Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Public Humiliation of Victims – Bail Denied – The petitioner, a factory owner, was accused of blackening the faces of three girls, an elderly woman, and a minor boy, forcing them to wear placards confessing theft, and parading them in public – The video of the incident went viral – Held: Such acts amount to vigilante justice and "Taliban-style punishment," violating victims' dignity and social standing – Given the serious nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation is necessary – Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Procedure – Custodial Interrogation Required – Destruction of Evidence Concern – Investigating authorities sought recovery of the petitioner’s mobile phone and CCTV recordings (NVR/DVR) from his factory – Held: Granting anticipatory bail at this stage could allow the petitioner to influence witnesses and destroy evidence – Custodial interrogation justified to ensure a fair investigation [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Precedents – Protection of Victim’s Dignity – Stringent Approach to Vigilante Actions – Citing Supreme Court judgments on mob justice, the court emphasized that individuals cannot take the law into their own hands – Held: The act of public shaming was dehumanizing and merited strict legal scrutiny – No exceptional circumstances warranting anticipatory bail were present [Para 8].

Final Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Option to Apply for Regular Bail on Surrender – Petition dismissed – However, the petitioner was granted liberty to surrender before the trial court within 10 days and seek regular bail, which shall be decided in accordance with law [Para 9].
 

Land Use Conversion – School to Nursing Home – Statutory Breach – Conversion Set Aside – Court held that the impugned layout plan dated 25.10.2021 violated the procedure under Section 79(3) of the HSVP Act and 
Sections 4 & 5 of the 1963 Act – No public objections were invited – Authorities acted ultra vires – Layout plan quashed [Paras 6–9, 14–17]. 
Natural Justice – Absence of Public Notice – Fatal to Layout Change – Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of prior publication and opportunity for objections before amending layout or development plans – Conversion without this process deemed illegal and arbitrary [Paras 7–8, 14]. 
Promissory Estoppel – Deviation from Original Layout – Held Arbitrary – Petitioners were allottees relying on educational land use – Reversing that without process violated legitimate expectations – Change deemed unjustified in absence of public interest [Paras 3, 6, 9]. 
Healthcare Justification – Urban Demand Not Sufficient – No Override of Legal Process – State's reasoning of increasing healthcare density held insufficient to bypass due process – Administrative efficiency cannot trump legal mandates [Paras 9, 16–17]. 
 Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned revised layout plan dated 25.10.2021 quashed – State restrained from acting upon it or conducting e-auction of converted sites – Directed to follow statutory procedure before any future changes [Paras 18–20]. 
 

Arbitration – Modification of Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction of Court under Section 34 – Modification Set Aside – The appellants challenged the order of the District Judge modifying claim Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of an arbitral award – The High Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not empowered to modify an arbitral award, and can only set it aside on specified grounds such as fraud, bias, or violation of natural justice – Relying on precedent including National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Court ruled that modifying an award would exceed the court’s jurisdiction – Held: The District Judge had acted beyond jurisdiction in modifying the arbitral award, and the modification was therefore set aside [Paras 4-8].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of District Judge Modifying the Award Set Aside – The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 31.03.2016 in A.S.No.39/2008, and dismissed the Arbitration Suit [Para 9].
 

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Transferee Pendente Lite – Not Maintainable – Petitioner purchased suit property during pendency of litigation – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Executing court should have dismissed the application under Rule 97 CPC at the threshold in view of bar under Rule 102 CPC – Revisional court erred in dismissing the application outright rather than remanding the matter for preliminary determination of res judicata [Paras 22–30, 35–36].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Transferee During Suit – Rights Subordinate to Decree – Petitioner’s purchase in 2001 was during pendency of Original Suits No. 33/1991 and 151/1991 – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that such transfers do not affect rights under decree – Transferee bound by outcome of litigation irrespective of notice – Held: Petitioner cannot resist execution of decree passed in 2003 [Paras 18–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Revisional Court Cannot Assume Role of Executing Court – Revisional court should have remanded matter instead of rejecting the execution application – Observed: Supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Revisional court exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating on merits where trial court had not decided the matter finally [Paras 31–34].

Execution Delay – Directions for Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Mandate for Timely Execution – Relying on Periyammal (2025) and Rahul S. Shah (2021), Court reminded executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months – Expressed concern over 10-year pendency of application filed in 2014 – Direction issued to dispose matter within one month [Paras 30, 36–37].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded to Executing Court – High Court set aside both revisional and trial court orders – Directed executing court to decide application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC afresh in light of law on lis pendens and Order XXI Rule 102 CPC within one month [Para 37].

