Arrest – Non-Furnishing of Grounds of Arrest in Writing – Article 22(1) of Constitution – Section 47 BNSS – Court secured trial court records and found that grounds of arrest were not furnished to petitioner prior to production before Magistrate – Held: Non-supply of written grounds of arrest within stipulated time renders arrest illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 8-12].

Grounds of Arrest vs Reasons for Arrest – Distinction – Reasons of arrest are general and formal in nature – Grounds of arrest must contain specific facts necessitating arrest and must be communicated in writing in language understood by accused – Constitutional safeguard not a mere procedural formality – Relied on Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah – Arrest vitiated for non-compliance [Paras 9-11].

Effect of Illegal Arrest – Release of Accused – Following Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court held that if written grounds are not supplied prior to or within reasonable time (in any case two hours before production for remand), arrest becomes illegal – Accused to be released – However, prosecution at liberty to seek fresh remand after supplying grounds of arrest in writing [Paras 11-12].

Merits of Bail – Serious Offence – Prima facie material including statements of nine eyewitnesses (CWs.1-9), two injured witnesses (CWs.2 & 3), and post-mortem report showing death due to penetrating chest injury – Offence under Section 103(1) BNS punishable with death or life imprisonment – On merits, petitioner not entitled to bail – Release ordered solely on ground of illegal arrest [Paras 6-7, 12].

Directions to Investigating Officer – Lapse in Compliance – Court noted lapse by CPI, Arsikere Rural Circle, in not complying with Section 47 BNSS (Section 50 CrPC) – Copy of order directed to be sent to Superintendent of Police and concerned CPI [Order clauses iii & iv].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Petitioner set at liberty due to illegal arrest – Prosecution at liberty to move application for remand/custody after supplying written grounds of arrest – Administrative directions issued.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Murder Case – Allegation of Instigation by MLA – Petitioner (Accused No.5) alleged to have instigated co-accused in fatal assault resulting in death of informant’s son – Prior written complaint by deceased naming petitioner and alleging threats to life – Prima facie material including CDRs and photographs requiring confrontation – Held: Not a fit case for anticipatory bail – Petition rejected [Paras 22-26, 35, 41, 45].

Interim Anticipatory Bail – No Vested Right to Confirmation – Interim protection granted earlier by Vacation Bench – Court held that interim anticipatory bail does not create a vested right for regular anticipatory bail – Court entitled to independently assess merits after hearing prosecution – Interim order discharged [Paras 14-16, 46].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Scope – Prosecution contended petitioner misled investigation and feigned ignorance regarding co-accused despite contrary material in CDRs – Court observed custodial interrogation qualitatively different from interrogation under protection of anticipatory bail – Effective confrontation of material required – Accused cannot dictate manner of interrogation – Custodial interrogation justified [Paras 35-39, 41-42].

Influence of Accused – Political Position – Petitioner a sitting MLA and former Minister – Court held social and political stature relevant while considering likelihood of influencing investigation or witnesses – Investigation transferred from local police to CID – Possibility of hampering fair investigation cannot be ruled out [Paras 18-20, 44].

Scope of Judicial Interference in Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation must ordinarily be left to investigating agency – Courts should not interfere in manner or course of interrogation – Relied on State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement – Anticipatory bail to be granted only in exceptional circumstances [Paras 38, 40, 43].

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Fear of Witness – Court perused Section 164 statement of deceased’s mother – Prima facie explanation to allegations regarding naming of petitioner found – Prosecution’s contention that witness was under fear found to have substance [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim anticipatory bail granted on 26.12.2025 discharged – Petitioner not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Execution of cheque and receipt of statutory legal notice admitted by accused – Cheque dishonoured with remark “Account Closed” – Statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 attracted – Burden shifted on accused to rebut presumption by raising probable defence – Held: Mere denial or bald assertions insufficient to rebut statutory presumption [Paras 13–15].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Lead Evidence – Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence – Defence rested solely on statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleging cheque was stolen and absence of liability – No cogent material produced to probabilise defence – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted [Paras 15, 23].

