NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Granted – Petitioner in custody for 1 year 6 months with no criminal antecedents – Although rigors of Section 37 apply, Supreme Court precedents permit relaxation when custody is unduly prolonged – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 8-16].

Prolonged Pre-trial Detention – Article 21 and Bail – Right to speedy trial a facet of Article 21 – Court relied on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla, Shince Babu, Sohrab Khan, Ramlal and other Supreme Court rulings granting bail in similar cases due to long custody – Trial likely to take further time – Continued incarceration would offend Article 21 [Paras 10-14].

Bail Conditions – Reformative and Protective – Petitioner directed to comply with stringent conditions including surrender of arms, regular appearance, and prohibition from influencing witnesses – Trial Court directed to ensure surety is capable of securing petitioner's attendance – Reference made to Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi regarding proportionality of bail conditions [Paras 17-24].

Cancellation of Bail – Automatic Trigger – Court clarified that if petitioner commits any fresh non-bailable offence, State may apply for immediate cancellation of bail – Observed in light of Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Bail Petition Allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions – Petition disposed of along with all pending applications [Para 27].

Habeas Corpus – Detention or Voluntary Admission – Allegation of Illegal Custody – Petitioner contended that alleged detenue, a farmer leader on indefinite hunger strike, was illegally detained by the police while returning from a meeting with Government officials – State argued detenue was hospitalized due to health condition and was free to leave – Held: Detenue was admitted in hospital based on Supreme Court directions and his own volition without any illegal custody [Paras 1-6].

Right of Access to Detenue – Family Visit to Hospital – Denial Alleged – Petitioner alleged that family members were being denied access to detenue in hospital – State expressed no objection to family visits subject to hospital protocols – Court directed the State to facilitate meetings without any hindrance while maintaining hospital rules [Paras 3-5].

Protest Rights – Balancing Health and Liberty – Detenue’s Health after Hunger Strike – Court noted that hospitalization of detenue was necessitated by his deteriorated health and not by any coercive state action – Detenue is free to seek discharge at his will – Petition disposed as no illegal detention found [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition disposed of – No illegal confinement established – Directions issued to ensure family, friends, and others may meet the detenue in hospital without hindrance but following hospital protocols [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Abetment of Suicide – Essentials of Section 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The Court reiterated that mere harassment or disputes over financial transactions are insufficient to constitute abetment unless direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide is proved – The deceased had the option to seek recovery of debt legally – Absence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC not satisfied [Paras 15-19].

Suicide Note – General Allegation Not Sufficient – The suicide note vaguely referred to harassment by Subhash and the police without naming any officer or detailing specific acts of abetment – No nexus between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide was established – Suicide due to loan dispute does not by itself constitute abetment [Paras 18-19].

Delay and Absence of Proof – No Evidence of Finance Business or Loan Transaction – The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was actually running a finance business or that a loan was advanced to the accused – Absence of documentary or reliable oral evidence regarding the alleged debt transaction and threats – Defence plea of false implication accepted [Paras 18-19].

Temperament of Deceased – No Proof of Prudence or Instigation – No evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was prudent and was compelled to commit suicide due to unbearable harassment – Suicide attributed to hypersensitivity rather than actionable abetment – Courts must be cautious to avoid penalizing routine disputes as abetment [Paras 17-19].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in the challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed with no relief granted [Para 20].
 

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹5 lakh towards repayment of debt, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complainant issued legal notice but cheque remained unpaid – Trial Court convicted accused, sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine – Appellate Court upheld conviction – Revision petition filed challenging conviction on various grounds including non-service of legal notice, invalidity of bank return memo, and absence of loan entries in income tax returns or account books – Held: Conviction valid [Paras 1-5].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Legal Liability – Sections 118 and 139 – Statutory presumption of consideration arises when signature on cheque is admitted – Presumption is rebuttable, but accused failed to rebut by preponderance of probabilities – Accused merely claimed absence of loan in complainant's accounts but offered no credible evidence – Presumption of legally enforceable liability not displaced – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-20].

Income Tax Returns – Non-reflection of Loan – Non-mention of loan in income tax returns or account books does not invalidate debt – Held: Presumption under NI Act cannot be negated solely because loan is unaccounted in tax documents – Non-disclosure may invite action under tax laws but does not defeat complainant's case under Section 138 – Support drawn from Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan and Ganga Prashad vs Lalit Kumar [Paras 18-22].