Criminal Law - Appeals against the conviction - Sections 498-A and 306 IPC  -Cruelty and Harassment – Demand for Dowry – No Specific Evidence – Acquittal – The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed and beaten by her husband and mother-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry – Witnesses made general and vague allegations without specific instances of cruelty – Contradictions in prosecution witnesses regarding the demand for dowry and payment of money – No independent evidence corroborating harassment – Held: Mere vague allegations without details of time, place, or nature of cruelty cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 13-17, 23-27].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – No Direct Instigation – No Mens Rea – Suicide Not Solely Attributable to Accused – The deceased consumed poison, but there was no evidence of direct or proximate instigation by the accused – No suicide note or specific act compelling the deceased to take the extreme step – Relationship between the deceased and her husband appeared cordial as per evidence – Held: A conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or circumstances leaving no alternative but suicide – Mere allegations of discord in matrimonial life do not constitute abetment – Conviction set aside [Paras 18-22, 36-38].

Presumption Under Section 113A of the Evidence Act – Applicability – Requires Proof of Cruelty – No Automatic Presumption – The prosecution argued that since the suicide occurred within seven years of marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act should apply – However, the presumption is discretionary and requires proof of cruelty – Inconsistent statements and lack of medical evidence for alleged injuries of the deceased create doubt – Held: The presumption under Section 113A cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of cruelty – Acquittal granted [Paras 29-33, 39-40].

Judicial Approach in Matrimonial Disputes – General Allegations Against Husband’s Family – Risk of Misuse – Courts must scrutinize allegations carefully – Statements from prosecution witnesses were vague and lacked specific details – Conduct of deceased suggested no ongoing harassment – Witnesses admitted the deceased appeared happy and was willingly visiting her matrimonial home – Held: In matrimonial disputes, courts must guard against false implication by vague allegations – Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside [Paras 34-35, 41-44].

Decision: The appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are set aside. The fine amount is to be refunded after the appeal period expires unless an appeal is filed before the Supreme Court. The accused shall furnish bail bonds as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C., ensuring their presence in case of further proceedings.

Criminal Law – Protection of Public Servants – Sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings Partially Quashed - Petitioners were police officers accused of misconduct during their official duty at a public event – A private complaint was filed against them after they registered an FIR against the complainant’s husband – Trial court took cognizance of multiple offences, rejecting the need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Held: Since the alleged acts were committed in the discharge of official duties, sanction was required for most offences – Decision: Cognizance set aside for all offences except under Sections 354 and 354B IPC [Paras 7-10, 24-28].

Scope of Official Duty – Acts Done in Excess – Test for Sanction under Section 197 CrPC - Court examined whether the alleged misconduct had a reasonable nexus with official duties – Held: Even if a public servant exceeds his duty, as long as there is a connection with official functions, sanction is required – Decision: Official actions taken by the petitioners warranted protection under Section 197 CrPC, barring exceptions for certain offences [Paras 9-17].

Public Order and State Notification – Kerala Police Officers Covered Under Section 197(2) & (3) CrPC - The trial court held that police officers were not entitled to protection under Section 197 – Court referred to a Kerala government notification extending such protection to police personnel maintaining public order – Held: The petitioners were covered under the notification and thus required prior sanction for prosecution – Decision: Trial court’s view on the non-applicability of Section 197 CrPC was incorrect [Paras 26-27].
 

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Whether the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) Should be Tried as an Adult – Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision to not try CCL-SAH as an adult – JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and found that CCL-SAH lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences – Reports relied upon by JJB, including the Preliminary Assessment Report and Social Investigation Report, indicated cognitive immaturity and poor impulse control – Held: JJB’s determination was legally sound and in compliance with Section 15 of the JJ Act – No interference warranted [Paras 31-37].

Age Determination – Reliability of School Records – Whether the Age of CCL-SAH was Correctly Determined – Petitioner questioned the age determination process, citing multiple birth dates in different documents – JJB relied on school records, establishing CCL-SAH’s date of birth as 8th July, 2005, making him a juvenile at the time of the offence – Held: School records are primary evidence for age determination under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 – Petitioner failed to prove any legal infirmity or forgery in school records – Challenge to age determination rejected [Paras 24-30].

