NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Mandatory Twin Conditions Ignored – Bail Orders Cancelled – Accused persons Akash, Shilpa, and Seema were granted bail by the trial court despite seizure of 472.55 grams of heroin in a single raid forming a continuous transaction – Trial court failed to apply or even mention Section 37 NDPS Act – High Court held that when commercial quantity is involved, bail cannot be granted without satisfaction of twin statutory conditions – Orders termed illegal and perverse – Bail cancelled and respondents directed to surrender [Paras 1, 6–7, 24–26, 30–31].

Clubbing of Recoveries – Section 29 NDPS – Joint Operation and Common Intent – Aggregation Justified – Court held that recoveries from Akash, Seema, and Shilpa were not isolated but formed part of a single raid from same premises – Total recovery treated as commercial quantity – Reliance placed on Awadhesh Yadav v. State and principles of clubbing when conspiracy or joint possession is alleged – Section 29 rightly invoked [Paras 3–6, 19–22].

Bail Jurisprudence – Non-Compliance with Section 37 – Per Se Invalid – Trial court mischaracterised the recoveries as intermediate quantity and overlooked the statutory embargo on bail in commercial quantity cases – Cited Supreme Court judgments including Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, State of Kerala v. Rajesh – Held: No bail can be granted unless court records satisfaction that accused is not guilty and will not reoffend – Omission is not a mere irregularity but a fatal legal flaw [Paras 24–25, 28].

Recovery Proceedings – Presence of Female Constable and Absence of Public Witnesses – Not Fatal – Court rejected contention that recovery was doubtful due to female constable’s presence or lack of public witnesses – Held: Female officer’s presence complied with Section 50(4) NDPS – Non-joining of public witnesses not fatal when official testimony is reliable – Cited Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana [Paras 26–27].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevant to Bail – Ignored by Trial Court – Accused Seema had 12 previous cases, including 7 under NDPS – Prior involvements of all accused ignored by trial court – High Court held that antecedents go to the heart of second condition under Section 37 – Held: Non-consideration of material renders bail orders perverse [Paras 11, 28].

Legal Position – Cancellation of Bail – Perversity in Order Justifies Intervention – Trial court granted bail without applying statutory safeguards, ignored relevant facts, and indulged in premature evaluation of evidence – High Court set aside bail orders relying on Puran v. Rambilas and Union of India v. Rattan Malik – Held: Bail granted contrary to law liable to be cancelled [Paras 12, 29–30].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Bail orders dated 15.06.2024, 25.06.2024, and 12.07.2024 granting bail to Seema, Shilpa, and Akash respectively set aside – Respondents directed to surrender before Superintendent Jail within three days [Para 30–31].

Criminal Law - FEMA – Summons – Section 37 FEMA – Applicability of Section 160 CrPC – Petitioner, a woman, challenged personal summons under Section 37 FEMA, citing protection under Section 160(1) CrPC exempting women from appearing outside their residence – Held: Section 160 CrPC not applicable to proceedings under Section 37 FEMA, which are civil-regulatory in nature and governed by procedural powers under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act – Personal appearance before ED office is validly required [Paras 27–30, 36–43].

FEMA – Nature of Proceedings – Civil vs Criminal – Court clarified that FEMA proceedings are civil and administrative, unlike PMLA which involves criminal prosecution – Section 37 FEMA does not invoke CrPC safeguards for criminal inquiries but provides powers analogous to civil procedure under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act – Held: No violation of Article 21 or procedural rights by issuance of summons under FEMA [Paras 31–41].

Code of Civil Procedure – Applicability under FEMA – Section 131 of the IT Act incorporated by Section 37 FEMA vests ED officials with powers akin to civil courts for enforcing attendance and document production – Held: Proceedings are governed by CPC, not CrPC – No right to demand recording of statement at residence under CPC analogous to Section 160 CrPC [Paras 33–38].

PMLA vs FEMA – Distinction in Legal Framework – Court distinguished FEMA from PMLA – PMLA involves criminal prosecution and special powers under Section 50 overriding CrPC protections, whereas FEMA is civil-regulatory – Held: Reliance on PMLA jurisprudence misplaced in FEMA context [Paras 41–42].