Service of Legal Notice – Validity – Registered Notice returned unclaimed – Presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies – Non-service due to absence of accused at address does not invalidate notice – Complaint not rendered premature – Held: Accused had opportunity to pay after receiving court summons as well [Paras 23-25].

Bank Return Memo – Validity without Stamp – Section 146 NI Act – Return memo need not bear bank’s stamp if it carries official signature and branch details – Purpose is to relieve bank officers from entering witness box in every case – Return memo valid and admissible – Held: Objection to absence of stamp rejected [Paras 26-30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to act as second appellate court – Held: Findings of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court are based on correct appreciation of law and evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity found – Revision dismissed [Paras 9-11, 32].

Conduct of Accused – Offer to Compound – Accused offered partial settlement post-conviction but withdrew when asked to pay fair amount considering interest since 2003 – Held: Conduct displays intent to evade liability rather than genuine defence – Supports prosecution version [Para 25].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Trial Court directed to issue necessary warrants to secure custody of accused for serving sentence [Para 32].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Requirement of Formal Application – Mandatory – The Trial Court awarded permanent alimony to the respondent-wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act without there being any formal or oral application by the wife – Held: In view of binding precedents of Madhya Pradesh High Court, including Abhishek Parashar v. Neha Parashar, it is mandatory to have an express application for claiming permanent alimony – Such application may be through a separate application or incorporated in the written statement – Absence of such application renders the award unsustainable [Paras 5-11].

Conflicting Views Harmonized – Earlier Binding Precedents Prevail – The Court clarified that although certain judgments like Rituraj Singh and Dharmendra Tiwari held that no formal application is required, these were rendered per incuriam as they did not consider earlier binding precedents such as Jitbandhan and Chhaya Kshatriya – Applying the principle of judicial discipline, the Court followed the earlier binding view requiring a formal application for permanent alimony [Paras 9-10].

Assessment of Alimony – Relevant Factors – The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, highlighting that fixing of permanent alimony requires considering the financial status of both parties, conduct, needs, and standard of living – In the present case, no such assessment was done due to absence of a proper application [Para 12].

Final Decision – Decree for Alimony Set Aside – The order granting permanent alimony (Para 17(2) of the impugned judgment) was quashed – Matter concluded by modifying the decree accordingly [Para 13].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy – Appeal against acquittal – Deceased, an office bearer of JDU party, murdered by accused persons due to political rivalry – Prosecution alleged conspiracy and participation of 10 accused persons – Trial court acquitted all accused – High Court, upon appeal by State and de facto complainant, found that evidence of injured eye-witnesses (PW1 and PW2) was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical, scientific, and forensic evidence – Test Identification Parade properly conducted confirming identification of accused – Recovery of weapons and forensic linkage established guilt – Alleged mask-wearing by assailants not substantiated and wrongly accepted by trial court – Held: Conviction recorded for accused 1 to 5 under Sections 302/34 IPC – Accused 2 also convicted under Section 324 IPC and accused 4 under Section 326 IPC – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 upheld due to insufficient evidence [Paras 1 to 58].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Eye-Witnesses – PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries while trying to save deceased – Their ocular testimony corroborated by FIR, medical evidence, and scientific reports – Minor discrepancies immaterial – Injuries confirmed their presence at the scene – Identification of accused in Test Identification Parade and in court reliable – Trial court erred in disbelieving them based on alleged mention of masks in medical records – No suppression of FIR or manipulation found – Held: Trial court misdirected itself in rejecting consistent and corroborated evidence of injured witnesses [Paras 39 to 46].

Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence – Fingerprint Expert (PW71) established matching chance prints of accused 2, 4, and 5 from crime scene vehicle – DNA evidence (PW74, PW75) linked accused 2 and 4 to hair samples from vehicle – Recovery of knife (MO4) by accused 2 corroborated by post-mortem findings – Blood on knife matched with deceased – Recovery and identification processes legally valid – Trial court erroneously discarded crucial forensic evidence on technical grounds – Held: Forensic evidence fully corroborates ocular version and proves participation of accused beyond doubt [Paras 49 to 52].

Criminal Conspiracy – Lack of Proof – Allegation of conspiracy against accused 6 to 10 failed – PW7 and PW9's evidence unconvincing and contradictory – No independent corroboration linking accused 6 to 10 to conspiracy – Purchase of vehicle by accused 6 insufficient to prove conspiracy – Trial court's acquittal of accused 6 to 10 on this charge affirmed [Paras 33 to 36].

