Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Disclosure of Documents – Order 11 Rule 1 CPC – Leave Rightly Refused – Petitioner’s application to place additional documents on record during Defendant's evidence stage was rejected by the Trial Court – Held: Petitioner failed to disclose these documents along with the written statement despite opportunity and court direction – COVID-19 restrictions could not explain non-filing in October 2023 – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 4, 5, 14].

Order XI Rule 1 CPC – Reasonable Cause – Burden Not Discharged – The Court emphasized that ‘reasonable cause’ for non-disclosure under Order XI Rule 1 must be shown when documents were in the party’s possession – Petitioner failed to justify delay despite earlier knowledge and possession of the documents – Application filed only after conclusion of Plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Delay was tactical, not bona fide [Paras 11, 12, 15].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Trial Court unless the decision is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error – Trial Court acted judiciously – Held: No interference warranted [Para 16].

Procedural Discipline in Commercial Litigation – Emphasized – Court reiterated importance of adhering to timelines and procedural rigour under the Commercial Courts Act – Delay or omission must be explained with diligence – Judicial discretion under Order XI must be exercised strictly [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application for filing additional documents at an advanced trial stage – Directed Trial Court to proceed expeditiously [Paras 17-18].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Assessment – Contributory Negligence and Quantum – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurance Company contested MACT’s award of ₹4,53,047 on two grounds: improper apportionment of liability between two vehicles and excess compensation – Court held no contributory negligence was proved by insurer regarding second motorbike involved – On quantum, MACT correctly applied heads of compensation, but disability was temporary (25%) and proved only for two years – Award revised accordingly – Held: Compensation reduced to ₹2,99,047 with 9% interest from date of petition; no interference with pain and suffering, special diet, and cost components [Paras 4–27].

Criminal Law - Rape and Unnatural Offence – Acquittal Challenged – Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The appellant, mother of the victim, challenged the trial court's acquittal of the accused, her husband, on allegations of sexual assault of their minor daughter – Prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of the mother (PW.4) and the victim (PW.23) along with medical evidence – Held: The evidence revealed significant inconsistencies, including admissions by the victim of being tutored by the mother – DNA findings contradicted the prosecution's case, with the victim’s DNA absent on crucial materials allegedly worn during the incident – Medical reports showed infections consistent with non-sexual causes like urinary tract infection and pinworms rather than sexual abuse – The failure to examine key independent witness (the maid Geeta) was fatal to the prosecution – The trial court’s reasoning that the case arose out of marital discord and custody disputes was justified – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-20].

Medical Evidence – DNA Report – Contradictions – DNA of the accused was found on seized clothes and bedspreads but the victim's DNA was conspicuously absent from those items – Vaginal and anal swabs tested negative for the accused’s DNA – Held: DNA evidence undermines the prosecution case and supports the defence claim that the materials may have been manipulated or do not relate to the alleged incident – No reliable medical corroboration to sustain the charge of rape [Paras 14-15].

Victim's Testimony – Reliability – Victim admitted in court that she was tutored by her mother and given incentives like chocolate and picnics for her statements – Held: Testimony tainted by influence, lacked spontaneity, and inconsistent with her memory about key events – Courts held that though conviction can rest solely on victim’s testimony, in this case, the evidence was neither credible nor free from doubt – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to the accused [Para 17].

Non-Examination of Key Witness – Maid Present During Incident Not Examined – Critical Witness Suppressed – The housemaid Geeta, who was present during the alleged incident of 13.06.2012, was not examined by the prosecution despite her statement being recorded by the investigating officer – Held: Non-examination raises adverse inference against the prosecution – Supports the finding of the trial court that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 16].

Legal Principle – Presumption of Innocence Strengthened – Citing the principle that between “may be true” and “must be true,” the Court reiterated that unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt with clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence, benefit of doubt must go to the accused – Acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence – No ground to interfere with trial court’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Para 20-21].

NDPS Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Alleged Financing of Contraband Purchase – Bail Granted – Petitioner, a woman and sixth accused, allegedly transferred money to her son and driver who were found in possession of MDMA – Prosecution invoked conspiracy under Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act – Held: Mere monetary transfers to family members insufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy in absence of physical manifestation or overt acts – Petitioner’s relationship with accused and financial transactions explained as familial support – No direct evidence of involvement in drug offence [Paras 3–8].