Privity of Contract – Cheque Issued on Behalf of Third Party – Contention that MoU was between complainant and accused’s brother and not accused – Evidence showed accused issued cheque voluntarily towards discharge of liability arising from joint transaction – Cheque admittedly handed over by accused – Held: Issuance of cheque by accused on behalf of brother towards legally enforceable liability sufficient to attract Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–17].

Limitation – Relevant Date under Section 138 NI Act – Argument that underlying MoU dated 2009 rendered claim time-barred rejected – Limitation for Section 138 complaint to be computed from date of issuance and dishonour of cheque, not from date of underlying transaction – Held: Complaint within limitation [Paras 18–19].

Proprietorship of Complainant Firm – Proof Not Mandatory – Cheque issued in favour of proprietary concern – Once cheque drawn in name of firm, complainant not required to separately prove proprietorship in absence of specific dispute affecting issuance – Held: Objection does not go to root of maintainability [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court well reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No ground for interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence upheld – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent judgments – No order as to costs.

Domestic Violence Act – Residence Rights – Shared Household – Voluntary Relocation – Petitioner-wife resided in Green Park property for several decades after marriage – She voluntarily shifted in April 2023 to alternate accommodation at Safdarjung Enclave owned by husband for medical treatment along with baggage – Subsequent attempt to re-enter Green Park denied – Held: Premises earlier occupied do not qualify as “shared household” in presenti when wife has consciously and voluntarily shifted and established alternate residence [Paras 23, 27–28].

Section 2(s) DV Act – Meaning of “Shared Household” – Present and Subsisting Relationship – Though definition of shared household is broad, it does not create a perpetual right to re-enter any past residence – Shared household must be subsisting and existing in praesenti – Mere historical residence does not entitle restoration when arrangement has been consciously given up – Held: Green Park property not a shared household for purposes of Section 19 relief [Paras 24, 28].

Section 17 & Section 19 DV Act – Right to Residence – Scope and Limits – Right under Section 17 protects woman from being rendered roofless – Section 19 confers discretionary and equitable power to grant residence order or alternate accommodation – Statute does not confer indefeasible right to insist upon residence in a particular property when suitable alternate accommodation of same standard is available – Held: Denial of restoration justified where alternate accommodation exists [Paras 16, 19, 26].

Domestic Violence – Economic Abuse – Denial of Entry – Alleged denial of re-entry into Green Park property examined – No evidence of forcible dispossession or coercion – Petitioner not rendered shelter-less and continued to reside in Safdarjung Enclave property owned by respondent – Held: Denial of entry does not amount to domestic violence in nature of economic abuse in facts of case [Paras 28].

Appreciation of Conduct – Intention to Permanently Shift – Petitioner herself described Safdarjung Enclave as current residence in DV complaint, affidavits and police complaints – Affixation of name plate outside Safdarjung property indicative of settled residence – Conduct inconsistent with claim of temporary displacement – Held: Shifting was conscious and voluntary, not temporary [Paras 23, 27].

Property Dispute vs. DV Proceedings – Misuse of Statute – Dispute predominantly inter se property dispute between family members – DV Act cannot be used to convert civil property dispute into criminal proceedings – Protective statute cannot be stretched to compel re-entry into premises abandoned by choice – Held: Proceedings under DV Act not maintainable for such relief [Paras 15, 30].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Inherent jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Interference warranted only in cases of perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error – Orders of MM and ASJ based on appreciation of material on record – Held: No perversity or infirmity warranting interference [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Magistrate and Appellate Court upheld – Petitioner not entitled to residence order directing re-entry into Green Park property – No interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Service Law – Adhoc / Work-Charged Service – Counting for Seniority and Pay Fixation – Respondents appointed as Clerks on ad-hoc basis by an authority not competent under the service rules – Posts not advertised and appointments made dehors the rules – Termination later held illegal by Industrial Tribunal with direction of reinstatement and full back wages – Held: Grant of reinstatement with back wages does not automatically confer right to count ad-hoc service for seniority or promotion when initial appointment itself was illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Service Law – Effect of Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Continuity of Service – Tribunal awarded reinstatement with full back wages but did not grant continuity of service – Courts below erred in presuming deemed continuity merely from reinstatement and back wages – Held: In absence of lawful initial appointment and express grant of continuity, pre-regularisation service cannot be counted for service benefits [Paras 2, 6, 11].

