Civil Procedure – Breach of Injunction Order – Appropriate Remedy – Petition challenging criminal complaints for breach of an ad-interim injunction. Held, breach of an injunction should be remedied through Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Recourse to Section 340 CrPC and Sections 191, 193 IPC is not appropriate for such breaches. Complaints and consequential proceedings quashed. [Paras 8-10]

Jurisdiction and Authority – Handling Perjury and False Documents – The offences under Sections 191 and 193 IPC related to perjury and false documents are within the jurisdiction of the court where the alleged acts occurred. The complainant cannot independently pursue these allegations without an order from the jurisdictionally empowered court. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaints and all consequential proceedings related to the breach of injunction order are quashed and set aside. [Paras 10-12]

Criminal Law - Bail - Principles for Granting Bail – Criminal petitions for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by individuals accused of economic offenses involving significant tax evasion through the creation of fake firms – Court reaffirms that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held that refusal of bail must not be punitive but should consider factors such as the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, the gravity of the offense, and the length of pre-trial detention. The Court grants bail considering these principles and the significant period of custody already undergone by the petitioners​​.

Economic Offenses - Gravity of Offense – Analysis – Held – Economic offenses, despite their serious nature, do not automatically justify the denial of bail. The Court must balance the need for public justice with the individual rights of the accused. Economic offenses must be weighed with considerations of the accused’s potential to tamper with evidence or flee justice. The documentary nature of the evidence and the significant custodial period already served are critical factors favoring the grant of bail​​.

Decision - Granting of Bail – The Court grants bail to the petitioners Maninder Sharma, Vinod Kumar, Sunny Mehta, and Sandeep Singh, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court, considering the extended period of pre-trial custody, the nature of the evidence, and the absence of any serious risk of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing. The Court orders the petitioners to surrender their passports and stipulates that any attempt to intimidate witnesses will result in bail cancellation​​.

Criminal Law - Bail - Factors for Granting Bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. -

Petitions for regular bail in a case of alleged tax evasion through fake firms and fraudulent transactions—Petitioners argued that continued detention was unjustified—Held, bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception—Refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21—Bail should not be denied to satisfy collective sentiments of the community or as a punitive measure—Petitioners' continued incarceration not necessary for further investigation—Granted bail with conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Economic Offences - Analysis -Petitioners involved in creating a network of fake firms and defrauding the state exchequer of Rs. 122.28 crores—Prosecution evidence primarily documentary in nature and in state custody—No serious apprehension of flight risk or tampering with evidence—Grant of bail justified with stringent conditions to ensure compliance and non-interference with the investigation. [Paras 2-9]

Decision:Petitions allowed—Petitioners granted bail subject to furnishing personal bonds, surrendering passports, and compliance with other conditions set by the Trial Court—Failure to adhere to conditions or any attempt to influence witnesses will result in cancellation of bail. [Paras 10-11]

Administrative Law – Enhancement of Punishment – Letters Patent Appeal against Single Judge’s Order – Respondent’s three annual increments were stopped and subsequently, he was dismissed from service by the DIGP, CRPF. Appeal and revision were dismissed. Single Judge set aside the punishment orders due to lack of detailed consideration of the inquiry report and non-speaking orders by the revisional authority. Held, orders of grave consequence require detailed reasoning and consideration of all issues. The appellate and revisional authorities failed to provide such reasoning, making their orders unsustainable. [Paras 1-27]

Exercise of Revisional Powers – Procedural Fairness – Held, the power of revision under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, was exercised without adhering to procedural requirements, leading to unjustified dismissal. The revisional authority's failure to address the detailed reasoning of the disciplinary authority's lesser punishment rendered the orders void. [Paras 10, 17, 19-20]

Decision – Reinstatement of Respondent – Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision to reinstate the respondent with all due arrears within a specified period, noting the failure of the appellate and revisional authorities to provide sufficient reasoning for the enhanced punishment. [Paras 26-27]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Forgery and Fraudulent Loan Acquisition - Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Allegations of forging revenue records to falsely show co-accused Satpal’s ownership instead of the complainant’s for securing a bank loan - Petitioner accused of assisting in the fraud - Held, petitioner’s role in creating a charge on the property through forgery is significant - Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed. [Paras 7-8]

Role of Accused - Analysis - Petitioner allegedly witnessed the application to create a bank charge on the property owned by the complainant - Case involves more than mere identification of the executant - Petitioner’s actions facilitated the creation of a fraudulent charge on the property, potentially resulting in its sale to recover the loan. [Paras 7-8]