Right to Fair Investigation – Articles 20 & 21 – Petitioner argued denial of documents and summons infringed constitutional rights – Held: Mere issuance of summons does not violate rights under Articles 20 or 21 – ED not required to provide entire material at preliminary stage under FEMA – Petitioner free to cooperate and present documents in person [Paras 19–21, 43].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Summons issued under Section 37 FEMA are valid – Section 160 CrPC not applicable to civil-regulatory proceedings under FEMA – Petitioner required to appear personally as directed – No violation of constitutional or procedural safeguards found [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of sexual exploitation over three years disbelieved – De facto complainant alleged repeated sexual abuse and coercion by petitioner between 2011 and 2014 – Petitioner produced documents showing ongoing cordial relationship till 2017 and pending civil litigation regarding monetary disputes – Court found inconsistencies in complainant's version and noted that FIR followed closely after petitioner initiated civil and criminal proceedings against her – Held: Allegations inherently improbable and motivated – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 5–7]

Criminal Procedure – Quashment of Charges – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – Legal test – Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law – Evident from record that FIR was lodged as a retaliatory move after petitioner initiated legal actions – No prima facie case made out warranting trial – Held: Proceedings against accused under Sections 376(f)(n) IPC and 66E IT Act liable to be quashed [Paras 6–7]

Evidence – Delay and Prior Relationship – Long delay in lodging complaint coupled with friendly relationship undermines credibility – Complainant gave sworn statement in 2017 describing petitioner as a close family friend despite alleging prior prolonged abuse – Court noted improbability of continued relationship and non-disclosure of alleged abuse for years by educated complainant – Held: Circumstances indicate false implication [Paras 6–7]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner in S.C. No.108/2019 (arising from Crime No.1142/2018 of Erattupetta Police Station) quashed.

Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Family Law – Custody and Visitation – Maintainability of Injunction Suit by One Parent Against the Other – Family Court Suit – Respondent-mother filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-father from contacting the child or school staff – Petitioner-father filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint – Family Court dismissed the application – High Court held that such a suit, though labeled as permanent injunction, essentially seeks custody-related reliefs which fall within Family Court jurisdiction under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Mere use of “injunction” terminology does not oust Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Plaintiff’s pleadings alone to be considered – Defence or merits not to be weighed – High Court reiterated that so long as the plaint discloses a cause of action and falls within court jurisdiction, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted – Held: Family Court rightly refused to reject plaint [Paras 12–14].

Jurisdiction – Family Court – Custody and Visitation Rights – Even if framed as civil suit for injunction, underlying dispute concerns parental rights and child welfare – Such matters fall squarely within jurisdiction of Family Court under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Held: Proper remedy is for father to seek visitation under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act or Guardians and Wards Act, not by resisting injunction suit as non-maintainable [Paras 11, 15–18].

Pleadings – Cause of Action – Sufficiency – Court reiterated that only averments in the plaint are relevant for examining maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff alleged threats, school disruption, and psychological impact on minor – These constitute cause of action for seeking relief – Held: Contentions of petitioner on truth or sufficiency of those facts not relevant at this stage [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No interference with Family Court’s order – Petitioner permitted to pursue appropriate remedies under law for visitation or custody.

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Assam Rifles – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner Association sought parity in pay, pension and emoluments with Indian Army, citing similarity in duties and historical role – Held: Assam Rifles operates under dual control of MHA and MoD, unlike Army – Nature of duties, retirement age, and structural differences validly justify distinct treatment – Equal pay claim rejected [Paras 1, 4-5, 12, 25-26]

Administrative Law – Dual Control Mechanism – Parliamentary Committee Recommendations – No Mandamus – Parliamentary Standing Committee Report recommended ending dual control of Assam Rifles – Held: Such recommendations are not binding and do not mandate parity in salary or service conditions – Policy decision lies within Executive domain – Court cannot issue directions under Article 226 for pay fixation [Paras 11, 24, 27]

