Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 364A, 392, 397, 412, 34 of the IPC - Sections 25, 27, 54, 59, 30 of the Arms Act - Grant of Bail Post Recording of Key Witnesses – Section 483 BNSS – Bail Granted - The applicant, a dismissed police constable accused in a kidnapping for ransom case, sought bail after the examination of all key material witnesses – The Court noted that after completion of prosecution evidence, risk of tampering or influencing witnesses substantially reduces – Observed prolonged incarceration serves no useful purpose given pending trial duration – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-9, 22-24].

Presumption of Innocence – Principle Reaffirmed – Despite the serious nature of allegations, the Court reiterated the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence and right to liberty – Referred to landmark rulings emphasizing bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Upheld that gravity of offence alone is not sufficient ground to deny bail if other safeguards exist [Paras 12-13, 23].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Discrepancies Noted in Recovery Evidence – The applicant pointed out inconsistencies in police records, including absence of clear CCTV identification, non-conduct of TIP, and conflicting CDR details – The Court refrained from detailed evaluation at bail stage but acknowledged contradictions in case narrative as relevant for bail consideration [Paras 6-9].

Humanitarian Considerations – Custodial Incarceration and Right to Dignity – Court highlighted applicant’s clean antecedents, status as sole breadwinner, and prolonged custody since 2021 – Cited Supreme Court’s emphasis on dignity of accused and overcrowding in jails while allowing bail – Noted the applicant’s reinstatement in service as relevant factor [Paras 4-5, 11, 14].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted with stringent conditions including personal and surety bonds, appearance before court, furnishing of contact details, no criminal indulgence, and no interference with prosecution witnesses – Safeguards balanced liberty rights with judicial control [Para 24].

Decision – Bail Granted – Application Allowed – The application for regular bail was allowed subject to conditions after considering post-evidence stage, inconsistencies in prosecution case, and humane factors favouring release – Court directed compliance with terms and communication to jail authorities [Paras 24-26].

Matrimonial Law  – Domestic Violence Act – Section 12, 19 – Illegal Possession – Police Excess – Alternative Accommodation – The High Court considered multiple connected cases concerning domestic violence, forcible possession, and right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – The Court held that forcible possession through police assistance without court order is impermissible – The wife’s right to reside in the shared household was subject to balance of rights between in-laws and aggrieved person – Given subsistence of prior marriage of the husband rendering the present marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court upheld lower court orders directing provision of equivalent alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) DV Act while condemning the illegal police action in dispossession of in-laws – The Criminal Revision was dismissed, writ petitions partially allowed, and contempt application disposed of [Paras 54-66, 69-72].

Right of Residence – Non-absolute Right – Shared Household – Section 19 DV Act – Right to residence in a shared household is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of elderly in-laws – The Court upheld the alternative accommodation arrangement for the aggrieved person while acknowledging the right of peaceful cohabitation for in-laws – Orders of CJM and Appellate Court affirmed [Paras 52-66].

Void Marriage – Section 5(i), 11 of Hindu Marriage Act – Marriage void ab initio where husband had subsisting prior marriage – Wife’s status under DV Act recognised under relationship in the nature of marriage but substantive marital rights were vitiated due to contravention of Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act – Consequences of void marriage addressed in residence rights under Section 19 DV Act [Paras 55-60].

Illegal Use of Police Force – Absence of Judicial Authorization – The Court deprecated the police action in forcibly granting possession without court order – Observed police acted beyond authority in forcibly dispossessing other family members – Reaffirmed individual’s right to approach courts for such relief, not through police intervention [Paras 61-63, 69-70].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Article 226 – Challenge to police atrocities – Writ petitions under Article 226 maintainable where allegations concern misuse of police power – Despite remedies under CrPC, Constitutional Court can intervene in cases of police excess and violation of civil liberties [Paras 67-70].

Criminal Revision – Residence Order – Alternative Accommodation Upheld – Criminal Revision dismissed as no irregularity found in concurrent orders directing wife to vacate shared household and reside in alternate rented accommodation arranged by husband [Paras 65-66].

Decision – Criminal Revision dismissed – Writ Petitions allowed in part – Orders of alternative accommodation affirmed – Directions issued regarding police overreach – Contempt petition disposed of without further directions [Paras 66, 71-72].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Sections 351(2), 79, 3(5), 70 of the BNS - Serious Allegations of Sexual Offence – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of gang rape, assault, and robbery arising from alleged retaliation after employment termination – The Court observed substantial contradictions in the complainant’s successive statements, unexplained delay in lodging FIR, absence of medical evidence, and conflicting Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Held: Prima facie inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-19].

Delay and Contradictions – Adverse Impact on Prosecution Credibility – The Court noted unexplained delay in FIR registration, absence of rape allegations in initial versions, refusal to undergo medical examination, and contradictory narratives about the involvement of the petitioner – Held: Such contradictions diminish reliability of prosecution case, especially at pre-trial stage [Paras 12-13].