Decision - Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Petition - Given the severity of the allegations and the petitioner’s involvement, anticipatory bail denied. [Para 8]

Criminal Law – Evidence in Absence of Accused – Criminal Revision against Appellate Court Order – Appeal by State against acquittal of petitioner under Section 406 IPC, followed by the remand of the case by the appellate court. The petitioner was acquitted alongside co-accused on the same set of evidence. Held, evidence led by prosecution during the absence of the accused can be used against the petitioner under Section 299(1) of Cr.P.C. Re-trying the petitioner on the same evidence is abuse of process of law and wastage of court time. Petition allowed, and acquittal upheld. [Paras 1-12]

Use of Prior Evidence – Interpretation – Held, that Section 299(1) Cr.P.C. allows evidence recorded during the absence of an absconding accused to be used upon his reappearance. The trial court's reliance on this provision was correct and does not require re-recording of evidence in the presence of the petitioner. [Para 10]

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Court sets aside the appellate court's order and upholds the trial court's decision acquitting the petitioner due to lack of proof of entrustment and misappropriation of paddy. [Paras 11-12]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Rejection - Petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Allegations in FIR grave - Petitioner evading arrest for over two and a half years indicating possibility of fleeing - P.O. proceedings initiated against petitioner - Petitioner's reliance on parity with co-accused granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on ground of custody rejected - Petition dismissed. [Paras 7-9]

Seriousness of Allegations - Analysis - Allegations involve robbery at gunpoint, kidnapping, and unlawful confinement - Incident occurred on a highway with use of a pistol - Petitioner has evaded arrest since January 2020 - Proceedings initiated to declare petitioner a Proclaimed Offender - Grant of anticipatory bail not justified due to gravity of offence and potential risk of petitioner absconding. [Paras 7-9]

Decision - Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Petition - In view of the seriousness of the allegations and potential flight risk, anticipatory bail denied - Strong hand required to curb rising instances of such crimes. [Para 9]

Criminal Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Medical Grounds - Petition against dismissal of revision petition for 54/55-day delay - Petitioner claimed delay due to illness, but no supporting documents were submitted - Trial court dismissed revision on technical grounds without hearing merits - Held, delay condoned - Revision petition restored for disposal on merits - Petition allowed. [Para 12]

Limitation Act - Justifiable Delay - Analysis - Petitioner cited medical treatment as cause for delay - Courts must consider genuine reasons for delay, especially medical issues - Technical rejections without merit consideration unjust - Delay condoned based on peculiar facts and similar precedents. [Paras 7-10]

Judicial Precedent - Madras High Court Decision - Referenced - Similar case where delay due to illness was condoned - Courts must prioritize substantive justice over technicalities - Petitioner's grievance similar to precedent case - Applied principles to allow condonation. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Delay Condoned - Revision Petition Restored - Dismissal order set aside - Delay of 54/55 days in filing criminal revision condoned - Additional Sessions Judge directed to restore revision petition and dispose of it on merits. [Para 12]

Service Law - Gratuity and Interest - Payment and Refund – LPA challenging Single Bench order allowing interest on gratuity amount from 26.03.2002 to 01.11.2010 – Employee retired in 2001, received gratuity but had to refund it upon opting for the pension scheme – Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank &Anr. vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association ruled employees entitled to both pension and gratuity – Bank refunded gratuity but denied interest – Single Bench directed payment of interest – LPA dismissed, Single Bench order upheld. [Paras 1-7]

Statutory Liability - Gratuity Payment and Refund – Analysis – Employee’s entitlement to gratuity under statutory provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Pension scheme’s minimum pension equivalent to gratuity admissible – Refund of gratuity and subsequent ruling by Supreme Court affirming employee’s right – Delay in refund not attributable to employee – Statutory interest on delayed payment due. [Paras 6-7]

Judicial Precedents - Beneficial Legislation - Interpretation – Reference to Supreme Court decisions affirming gratuity as a statutory right and delay in payment attracting interest – H. Gangahanume Gowda vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. affirmed mandatory interest on delayed gratuity payment – Allahabad Bank’s appeal against paying interest on refunded gratuity rejected. [Para 8]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed – Single Bench order affirmed – Bank directed to pay interest on delayed gratuity refund within two months – Employee’s right to gratuity and interest upheld. [Para 10]