Charge Framing – Misapplication – Charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against accused 6 to 10 unjustified based on prosecution's own case – No evidence of common intention or participation in actual assault – High Court correctly excluded them from conviction for murder while maintaining acquittal [Para 37].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 set aside – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed – Accused 2 additionally convicted under Section 324 IPC – Accused 4 additionally convicted under Section 326 IPC – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 upheld – Directed issuance of non-bailable warrants for arrest of convicted accused and listing for sentence hearing [Para 58].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Finding Reversed – Claimant Exonerated – Tribunal had held both the bus driver and claimant contributorily negligent (50% each) because the claimant was driving an unregistered vehicle – High Court held that absence of registration does not imply causation unless overt negligence is shown – FIR and evidence confirmed the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus – Held: Finding of contributory negligence against appellant set aside; sole responsibility fixed on bus driver [Paras 5, 6, 9].

Compensation – Disability – Enhanced by Applying Proper Multiplier and Future Prospects – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded ₹90,000 for 50% disability – High Court revised it to a multiplier of 18 with 40% addition for future prospects for a 22-year-old – Loss of future earning capacity recalculated at ₹1,51,200 – Held: Tribunal erred in not awarding for future prospects; enhanced just compensation awarded [Paras 6, 10].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Additional Heads Granted – Tribunal had not awarded any compensation for pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, or future medical expenses – High Court awarded ₹50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹5,000 for special diet, ₹10,000 each for attendant charges and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation must be comprehensive and fair, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Para 10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% Interest – Tribunal award of ₹62,564 set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% annual interest from date of award till realization – Any previously paid amount to be adjusted – Held: Appellant entitled to full compensation without deduction for contributory negligence [Paras 10–13].
 

Review Petition – Jurisdictional Error – Review Allowed – Petitioners sought review of common order dismissing writ petitions challenging the criminal proceedings under UAPA – This Court noticed that as per Section 21(2) of NIA Act, all such matters ought to be heard by a Division Bench and not by a Single Judge – Held: Since jurisdictional error goes to the root of the matter, review is maintainable and review petitions allowed [Paras 5-8].

Scope of Review – Error Apparent on Record – Jurisdictional Error Constitutes Sufficient Ground – Referring to Kamalesh Verma vs. Mayawati, 2013 (8) SCC 320, the Court held that review lies when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reasons – Held: Jurisdictional mistake satisfies this condition, warranting restoration of writ petitions [Para 6].

NIA Act – Section 21(2) – Mandatory Requirement of Division Bench – Review Bench relied on Mastiguda Aboobacker vs. NIA, 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159 and other precedents holding that under Section 21(2) of the NIA Act, all appeals and analogous proceedings arising under NIA Act have to be heard by a Division Bench – Held: Present cases being UAPA matters squarely fall within Section 21(2) mandate [Paras 7-8].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Not Excluded by NIA Act – Following Kerala Full Bench view, the Court reiterated that Section 482 CrPC continues to be available for NIA cases subject to routing through a Division Bench – The inherent power is not ousted by the NIA Act but must be exercised cautiously [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Review Allowed – Writ petitions restored to file and directed to be placed before Division Bench – Petitioners granted liberty to approach Division Bench for appropriate relief [Para 8].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning order set aside – Petitioners were summoned based on partial appraisal of evidence, relying only on the statement of injured witness Ajit Singh (PW-3) – Trial Court failed to consider complainant Chandi Ram’s (PW-4) testimony, which was material to conspiracy allegations – Summoning order held unsustainable in absence of complete analysis [Paras 13-18].

Conspiracy – Evidence Requirement – Complainant’s testimony indicated conspiracy involving all named persons – Injured witness did not support conspiracy allegations against all petitioners – Trial Court erroneously omitted discussion of complainant’s version regarding the meeting and threats before the incident – Supreme Court’s guidelines in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 reiterated – Complete evidence must be examined before exercising power under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 13-17].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Revisional Court has power to test whether Trial Court has properly appreciated material evidence while exercising Section 319 CrPC power – Held: Partial reliance on evidence and omission to consider vital testimony constitutes error of law justifying interference [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Revision Petitions allowed – Impugned order dated 11.09.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court to re-decide the application under Section 319 CrPC after considering full evidence including statements of both injured witness and complainant – Fresh order to be passed within 45 days – Benefit of remand extended to Raj Kumar, though not a revision petitioner [Paras 19-21].