Service Jurisprudence – Illegal Appointment – Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments – Appointment made by incompetent authority without following recruitment rules treated as illegal – Such service cannot be equated with service rendered pursuant to regular appointment – Counting such service would amount to treating unequals equally, offending Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 12–13].

Precedent – Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association Case – Supreme Court reiterated – Only ad-hoc service rendered after appointment in accordance with rules or after consideration of eligible candidates can be counted for seniority – Ad-hoc service rendered through back-door entry excluded [Para 13].

Civil Suit – Declaration – Trial Court and First Appellate Court wrongly decreed suit holding ad-hoc service countable due to reinstatement with back wages – Judgments held contrary to settled law – Interference in second appeal justified [Paras 5–7, 14].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Suit of respondents dismissed.

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and injunction for Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.106/6 – In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own title and not on weakness of defendants’ case – Failure to establish valid title to entire extent claimed fatal to suit [Paras 15–17].

Title to Immovable Property – Gift Deed – Excess Extent – Application of Nemo Dat Principle – Gift deed executed for Ac.0.73 cents though donor had title only to Ac.0.68 cents – Donor cannot convey better title than what she possessed – Registration of document does not cure defect of title – Gift valid only to extent of donor’s ownership [Paras 18–22, 27–28].

Partition – Documentary Evidence – Pre-existing Rights – Registered partition deed of 1963 established that Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.106/6 fell to branch of defendants – Revenue records and Tahsildar’s evidence corroborated defendants’ title – Plaintiff’s claim beyond Ac.0.68 cents untenable [Paras 18–24].

Revenue Records – Limited Evidentiary Value – Pattadar passbooks and revenue entries do not confer title by themselves – Title must be traced to valid source – Revenue documents cannot override registered partition deed and title documents [Paras 24–25].

Adverse Possession – Pleadings Mandatory – First Appellate Court held plaintiff perfected title over Ac.0.05 cents by adverse possession – No pleading or issue on adverse possession – Adverse possession cannot be inferred without specific pleadings and proof of animus possidendi – Finding held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 26, 29].

Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court can interfere where findings of First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence or contrary to settled law – Erroneous application of adverse possession and misreading of evidence justified interference [Paras 14, 26, 29–30].

Decision – Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s dismissal of suit restored – Plaintiff held entitled to title only for Ac.0.68 cents and not Ac.0.73 cents – No costs [Paras 30–31].

Family Law – Stridhan – Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Marriage Register as Evidence – Entry in SNDP Yogam Marriage Register showing quantity of gold worn by bride – Correction duly countersigned and supported by testimony of Secretary – Genuineness of register not challenged by respondents – Photographic evidence corroborating entry – Held: Bride possessed 800 grams (100 sovereigns) of gold at the time of marriage – Finding of Family Court limiting gold to 600 grams erroneous [Paras 7–9].

Stridhan – Possession and Misappropriation – Appellant admittedly retained about 15 sovereigns – Respondents already directed to return 60 sovereigns – On evidence, respondents likely retained 85 sovereigns – Held: Respondents liable to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments [Para 10].

Recovery of Gold – Mode of Relief – Market Value – When court directs return of gold or its value, prevailing market value at time of realisation to be awarded – However, no enhancement warranted for 60 sovereigns already settled – For remaining 25 sovereigns, market value at time of recovery payable if gold not returned in specie [Para 11].

Recovery of Money – Burden of Proof – Alleged Entrustment by Parents – Claims for Rs.11 lakhs, chit fund amounts, fixed deposit withdrawal, and partnership contribution – Parents not examined – No documentary proof of availability or withdrawal of funds – Bank statements inconsistent with pleaded payments – Amendment raising FD claim introduced belatedly – Held: Monetary claims not proved – Dismissal by Family Court upheld [Paras 12–15].

Chit Fund Amounts – Locus Standi – Claim relating to chits subscribed by petitioner’s mother – Mother neither examined nor claimant – No proof of entrustment for petitioner’s benefit – Held: Petitioner not entitled to decree for amounts allegedly due to mother [Para 16].