Service Conditions – Discrimination – SFF/ICG Comparison – Not Applicable – Petitioner compared service with Special Frontier Force and Indian Coast Guard – Held: SFF and ICG operate under different administrative structure and duties, under direct PMO supervision – Parity claim unjustified – Kerala High Court’s ruling on ECHS benefits not applicable for pay/emoluments parity [Paras 9, 16, 22-23]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – No Violation – Petitioner alleged breach of equality under Article 14 due to different pay scales from Indian Army – Held: Distinction in retirement age, service tenure, and nature of duties is reasonable – Classification not arbitrary – No violation of Article 14 established [Paras 6, 19, 25-26]

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy Matters – Limited Interference – Court held it cannot interfere in matters of pay fixation or emoluments, which fall exclusively within domain of the Central Government – Direction issued to consider fresh representation [Paras 27, 29]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for pay parity – Petitioner allowed to submit fresh representation, to be decided within 3 months [Paras 30]

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Reversal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC based on testimonies of injured witnesses (P.W.4 and P.W.5) – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons and ballistic evidence – No independent or forensic corroboration – Court held conduct of eye-witnesses unnatural as they failed to name assailants to police or hospital staff despite being fit to speak – Held: Sole reliance on testimonies of interested and tainted witnesses in absence of corroboration is unsafe – Conviction reversed [Paras 31–57].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witness – Credibility – P.W.4 and P.W.5 were found to have prior enmity with accused and were involved in counter cases – Their silence till FIR registration and contradictions with medical and other evidence raised doubts – Court applied test of “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable” – Held: In absence of corroboration, such testimony cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 32–54].

Evidence – Recovery and Forensics – Failure of Prosecution – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons allegedly used in crime – Ballistic report was negative – No independent witness examined – CCTV footage not seized – Panch witnesses were friends of deceased – Held: Multiple procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps undermine prosecution case [Paras 33–50].

Delay in FIR – Impact – FIR lodged 6.5 hours after incident despite eye-witnesses being medically fit to speak – Court held delay used for possible false implication – Supported by inconsistent medical and police testimonies – Held: Delay not satisfactorily explained, creates doubt about genuineness of prosecution version [Paras 41–45].

False Implication – Previous Enmity – Double-Edged Sword – Evidence showed prior criminal cases between witnesses and accused – Assault alleged to have occurred at spot of earlier crime involving deceased – Court held prior enmity increased possibility of false implication in absence of corroboration [Paras 32, 45, 54].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 307 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released if not required in any other case.

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Scope under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. – Limited Interference – Petitioners sought discharge from offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 341, 294, 509 read with Sections 34 and 109 IPC – Revisional jurisdiction invoked against order of JMFC refusing discharge – Held: Revisional power is limited and meant to correct patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – No ground made out for interference at the stage of framing of charge [Paras 1, 10–12, 15].

Discharge – Stage of Framing of Charge – Test to be Applied – At the stage of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., court is only to see whether charge is groundless – Strong suspicion sufficient to proceed to trial – Appreciation of evidence, truthfulness or probable defence of accused impermissible at this stage [Paras 8, 11–12].

Revisional Jurisdiction vs Inherent Powers – Distinction Reiterated – Scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. narrower than inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of evidence or determine likelihood of conviction – Interference warranted only in cases of palpable error, arbitrariness or abuse of process [Paras 10–11].

Matrimonial Dispute – Criminal Allegations – Civil and Criminal Liability – Mere existence of matrimonial discord and multiple litigations between parties does not bar criminal prosecution – Allegations in FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose prima facie ingredients of offences alleged – Background facts to be tested at trial, not at discharge stage [Paras 3–4, 14].

Allegations of Cruelty, Harassment and Insult to Modesty – Prima Facie Case – FIR and witness statements disclose that complainant was wrongfully restrained from entering matrimonial home by locking first floor and made to stand on road at night causing humiliation – Statements of on-duty police personnel corroborate allegations – Ingredients of offences prima facie attracted [Paras 5, 13–14].

Defence Plea – Not Considerable at Discharge Stage – Explanation offered by Petitioner No.1 regarding locking of premises amounts to rebuttal evidence – Such defence cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge or in revision against refusal of discharge [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order refusing discharge affirmed – Trial court rightly found sufficient ground to proceed – Petitioners to face trial in accordance with law.