Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discrimination – Reversal Set Aside – Appellant appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages in 1994 – Board of Directors approved regularization based on performance in 1996 – Junior employee Mohan Lal, appointed later in December 1994, was regularized earlier despite same post – Appellant’s civil suit for regularization decreed by trial court – First Appellate Court reversed citing lack of educational qualification – Held: No rule or evidence was produced to show essential qualification for post – Respondents failed to prove any qualification norms – Appellant’s qualification not in dispute – Board’s resolution to regularize was never withdrawn – Held: Disqualification ground unsustainable – First appellate court erred in reversing decree – Appeal allowed – Suit decreed restoring appellant’s right to regularization from date of entitlement [Paras 9–15].

Prison Law – Furlough – Classification of Convicts – Constitutional Validity of Administrative Standing Orders – Petitioner convicted under Sections 304B, 498A, and 406 IPC – Sentence modified by Supreme Court and petitioner re-admitted to prison post-conviction – Application for furlough denied based on Clause F(3) of Standing Order No. 01/2019 which mandates a one-year watch period upon re-admission – Challenge to the Standing Order on grounds of lack of statutory authority, excessive watch period, violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution – Held: Clause F(3) supplements Rule 1223(1) of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and enables jail authorities to assess post-re-admission conduct – Not violative of Article 14 or 21 – One-year watch period held reasonable to balance societal safety and jail discipline – No parity can be claimed with parole watch period of six months due to conceptual differences between furlough and parole – Classification between convicts who appeal and those who don’t is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia [Paras 1-50].

Administrative Law – Standing Orders – Validity – Director General (Prisons) issuing Standing Order No. 01/2019 pursuant to High Court direction to streamline furlough applications – Held: Standing Orders are supplemental instructions and not ultra vires – Administrative instructions permissible under general supervisory authority where they do not contravene any statute or rule [Paras 33-36].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Furlough Not an Absolute Right – Citing Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Narayan, furlough is a conditional and reformative measure, not an absolute legal entitlement – Denial based on eligibility rules or standing instructions does not violate fundamental right to liberty [Paras 36-39].

Criminal Procedure – No Right to Furlough – Petitioner cannot claim furlough as of right – Mandatory one-year watch post-re-admission is within the administrative competence of prison authorities – Application rightly rejected until petitioner completes watch period [Paras 34, 37, 47].

Arms Act – Quashing of FIR – Conscious Possession – Live Ammunition – Petitioner, a US Army personnel and citizen, found carrying 9 live cartridges in his check-in baggage at IGI Airport – Claimed the ammunition was mistakenly left in bag by his father who holds valid arms license – No firearm recovered – Petitioner unaware of the presence of ammunition – Held: Conscious possession is essential ingredient under Section 25 of the Arms Act – Absence of mens rea or animus possidendi makes out no offence – Petitioner’s explanation plausible – FIR quashed [Paras 2–6, 10–14, 16–18].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – FIR Quashed – Court held that continuing prosecution despite absence of essential ingredients of offence would be abuse of process – FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed under Section 482 CrPC in exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 15–18].

Custody Parole – Attendance in Parliament – No Legal Entitlement – Appellant, an elected MP under UAPA custody, sought permission to attend Lok Sabha sessions on custody parole and challenged the imposition of expenses for police escort – Court held there is no constitutional or statutory right to attend parliamentary proceedings while in lawful custody – Participation in legislative proceedings does not arise when valid detention is in place [Paras 7–9].

Prison Law – Custody Parole – Delhi Prison Rules – Rule 1203 permits custody parole only in limited emergent situations like death, illness, or marriage in family – Attendance at Parliament is not an emergent ground under the Rules – Therefore, parole for such purpose is purely discretionary [Paras 10–12].

Costs of Escort – Modification of Parole Terms – High Court clarified that expenses imposed earlier under Para 24.7 of its 25.03.2025 order were not intended to cover police salaries or overheads – Court held State’s attempt to demand ₹1.45 lakh per day, including salaries of escort personnel, was excessive and legally unjustified – Appellant is only liable to bear reasonable transport expenses (jail van and escort vehicle costs) – ₹2,056/day [Paras 30–33, 61–62].

Parliamentary Privileges – Article 105 – Limited Scope – Freedom of speech and privileges under Article 105 apply only when a member is physically present in the House – Valid custody prevents attendance and thus, such privileges are not violated – No breach of privilege where detention is lawful [Paras 7, 17].

Review – Section 403 BNSS – Not a Bar to Modification – Court held condition modification of parole does not amount to review – Relief sought pertains to implementation feasibility, not merits of parole – Inherent power under Section 528 BNSS invoked to clarify conditions in interest of justice [Paras 34–35].