Minor Child – Gold Ornaments – Proper Proceedings – Claim for recovery of gold belonging to minor daughter cannot be sought by mother in her personal petition – Remedy lies in instituting proceedings on behalf of minor – Clarified: Dismissal does not bar such future proceedings [Para 17].

Appeal – Remand – Filling Lacunae Impermissible – Prayer for remand to adduce further evidence rejected – Appeal cannot be remanded merely to fill evidentiary gaps or enable production of additional material – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Respondents directed to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which to pay market value at time of recovery – Rest of decree of Family Court upheld – No order as to costs.

Partition Suit – Execution of Final Decree – Stamp Duty on Instrument of Partition – Objection by Judgment Debtor that final decree was insufficiently stamped as stamp duty was paid only in respect of one share – Contention that decree could not be executed unless stamp duty for entire property was paid – Executing Court held that stamp duty paid by decree-holder was sufficient as all parties had equal shares and one equal share could be treated as separated share under Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act – Challenge thereto in revision [Paras 7–11].

Execution Proceedings – Order XXI CPC – Issuance of Writ of Delivery of Possession – Filing of application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Rejection of recall and stay applications under Section 151 CPC – Revisional challenge confined to executability of decree on ground of stamp duty [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Stamp Duty – Instrument of Partition – Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal) – Meaning of “largest share remaining” – Where all co-sharers have equal shares, stamp duty equivalent to one such equal share may be treated as separated share – However, final decree in partition must ultimately be duly stamped to be fully executable [Paras 10, 16].

Final Decree – Nature and Executability – Reliance on Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande – Held, until a final decree is drawn up and engrossed on proper stamp papers, there is no executable decree – Mere direction to draw up final decree or partial stamping does not render decree executable in full [Paras 18–19].

Partition Proceedings – Preliminary and Final Decrees – Reference to Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan – Duty of courts to ensure drawing up of final decree after preliminary decree – Decree in partition suit may be partly preliminary and partly final – Suit concludes only upon drawing of final decree [Paras 14–15].

Equitable Relief – Undertaking by Decree Holder – Decree holder undertook before High Court to pay total stamp duty in respect of entire suit property with liberty to recover proportionate shares from other co-sharers – Held, such course would cure defect of executability – Revisional application disposed of granting such liberty [Paras 12–13, 17, 19].

Decision – Civil Revision disposed of – Liberty granted to decree holders to deposit total stamp duty for entire property – On such payment, executing court directed to proceed with execution and ensure full satisfaction of decree within one month – Interim orders vacated [Paras 19–24].

Juvenile Justice Act – Bail under Section 12 – Plea of Juvenility Raised During Pendency of Appeal – Convict sentenced to 25 years imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act – Age determination inquiry pending before Trial Court pursuant to High Court’s direction – Whether bail mandatory pending such determination – Held: Though bail to a child in conflict with law is the rule under Section 12 JJ Act irrespective of gravity of offence, it can be denied where release would defeat the ends of justice – Application rejected [Paras 13-16, 21].

Juvenility Claim – Can be Raised at Any Stage – Reformative and Child-Centric Approach – Applicant relied on Hari Ram, Rishipal Singh Solanki, Abuzar Hossain and other precedents – Court reiterates settled position that claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage and must be inquired into – No violation of this principle found as age determination already referred to Trial Court – However, pendency of inquiry does not automatically entitle accused to bail [Paras 15-16].

Section 12 JJ Act – Exception Clause – “Defeat the Ends of Justice” – Scope and Interpretation – Court relied on Raju @ Ashish v. State of U.P. – Nature and gravity of offence, past conduct, and likelihood of repetition relevant factors – Conduct of convict while previously on bail allegedly involved commission of similar offence against same survivor – Such conduct prima facie indicates criminal proclivity and undermines confidence for release – Held: Release at this stage would defeat the ends of justice [Paras 18-20].

Bail – Pending Age Determination – Whether Accused to be Treated as Juvenile Before Determination – Prosecution contended accused cannot be prematurely treated as juvenile – Court observed that until age is determined, and considering conviction for aggravated sexual assault, benefit of automatic bail cannot be extended – Gravity of offence coupled with past conduct justifies denial [Paras 11, 19-21].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court not inclined to release convict pending age determination inquiry – Application disposed of – No costs [Paras 21-22].