Criminal Law – Right to Conjugal Relations – Criminal writ petition seeking parole for conjugal relations and procreation within jail premises – Petitioner's husband, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment, classified as a hardcore criminal – Held, right to conjugal relations is not an absolute right – Convicted persons cannot enjoy the same rights as law-abiding citizens – Petitioner's husband can apply for parole in terms of relevant instructions and statutory conditions.

Right to Conjugal Relations – Analysis – Held – The right to conjugal relations is not absolute and is subject to statutory conditions and reasonable restrictions. Convicts are entitled to infertility treatment but cannot claim conjugal rights akin to law-abiding citizens. Distinctions between law-abiding citizens and convicts must be maintained[Para 12-13]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – The petition for conjugal parole is dismissed with observations. Petitioner’s husband can apply for parole per instructions and conditions under the statute. Jail Reforms Committee to consider relevant judicial precedents while formulating policies [Para 17]

Constitutional Law – Regularization of Contractual Employees – Writ petition against regularization of ADAs under policy dated 18.03.2011 – Petitioners contended regularization was arbitrary, lacked transparency, and violated constitutional scheme requiring public posts to be filled by best available talent through open competition – Held, policy applied only to certain departments and was extended arbitrarily – Regularization not permissible for Group-B posts under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution – Regularization set aside, State directed to make appointments through direct recruitment within six months, private respondents eligible to apply.

Permanent Appointment vs. Regularization – Analysis – Held – The concept of permanent appointment differs from regularization. Regularization under the policy dated 18.03.2011 was arbitrary and not justified, especially since regular appointments were initiated and could have been done in a staggered manner. Regularization on Group-B posts is impermissible under the Rules framed under Article 309. The best talent must be appointed through open competition

[Para 27-32]

Decision – Quashing of Regularization – The impugned order of regularization dated 08.10.2013 is quashed. The State may continue the private respondents as contract employees while initiating direct recruitment. The process to be completed within six months, with an age relaxation for private respondents. The writ petitions are allowed

[Para 32]

Criminal Law – Conjoint Hearing of Applications and Main Appeal – Criminal writ petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa directing conjoint hearing of applications under Sections 311, 310, and 319 Cr.P.C. along with the main appeal – Petitioner contends that adverse decisions on applications would merge with the decision on the main appeal, preventing effective legal recourse – Held, order for conjoint hearing quashed – Applications to be decided before the main appeal – Petition disposed of.

Conjoint Hearing – Analysis – Held – The ordering of conjoint hearings on applications under Sections 311, 310, and 319 Cr.P.C. along with the main appeal is quashed. To ensure decisions on applications are made prior to the main appeal, avoiding any merger of adverse decisions which would limit legal remedies available to the petitioner.

[Para 4-5]

Decision – Quashing of Conjoint Hearing Order – The impugned order directing conjoint hearing is quashed. Applications under Sections 311, 310, and 319 Cr.P.C. are to be decided first, allowing appropriate legal challenges if necessary. The main appeal to be heard subsequently. The petition is disposed of.

[Para 6]

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence - Narcotics - Application for suspension of sentence by convict under Section 21 NDPS Act involving possession of 220 grams of heroin - Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act not applicable as quantity is less than commercial - Consideration of alternatives to cash or surety for bail - Held, use of fixed deposit or electronic transfer in lieu of cash or surety likely to improve attendance - Applicant to be released on bail subject to personal bond and sureties. [Paras 1-14]

Bail Conditions - Use of Fixed Deposits - Analysis - Held - Fixed deposit or electronic transfer as an alternative to cash or surety enhances the likelihood of compliance and attendance by the accused - Such alternatives align with the legislative intention under Section 445 Cr.P.C. - Applicant to provide a personal bond of Rs. One Lakh and two sureties of Rs. Five Lakhs each. [Paras 15-25]

Decision - Suspension of Sentence - Court allows suspension of sentence - Applicant to furnish a personal bond and sureties as stipulated - Emphasis on compliance through fixed deposits or electronic transfers to ensure attendance and avoid forfeiture. [Para 26-37]

