Conditions - Impediments in Release - Unity of Indians - The court acknowledges that the purpose of imposing bail conditions is to secure the presence of the accused during trial, rather than creating impractical hindrances in their release. Citing the observations in Moti Ram's case, the court emphasizes that requiring sureties to be local or from a specific district disrupts the unity of Indians and violates the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 8)

Judicial Discretion - Modification of Bail Conditions - Relaxation of Local Surety Requirement - The court refers to the recent judgment titled "IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL" and holds that the condition of local surety need not be insisted upon by the courts. The court further emphasizes that if an accused is unable to fulfill the condition within a month, the concerned court must consider relaxing such condition on its own motion. The power to modify bail conditions lies not only with the High Court but also with other courts, including session and magistrate courts, provided the specified parameters are met. (Para 9)

Modification of Bail Conditions - Dispensing with Local Surety Requirement - The court allows the petitioner's prayer and modifies the bail condition relating to the production of a local surety within the jurisdiction of the court. Instead, the court orders that the sureties furnished by the applicant must provide documentary proof of sufficient immovable property exceeding the surety amount. The court directs an endorsement to be made on the title deed of the property, along with obtaining photographs of the surety, applicant/accused, and attesting witnesses. (Para 10)

Article 226 - Property resumed for misuse and non-payment of misuse charges - Significant delay of 10 years in filing writ petition - No sufficient cause or reasonable explanation for delay - Petitioner negligent in pursuing remedies - Petition dismissed due to laches and undue delay. [Paras 1-14]

Negative Equality - Legal Principle - Analysis - Petitioner claimed discrimination as others in the market were not similarly penalized - Right to equality is a positive concept under Article 14 and does not provide for negative equality - Authorities justified in enforcing terms of allotment and imposing misuse charges on petitioner. [Para 9]

Resumption of Property - Last Resort - Legal Consideration - Resumption of property seen as a last resort - Continuous violation of allotment terms by petitioner justified resumption - Petitioner's non-compliance with misuse charge payment led to operationalization of resumption order - Authorities acted within legal bounds. [Paras 11, 13]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - High Court dismisses the writ petition due to delay, lack of reasonable explanation, and petitioner's failure to comply with previous orders - Resumption order and related decisions upheld - No relief granted to petitioner. [Paras 14-15]

Matrimonial Law - Cruelty - Divorce Petition - Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition - Allegations of cruelty based on behavior and conduct - Insufficient evidence of cruelty produced by appellant - Subsequent event of respondent migrating to Canada considered - Long separation of parties indicating breakdown of marriage - Decree of divorce granted. [Paras 1-16]

Mental Cruelty - Legal Principles - Analysis - Mental cruelty includes conduct causing mental pain and suffering making it impossible to live with the spouse - Assessment of cruelty based on attending facts and circumstances - Conduct causing reasonable apprehension about mental welfare amounts to cruelty - Long separation and acrimonious allegations indicative of cruelty. [Paras 13-15]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Judicial Discretion - Legal Consideration - Long period of separation and failure of reconciliation efforts indicate irretrievable breakdown - Subsequent migration of respondent to Canada reinforces breakdown - Courts can grant divorce if marriage is beyond repair despite no statutory ground for irretrievable breakdown. [Paras 14-16]

Decision - Grant of Decree of Divorce - High Court sets aside the dismissal of divorce petition - Decree of divorce granted due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage and long separation - Directions for financial security of minor daughter issued. [Paras 15-17]

Service Law – Retirement Age – Disabilities – The petitioners, employees of the Punjab Government, sought extension of their service beyond the age of 60 years, citing discrimination against employees with visual and other disabilities. They relied on the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Held, there is no provision in the 2016 Act or the Punjab Civil Services Rules for extending the service of disabled employees beyond 60 years. Discrimination claims cannot perpetuate illegalities; wrongful extensions granted earlier do not set a precedent. Guarantee of equality under Article 14 cannot be enforced negatively. The petitions are dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Equality Before Law – Enforcement – The principle of equality before law under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. Even if some individuals were wrongly given benefits, it cannot be cited as a precedent for others to claim similar benefits. [Paras 14-15]

Decision:

Petitions dismissed. There is no provision for extending the service of disabled employees beyond 60 years, and claims of discrimination do not warrant such an extension. The Court dismissed all the connected writ petitions on this issue. [Paras 15-17]

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of - Conditions - FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC - Petitioner apprehending arrest - Petitioner being a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents - Custodial investigation and pre-trial incarceration causing irreparable injustice – Prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations does not justify custodial or pre-trial incarceration - Court empowered to impose stringent conditions to address concerns of influencing investigation or tampering with evidence - Bail granted to the petitioner - Elaborative and stringent conditions imposed - Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety of Rs. 25,000 - Option to provide fixed deposit or surety bond given to the petitioner - Restrictions and obligations imposed on the petitioner to ensure compliance with bail conditions - Petitioner directed to join the investigation and cooperate - Surrender of weapons and firearms ordered - Non-contact and non-interference directions issued - Bail conditions to be balanced, proportional, and not violating fundamental rights - Petitioner entitled to seek reduction or modification of bond amount or conditions - Bail conditions not limiting investigation - Observations made in the order not expressions of opinion on merits of the case - Petition allowed. [Para 5-24]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed at Hisar - Complaint returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as per pre-amended Section 142 NI Act - Amendment to Section 142 NI Act effective retrospectively - Complaint required to be restored to Trial Court at Hisar - Petition allowed. [Paras 1-10]

Retrospective Effect of Amendment - Legal Analysis - Section 142(2) NI Act amended to provide territorial jurisdiction where cheque is presented for collection - Amendment effective retrospectively as per Section 142A(1) NI Act - Supreme Court interpretation in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh affirms retrospective application - Complaint returned due to jurisdictional issues prior to amendment must be restored. [Paras 6-9]

Decision - Setting Aside of Trial Court's Order - High Court sets aside order dated 17.10.2014 - Complaint to be restored to its original number in Trial Court at Hisar - Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously - Petition allowed and pending applications disposed of. [Para 10]