Conspiracy – Requirement of Overt Acts – Supreme Court Precedents – Court reiterated that conspiracy requires more than speculative inference – Relied on R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737 and State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra (2018) 10 SCC 516 – Held: No prima facie case of agreement between petitioner and co-accused – Petitioner’s conduct does not meet threshold for rigour under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 7–8].

Comparative Parity – Co-accused Granted Bail – Petitioner arrested on same day as 5th accused who was already granted bail – No criminal antecedents – Continued detention not warranted – Bail granted on parity grounds and in light of gender and health considerations [Paras 5, 9].

Bail Principles – NDPS Act – Applicability of Section 37 – Reference to Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 INSC 1045) and Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC 374 – Despite strict interpretation, Court found petitioner not likely to commit offence or tamper evidence – No prior record – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Bail Granted – Court held that petitioner’s custody not justified in absence of credible evidence of conspiracy – Found reasonable grounds to believe she is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Ordered release on bail with standard safeguards and liberty to modify by jurisdictional court [Paras 12].

Civil Law - Wakaf by User – Applicability of Section 3(d) of the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978 – Ziyarat is Wakaf by nature – Held that religious properties such as Ziyarat, Dargah, or Graveyard are Wakafs by user irrespective of formal notification – No formal declaration required under the Act for such properties to be treated as Wakaf – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-15].

Wakaf Notification – Scope of Section 6 of the Wakafs Act, 1978 – Publication in Gazette is directory and does not constitute the creation of Wakaf – Section 6 only requires the government to publish a list of Wakafs following a survey under Section 4 – It does not amount to declaration or conferment of Wakaf status – Writ Court rightly rejected the plea that absence of notification negates Wakaf status [Paras 14-15].

Ownership Dispute – Khasra Number Discrepancy – Appellants claim that Ziyarat falls within their proprietary land (Khasra No. 323) which is not notified as Wakaf – Held: If Ziyarat is located within Khasra No. 323, appellants are free to seek demarcation from revenue authorities or file civil suit – However, challenge to Wakaf Board’s order is not maintainable since Khasra No. 323 is not part of the Wakaf notification (SRO 510 of 1985) – Appellants have no locus to question management of Wakaf properties located in Khasra No. 322 min [Paras 9, 16-18].

Survey of Wakafs – Section 4 – Survey conducted under Section 4 presupposes the existence of Wakafs by dedication or user – Appellants never objected during the original 1985 notification process (SRO 510) – Cannot raise challenge at this stage without challenging the foundational notification itself – The Court upheld that the Wakaf Board was within its legal authority to take over the management [Paras 12, 15, 17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No legal infirmity in the writ court’s judgment dismissing WP(C) No. 1044/2023 – The appellant may pursue remedies before revenue authorities or civil court for their proprietary claim but cannot challenge the Wakaf Board’s management over the notified Wakaf properties [Paras 17-18].

Bail in POCSO Case – Section 6 of the POCSO - Section 376AB of the IPC - Allegation of Rape by Father – Bail Denied – The petitioner was charged with sexually assaulting his minor daughter, aged 11 years, under Sections 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – DNA evidence from the mattress matched both the victim and the petitioner – Held: Prima facie, involvement of the petitioner is established; the heinousness of the offence, breach of trust, and corroborative forensic evidence justify denial of bail [Paras 1, 11].

Progress of Trial – Delay Plea Rejected – No Unjustified Delay – Although the petitioner remained in custody for over two years, the Court noted that 18 out of 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined and the trial was nearing completion – Held: Mere duration of custody without substantial delay or inertia in trial progress is not a valid ground for bail [Paras 1, 12].

Victim Safety – Accused Residing with Victim Prior to Arrest – Bail Denied for Victim Protection – The Court held that releasing the accused on bail posed a serious risk to the safety of the victim, who is his biological daughter – Held: Given proximity and prior access, petitioner’s release not compatible with victim’s welfare [Para 13].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Petition seeking regular bail rejected in view of the serious nature of the allegations, corroborative DNA evidence, and concern for the victim's safety – Held: Dismissal of bail petition warranted; observations in this order shall not affect the trial on merits [Paras 15-16].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83, 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act - Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the BNS - Lack of Conscious Possession – Accused not Found at Scene – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The applicant was implicated based solely on secret police inputs and was not found in conscious possession of liquor during the raid – The Court observed that the applicant was only a witness to the rent agreement and no material suggested his direct involvement – Held: No custodial interrogation required – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-6].