Bail under Juvenile Justice Act – Section 12 – Whether Grant of Bail was Justified – JJB granted bail to CCL-SAH, which was upheld by the ASJ – Petitioner argued that the heinous nature of the offence and CCL-SAH’s active role warranted denial of bail – Held: Bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act is mandatory unless the prosecution proves (i) risk of association with criminals, (ii) exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or (iii) that release would defeat the ends of justice – Mere gravity of the offence is not a valid ground for denial of bail – Prosecution failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions – Grant of bail upheld [Paras 38-51].

Right to be Heard – Principles of Natural Justice – Whether Complainant Had a Right to be Heard in Bail Proceedings – Petitioner claimed that the JJB and ASJ violated principles of natural justice by not allowing him to present arguments – Held: JJ Act proceedings are child-centric and not adversarial – No statutory mandate requiring complainant’s hearing at the bail stage – Granting bail is not an order prejudicial to the complainant – Reliance placed on Rajasthan High Court ruling in X v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4209 affirming that complainants have no automatic right to be heard in bail matters under the JJ Act [Paras 52-62].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Whether the ASJ’s Order Suffered from Legal Infirmity – Petitioner sought interference under Section 102 of the JJ Act, arguing that the ASJ mechanically upheld JJB’s findings – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities, not reappreciation of evidence – ASJ’s order was well-reasoned and legally sustainable – No jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice found – Petition dismissed [Paras 63-69].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the ASJ’s order affirming the JJB’s decisions on age determination, preliminary assessment, and bail – No legal infirmity or procedural irregularity found – JJB to proceed uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations [Paras 70-72].
 

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest without FIR or Grounds of Arrest – Detention Declared Illegal – The detenu was picked up without any FIR or communication of reasons for arrest – FIR was registered hours later, only after a Warrant Officer’s intervention – Held: Arrest violated Articles 21 and 22 and Section 47 of BNSS – Detention declared void ab initio [Paras 1–6, 16–17].

BNSS Compliance – Section 35 and 47 – No Notice or Written Grounds of Arrest – Procedural Safeguards Violated – No notice under Section 35(3) issued – Grounds of arrest not communicated forthwith – Arrest held contrary to statutory and constitutional safeguards – Mere post-facto FIR registration cannot cure illegality [Paras 4, 17].

Judicial Interpretation – Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar – Written Communication of Grounds Mandatory – Court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 – Held: Failure to inform arrestee of arrest grounds in writing vitiates custody – Procedural compliance essential to protect liberty under Articles 21 & 22 [Paras 14–15].

Custodial Dignity – Routine Arrest Without Justification Not Permissible – Citing Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and D.K. Basu, Court reiterated that power to arrest must be exercised with caution and justification – Custodial action impacts reputation and liberty and must conform to due process [Paras 7, 10–11].

Role of Warrant Officer – Ministerial Capacity Only – Overstepping Jurisdiction Deprecated – Court clarified that a Warrant Officer cannot adjudicate legality of arrest – Findings in Warrant Officer’s report regarding legality were beyond mandate and disapproved by the Court [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Detention declared illegal – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Arrest and remand declared void due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards [Paras 21–22].

Bail - NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Heroin – Bail Rejected – 290g Heroin Recovery – Petitioner was apprehended with two co-accused after being allegedly caught red-handed with 290 grams of heroin in a Bolero vehicle – Held: Quantity recovered falls within commercial threshold – Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Bail denied [Paras 1–4, 6–7].

Mandatory Compliance – Section 50 NDPS Act – Procedural

Compliance on Record – SHO recorded offer to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and consent obtained – Notices and memos prepared on spot – Prima facie no violation shown at this stage to justify bail [Para 2].

Prior Involvement and Custody – Habitual Offender – Court considered petitioner’s prior FIRs and disclosure of stolen transformer oil – Held: Petitioner is not a first-time offender and is involved in repeated offences of serious nature – Custody of nearly two years insufficient to outweigh seriousness [Para 3].

Social Context – Narcotic Menace in Punjab – Court Denounces Systemic Impact – Justice Moudgil emphasized broader social decay caused by narcotics and likened it to termite eroding youth – Courts must act firmly against drug trafficking to preserve public health and societal integrity [Paras 6–8].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Negative Burden on Accused – Bail Conditional on Proving Innocence – Court reiterated that bail under NDPS for commercial quantity can only be granted when both limbs of Section 37 are satisfied – Petitioner failed to discharge burden to prove prima facie innocence [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Regular bail denied – Observations made limited to bail proceedings and shall not influence merits during trial [Paras 5, 9].