Judicial Precedent – Discretionary Orders Not Binding – Court held previous orders granting parole (including the High Court’s own order dated 25.03.2025) were discretionary and fact-specific – Lower courts cannot treat them as binding precedent without independent legal basis [Paras 14–16].

Public Duty – Representation in Parliament – Court acknowledged that MPs have public responsibilities but clarified such duties do not override valid legal custody – Any such participation must be within lawful limits and court discretion [Paras 36.4, 53–55].

Decision:

Custody parole condition modified – Appellant to pay only jail van and escort vehicle expenses (₹2,056 per day) – No obligation to pay police escort salaries – Prior payments not refundable – Appeals disposed – Appellant may seek future relief as per law [Paras 62–64, 67–70].

Income Tax – Charitable Trust – Accumulation of Income under Section 11(2) – Compliance – Petitioner Trust filed Form 10 electronically within time, stating accumulation purpose as “medical, educational and social relief to members of Zoroastrian community and conservation, maintenance and upkeep of properties” – Resolution dated 26/09/2018 passed by trustees was disclosed and submitted to assessing officer during original assessment proceedings – Held: There was full compliance with Section 11(2) and Rule 17, including prescribed manner and time of submission [Paras 8–10, 16–21]

Reassessment – Section 148 – Change of Opinion – Assessment under Section 143(3) had already considered accumulation issue, including Form 10 and trustee resolution – Reassessment initiated solely based on audit objection that Form 10 lacked specific purpose – Held: No new information or tangible material – Reopening based on change of opinion is impermissible – Assessee cannot be faulted for limited space in prescribed statutory form [Paras 22–24, 26–30]

Judicial Precedents – Applicability – Gujarat High Court decision in CIT (Exemption) v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 122 cited with approval – Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Narayan Patkar Charitable Trust [2022] 138 taxmann.com 564 and Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159 followed – Held: Assessing Officer has no power to review original assessment under the garb of reassessment [Paras 24, 29–30]

Decision: Impugned show cause notices under Section 148A(b), order under Section 148A(d), and notice under Section 148 dated 28/08/2024 quashed – Rule made absolute – Other grounds kept open – No order as to costs [Paras 31–33]

Service Law - Pension Law – Family Pension – Legal Heir – Second Wife – Claim Valid – Deceased government servant had divorced first wife and married respondent in 1993 – Marriage proven through oral testimony, housing documents, marriage certificate from Registrar, and witness depositions – Non-entry of respondent’s name in service record held immaterial – Held: Under Rule 54(7) of CCS (Pension) Rules, respondent entitled to family pension as legally wedded surviving spouse – Authorities unjustifiably denied her claim [Paras 8–11].

Evidence Act – Proof of Marriage – Secondary Evidence Admissible – Refusal of marriage registration due to husband's death did not discredit solemnization – Marriage proved through consistent oral and documentary evidence including testimony of eyewitnesses and public certificate – No rebuttal evidence led by appellants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on available evidence to recognize marriage [Paras 9–10].

Administrative Law – Service Record – Non-Nomination Not Fatal – Legal entitlement to family pension not dependent on nominee entry – Respondent’s status as Class-I legal heir once proved could not be defeated by procedural omission – Appellants’ own records acknowledged her eligibility – Held: Non-mention in records cannot override substantive rights under pension rules [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees dated 01.12.2021 (Civil Judge) and 25.09.2024 (ADJ, Jalandhar) upheld – Respondent held entitled to family pension as legally wedded wife of deceased employee – No infirmity found in findings of courts below – Decree affirmed – Decree sheet directed to be prepared [Paras 14–16].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – Pre-arrest Bail – Relationship and Misuse of Liberty – Respondent No. 2 granted pre-arrest bail in FIR under Sections 376, 506, 323, 34 IPC based on allegations of sexual assault over a prolonged period – Trial Court found prolonged relationship, absence of early complaint, and lack of evidence of coercion as relevant factors – Held: Trial Court's order was reasoned and not arbitrary [Paras 31–34, 38].

Criminal Procedure – Supervening Circumstances – Indirect Contact and Influence – After grant of interim protection, Respondent No. 2 contacted prosecutrix indirectly through associates – Audio evidence of attempts to influence prosecutrix via friend and judicial officer to withdraw case and accept monetary settlement – Such conduct constituted supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail [Paras 38–45].