Relevant Judicial Precedents – Bail Jurisprudence – Cited Apex Court Decisions – The Court relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 to reinforce the settled position on anticipatory bail – Emphasis placed on the applicant’s right to liberty in absence of compelling custodial need [Para 7].

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Cooperation – Bail with Conditions – Anticipatory bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹15,000 with surety and subject to multiple conditions including cooperation with investigation, attendance at police station, travel restrictions, and non-tampering with evidence – Trial Court directed not to be influenced by observations made at bail stage [Paras 8-10].

Bail - NDPS Act – Statement of Co-Accused and Financial Transactions – Bail Granted – The prosecution relied on statements of co-accused and financial transfers to implicate the petitioners under Sections 21, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Held: Statements of co-accused are inadmissible under Sections 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and 162 CrPC – Financial transactions, in the absence of direct link to contraband trade, are insufficient to deny bail – No recovery was made from petitioners – Bail granted [Paras 12–15, 18].

Section 27A NDPS – Meaning of “Financing” – Not Attracted – Court followed Bombay High Court’s ruling in Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, holding that “financing” under Section 27A entails sustaining or operationalizing drug trade and not mere one-time payments – Mere money transfers, without evidence of systemic support, do not attract Section 27A [Paras 19–25].

Organised Crime under BNS – Section 111 Not Invocable – No Prior Charge Sheets – To invoke Section 111 BNS, existence of prior cognized charge sheets in the last 10 years against accused is mandatory – No such history against petitioners – Prima facie ingredients of “continuing unlawful activity” not met – Section 111 BNS not attracted – Bail allowed [Paras 26–32].

Constitutional Right to Silence – Burden of Proof on Prosecution – Petitioners cannot be compelled to explain financial transactions – The burden lies on the prosecution to prove criminal nexus – Exercise of right to silence cannot be interpreted as guilt or organisational membership [Para 33].

Decision – Bail Granted – No prima facie case under Sections 21, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act or Section 111(3) BNS – Petitioners granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with conditions relating to address, attendance, and conduct – Misuse of liberty may lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 34–36].

Civil Writ of Mandamus - Look Out Circular – Non-Accused – Foreign National – LOC Continuation Justified – The petitioner, a citizen of Seychelles and former director of a company under investigation for siphoning Rs.500 Crores, sought withdrawal of LOC issued by the CBI – Held: Since the petitioner is a foreign national from a country with no extradition treaty with India and there is a real risk of flight, continuation of LOC is justified till completion of investigation [Paras 8-9].

Investigation – Right to Life – Reasonable Time Limit Imposed – LOC Cannot Continue Indefinitely – The Court directed that the CBI must complete the investigation within one year – If the petitioner is not named as an accused upon completion, LOC must be revoked – Failing that, petitioner has liberty to approach the Court again – Prolonged LOC without progress violates Article 21 rights [Paras 10-11].

Travel Permission – Interim Suspension of LOC – Previous Compliance Considered – Noting the petitioner’s compliance with prior travel permissions, the Court allowed him to travel to Malaysia for personal reasons (brother’s wedding) between 17.06.2025 and 10.07.2025 – LOC to be suspended during this period subject to stringent conditions including bond, sureties, surrender of passport to Indian High Commission in Malaysia, and fixed itinerary [Para 12].

CBI Investigation – Complexity and Multijurisdictional Nature – The CBI’s stand that the case involves complex financial fraud affecting the banking system, spread over multiple jurisdictions, was accepted – The Court balanced the need for effective investigation with protection of individual liberty [Paras 4-5, 8-10].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – LOC Withdrawal – Scope – LOC withdrawal denied at this stage but time-bound completion of investigation directed – The Court reiterated that LOC cannot be used indefinitely without decisive action from investigating agencies [Paras 9-11].