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act, Service of Proclamation - Quashing of FIR and Proceedings - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against Magistrate's order for the registration of FIR under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner contended non-residence in the country at the time notice was served - Held, the Magistrate did not ensure the actual residence status of the petitioner before issuing the proclamation - Service of notice invalid - Order to register FIR and initiate proceedings quashed - Petitioner directed to surrender before the Magistrate within a week - No coercive steps to be taken until surrender. [Paras 1-9]

Service of Proclamation - Invalid Service - Analysis - Held - The Magistrate failed to ascertain whether the petitioner was residing at his abode as per the memo of parties before issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Non-residence of petitioner in the country at the relevant time resulted in lack of valid service of the proclamation notice. [Para 3-7]

Decision - Quashing of FIR and Proclamation - Court quashes the order of the Magistrate to register FIR and issue proclamation against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate within a week. [Para 8-9]

Criminal Law - Maintenance - Territorial Jurisdiction - Criminal Revision against Family Court's order dismissing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for lack of territorial jurisdiction - Section 126 Cr.P.C. allows proceedings under Section 125 to be taken in any district where the husband resides, wife resides, or where they last resided together - Held, temporary residence is sufficient to confer jurisdiction - Petition maintainable in Sonepat where respondent resides - Order of Family Court set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration. [Paras 1-11]

Jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C. - Analysis - Held - The provisions of Section 126 Cr.P.C. should be liberally construed to provide relief to the wife or child - Temporary residence is adequate to confer jurisdiction - Petition maintainable at the place of respondent's residence, Sonepat, despite subsequent change in minor's residence. [Para 6-9]

Decision - Territorial Jurisdiction - Court finds that Family Court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction - The impugned order is set aside, and the case is remitted to the Family Court, Sonepat, for decision in accordance with law - Respondent to pay litigation expenses assessed at Rs.15,000/-. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – NDPS Act – Multiple FIRs – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – High Court discussed the permissibility of registering a fresh FIR against the petitioner, citing Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, validating the second FIR due to the larger canvass of the inquiry. The statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were argued to be inadmissible based on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The High Court noted the pending status of these issues in other appropriate forums and dismissed the bail application. [Paras 34-42]

Anticipatory Bail – Grant and Restrictions – Judicial Considerations – Analysis – Held – The High Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a routine exercise and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The allegations of political rivalry were not substantiated to justify anticipatory bail. The court reiterated that stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be met, and the bail was denied due to the nascent stage of the investigation. [Para 46]

Decision – Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Application – The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, finding no sufficient ground to afford the concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage. The court provided the petitioner a three-day window to approach the Supreme Court for further relief. [Paras 59-64]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – FIR registered under Sections 384, 511, and 506 IPC for alleged extortion and threat – Petitioner accused of attempting to extort money by threatening to implicate the complainant in a false rape case – Held, non-disclosure of previous application under Section 156(3) CrPC by complainant – Legal issues can be raised under Section 482 CrPC even if the report under Section 173 CrPC is not filed – FIR quashed. [Paras 1-24, 45]

Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Analysis – Legal issues raised in the petition for quashing cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-filing of the report under Section 173 CrPC – Several situations listed where quashing can be considered without waiting for the report – Ensures prevention of abuse of process and securing ends of justice. [Paras 10-24]

Duty of Disclosure – Held – Complainant must disclose previous applications filed under Section 156(3) CrPC and orders therein – Non-disclosure amounts to suppression of material facts – FIR registered subsequent to application under Section 156(3) CrPC without disclosure of the same is abuse of process. [Paras 20-21]

Decision – Quashing of FIR – Petition allowed – FIR quashed due to non-disclosure and lack of substantive allegations constituting offences under Sections 384, 511, and 506 IPC – Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC justified. [Paras 24, 45]

Civil Law - Suit for Specific Performance - Concurrent Findings - No Substantial Question of Law - Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court - Both courts found no merit in the plaintiff's claims and noted a lack of evidence - Plaintiff unable to raise any substantial question of law - Appeal dismissed​​.

Validity of Power of Attorney and Sale Deed - Analysis - Held - Plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreement - Valid power of attorney was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 - Sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was valid and binding - Courts found collusion between plaintiff and defendant No.1​​.

Decision - Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal - Appeal dismissed with no substantial question of law arising - Concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts upheld​​.