Judicial Conduct – Misuse of Influence – Enquiry Ordered – Allegations that judicial officers known to both parties contacted prosecutrix and offered ₹30 lakhs to dilute case – Prima facie material including transcripts and recordings supported claims – Court directed administrative enquiry into conduct of judicial officers [Paras 38.3, 50].

Criminal Law – Counter-Allegation of Extortion – Demand for ₹50 lakhs – Respondent No. 2 alleged prosecutrix filed complaint for extortion and had already accepted ₹30 lakhs – Transcripts produced but Court held allegations do not absolve Respondent No. 2 of attempting to subvert justice using influence and money – Matter requires further investigation [Paras 40–44].

Bail Law – Liberty vs Fair Trial – Conditions Violated – Court reaffirmed that bail liberty is conditional and must yield to fair trial and public interest – Attempts to tamper with investigation and influence witnesses are sufficient to cancel bail – Held: Respondent No. 2's conduct warranted revocation of bail despite original order being legally sound [Paras 45–49].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted to Respondent No. 2 set aside – One week granted for surrender before the Trial Court – Administrative enquiry ordered against two judicial officers alleged to have interfered with justice process – Observations Observations not to affect merits of trial [Paras 49–52].

Service Law – Regularization – Contractual Engagement – Outsourcing Policy – Petitioners engaged since 2011 under BKVY-DBSK project on yearly contractual basis sought regularization—State rejected claim citing project-based nature of posts and Finance Department’s directive to replace contract staff with outsourced manpower—Held: Mere labeling of posts as “project-based” cannot justify perpetual ad hoc engagement when work is perennial and integral to functioning of OLIC—Continuous and sanctioned engagement through due process cannot be replaced by outsourcing—Prolonged engagement (over 13 years) evidences institutional necessity—State’s reliance on undertakings not to claim regularization invalid where inequality of bargaining power exists [Paras 16–24].

Administrative Law – Equality and Fair Treatment – Article 14 – State cannot deny regular employment while continuing to extract permanent work under temporary labels—Replacement of one set of temporary workers by another violates principles in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Jaggo v. Union of India—Uma Devi not a shield to perpetuate arbitrary contractualism when initial engagement was legal and sanctioned [Paras 17–20].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Livelihood – Long-serving contractual employees performing essential and continuous duties acquire legitimate expectation of security—Administrative undertakings extracted under compulsion cannot override constitutional guarantees of fairness and dignity of labour [Paras 21–22].

Relief – Regularization and Creation of Posts – Court declined to order direct regularization in absence of sanctioned cadre posts—Directed authorities to examine creation of equivalent regular posts matching duties performed by petitioners and consider their engagement against those posts with age relaxation as needed—Pending such exercise, petitioners not to be disengaged [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Authorities directed to consider creation of suitable regular posts corresponding to petitioners’ functions and to continue petitioners in service till such consideration – No costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Triple Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Denial of Bail – Appellant, brother-in-law of late Atiq Ahmad, sought bail in connection with the daylight murder of witness Umesh Pal and two police guards – Allegation that appellant financed, sheltered, and conspired with co-accused including Guddu Muslim – Co-accused statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. corroborated by independent witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – DVR recovered from appellant’s house allegedly contained footage of Guddu Muslim visiting after the crime – Section 65-B certificate produced – Court held that while detailed admissibility to be tested at trial, recovery and corroborative evidence form prima facie material establishing complicity – Distinguished from P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1157, as multiple independent and electronic evidences corroborate co-accused statements [Paras 23–33, 42–43].

Electronic Evidence – Recovery of DVR – Section 65-B Evidence Act – Prima Facie Admissibility – DVR and mobile phone recovered from appellant’s residence showing visit of Guddu Muslim post-crime – Original DVR being primary evidence – Court relied on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 – Held: At bail stage, recovery and certificate sufficient to consider prima facie involvement; forensic verification to be determined at trial [Paras 30, 39–41].

Bail Jurisprudence – Gravity of Offence – Societal Impact – Presumption Against Release – Court reiterated factors in Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42, Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 – In heinous crimes causing public terror, liberty of accused cannot override societal interest – Seriousness, influence, and risk of tampering justify denial of bail [Paras 33–38, 45–48].

Statements of Co-accused – Evidentiary Value at Bail Stage – Though inadmissible as substantive evidence, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be considered for prima facie satisfaction when corroborated by Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and other material – State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 followed [Paras 27, 29].

Result – Held: Prima facie evidence shows appellant’s active role in conspiracy by financing, sheltering, and facilitating key accused – Nature and gravity of offence, societal impact, and risk of witness intimidation weigh against bail – Criminal appeal dismissed – Bail refused [Paras 47–49].