Right to Liberty – Presumption of Innocence Prevails – Gravity Not Sole Criterion – While acknowledging seriousness of allegations, the Court reiterated the principle of personal liberty and presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Custodial interrogation found unnecessary in absence of flight risk or tampering concerns – Held: Bail should not be denied merely due to gravity of offence without cogent reasons [Paras 11, 14].

Civil Dispute Colouring Criminal Allegations – Motive Found in Ongoing Property Dispute – The Court noted existence of a civil property dispute between petitioner’s family and complainant’s family, influencing timing and content of criminal allegations – Held: Civil dispute forming backdrop strengthens petitioner’s defence of false implication [Paras 17-18].

Conditions Imposed – Monitoring of Conduct – Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond, refrain from contacting complainant or tampering with evidence, and remain available for investigation – Held: Liberty granted subject to strict adherence to conditions, with liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation upon breach [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – The Court allowed anticipatory bail with protective conditions, clarified observations are limited to bail adjudication and will not prejudice trial [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law - DNA Testing in Rape Case – Quashing of Sessions Court Order – Mandatory DNA Sampling Upheld – The petitioner, prosecutrix, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which had set aside the Magistrate’s order permitting DNA sampling of Respondent No.2 in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The Delhi High Court held that the Sessions Court had erroneously applied the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act despite clear evidence of separation between the prosecutrix and her husband. It was concluded that in cases involving allegations of rape, DNA examination under Section 53A Cr.P.C. is mandatory and indispensable for a fair investigation. The Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and directed Respondent No.2 to provide his blood sample for DNA testing within fifteen days. The Court also permitted use of reasonable force if the accused declined or resisted [Paras 1-99].

Collection of DNA Sample – Section 53A Cr.P.C. – DNA Testing is a Mandatory Step in Rape Investigation – The Court reaffirmed the legal position that in cases of sexual assault, DNA sampling is mandatory under Section 53A Cr.P.C. The rationale is to ensure comprehensive investigation and facilitate accurate determination of guilt or innocence. The order of the Magistrate allowing DNA testing was found to be correct and aligned with the statutory mandate of fair investigation [Paras 53-57, 86-88].

Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act – Not Applicable in Criminal Investigation – The Court held that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is meant for matrimonial disputes and cannot be allowed to interfere in criminal proceedings. In the present case, since the prosecutrix and her husband were separated without access to each other, the presumption was inapplicable. The Court held that modern scientific tools like DNA testing must prevail over presumptions to ascertain truth in criminal cases [Paras 60-93].

Scientific Evidence Prevails – Importance of Truth in Criminal Justice – The Court emphasized that in criminal justice, truth is paramount and DNA testing is a near-perfect scientific tool to determine paternity and establish facts in sexual assault cases. Courts must prefer conclusive scientific evidence over legal fictions or presumptions where justice demands it [Paras 64-71, 85-87].

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Principles of Matrimonial Law Not Applicable – The Court distinguished between civil and criminal cases, observing that while certain presumptions may apply in matrimonial disputes, they cannot limit the investigative powers of the police in criminal proceedings. The right to fair investigation in rape cases includes recourse to scientific methods like DNA testing irrespective of matrimonial presumptions [Paras 83-89].

Direction for Compliance – ASJ Order Set Aside – Blood Sample to be Collected – The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed Respondent No.2 to present himself for DNA sampling within fifteen days. The Investigating Officer was authorized to use reasonable force if Respondent No.2 failed to cooperate. The petition was allowed, ensuring proper application of legal provisions to aid investigation [Paras 98-99].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 190, 296(b) of the BNS - Advocate Assaulted for Professional Duty – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, political leaders, sought anticipatory bail after allegedly attacking a lawyer who had drafted a complaint against them – Court found motive established from documentary evidence and confirmed grievous injuries to the complainant – Held: Granting bail would impair custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon – Bail application dismissed [Paras 1–12].

Custodial Interrogation – Supreme Court Precedent – Pre-arrest Protection Dilutes Investigation – Relying on Supreme Court judgment in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail may hinder effective interrogation – Held: Bail at pre-investigation stage can insulate accused and reduce interrogation to a ritual – Therefore, custodial interrogation justified [Para 10].

Rule of Law – Attack on Advocates Threatens Judicial Access – Grave Concern – Court observed that assaulting a lawyer for drafting a legal complaint undermines the justice system and the right of citizens to access legal remedies – Held: Such conduct cannot be condoned as it erodes rule of law – Petitioners not entitled to anticipatory bail [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court directed no protection under Section 482 of BNSS – Petitioners to be available for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon of offence – Seriousness of charges and professional nature of enmity considered decisive.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death and Suicide – Conviction under Section 304B Modified – Section 306 and 498A Sustained – The appeal was preferred against conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death following suicide of wife within seven years of marriage—High Court found lack of evidence establishing harassment or dowry demand 'soon before death' but consistent dowry demands established during marriage—Held: Conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable, altered to Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498A IPC (cruelty)—Sentence reduced—Appeal partly allowed [Paras 12-24].

Dowry Demand and Cruelty – Section 498A – Established – Continuous dowry demand including demand for car shown by reliable testimony—Court held the demands amounted to cruelty under Section 498A IPC—Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed with reduced sentence of two years [Paras 23-24].

Soon Before Death Requirement – Section 304B IPC Not Attracted – Court explained that absence of dowry-related cruelty immediately before death disables presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act—Last proven dowry demand made more than three months prior to death—Conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC set aside [Paras 19-21].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Upheld Due to Lack of Evidence – Co-accused (mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law) acquitted by Trial Court as they lived separately and their involvement was not established—Revision petition against their acquittal dismissed—Held: Trial Court’s finding proper, no interference warranted [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed, Revision Dismissed – Conviction altered from Section 304B to Section 306 and 498A IPC—Sentence reduced to four years for Section 306 and two years for Section 498A, to run concurrently—Revision petition against acquittal of co-accused dismissed [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law - Section 94, 438(2) BNSS - Interlocutory Orders – Revisional Jurisdiction Barred under BNSS – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought to set aside the trial court’s order summoning the Investigating Officer (IO) for a report regarding CCTV footage preservation – The High Court held that the impugned order was purely interlocutory in nature, not amounting to any substantive direction, and thus, barred from challenge under Section 438(2) of BNSS – Held: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised against interlocutory orders, nor can inherent powers be invoked to bypass this bar [Paras 1-4].

No Interference Where Application Pending – Premature Challenge – The petitioner further sought directions for CCTV footage preservation which was already the subject matter of the pending application before the trial court – Held: There is no occasion to interfere when the lower court has already seized of the matter; petition deemed premature and infructuous [Paras 5].

Frivolous Petition – Costs Imposed – Abuse of Court’s Time – The Court found the petition not only meritless but frivolous, filed without any justification for interference at the interlocutory stage – Held: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹20,000 payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week [Paras 6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Directions Issued – The High Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, refused to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings, and imposed exemplary costs, directing communication of the order to the Jail Superintendent for apprising the petitioner [Paras 6].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Pension Entitlement – Daily Wager Service Prior to Regularization – Non-Consideration of Pre-Regularization Service – Dismissal of Writ – Petitioner, a Chowkidar in Gorakhpur Development Authority, sought inclusion of daily wage service from 1988 to 2010 towards pension qualifying service under the Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: As per Rule 2(i), qualifying service requires 20 years of regular service; petitioner’s regular service was only 13 years post-regularization—Service prior to regularization as daily wager excluded from qualifying service computation—Petition dismissed [Paras 14-18].

Application of Prem Singh Principle – Distinction Between Work-Charged and Daily Wager Service – Petitioner Ineligible – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prem Singh (2019) applies to work-charged employees under 1961 Rules; clarified in Uday Pratap Thakur (2023) that daily wager service cannot be counted for pension quantum or qualifying service under Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: Petitioner being daily wager, not entitled to pensionary benefits for pre-regularization service [Paras 17-18].

Pending Reference Before Larger Bench – Judicial Restraint Exercised – The issue of counting daily wage service under the 2011 Rules is sub judice before Division Bench in Kanhai Ram (2024)—Held: Court refrained from granting relief pending authoritative determination of issue—Petitioner at liberty to avail remedy post reference outcome [Para 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Pension Entitlement for Daily Wage Service – Court dismissed petition noting absence of requisite 20 years qualifying service post-regularization, and legal distinction between work-charged and daily wager categories—Petitioner’s remedy remains open subject to decision in pending reference [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Murder – Conviction Under Section 302, 34 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal -  The appellants challenged their conviction for murder citing improper appreciation of evidence, dubious oral dying declaration, procedural lapses in investigation, and faulty Section 313 examination—High Court found multiple inconsistencies in prosecution story including absence of dying declaration in FIR, non-examination of neutral witnesses, improper recovery of weapon from public place, and defective questioning under Section 313 CrPC—Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Appeals allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellants acquitted [Paras 1-25].

Dying Declaration – Non-Mention in FIR and Inquest Report – Version Discredited – Alleged oral dying declaration by victim to his brother not reflected in FIR or medical records—No hospital records showing presence of PW1—Omissions deemed material and suggestive of prosecution improvement—Held: Prosecution failed to establish dying declaration as credible evidence [Paras 10-15].

Eyewitness Credibility – Prosecution Relied Only on Victim’s Associates – Court noted suspicious absence of local independent witnesses at place of occurrence—Seizure witnesses and primary prosecution witnesses all belonged to victim’s locality, not the crime scene—Held: Prosecution version doubtful, non-examination of neutral witnesses fatal [Paras 16-21].

Recovery of Weapon – Recovery from Public Place Without Proper Corroboration – Iron rod recovered from public drain in absence of local witnesses—Court held recovery lacked credibility under Section 27 Evidence Act—Reliance placed on Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. and Manjunath v. State of Karnataka—Held: Recovery not proved satisfactorily [Paras 18-20].

Defective Examination Under Section 313 CrPC – Procedural Lapse – Court found improper clubbing of questions under Section 313, denying appellants fair opportunity to explain incriminating evidence—Held: Trial Judge erred by not conducting proper examination—Conviction vitiated due to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 22-24].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellants acquitted of all charges—Directed to be released forthwith if not required in other cases [Paras 25-26].