Bail – Enticement Allegation – Contradictory Statement of Victim – Applicant accused under Sections 137(2) and 87 BNS for allegedly enticing informant’s daughter – Victim in statement under Section 183 BNSS stated she left home voluntarily – Charge-sheet filed, no need for further custodial interrogation – Applicant in custody since 25.09.2025 – Bail granted subject to usual conditions [Paras 2–6].

Constitutional Mandate – Right to Personal Liberty – Liberty under Article 21 demands prompt communication and execution of bail orders – Once bail is granted, undertrial must be immediately informed to avoid continued incarceration due to administrative delay [Paras 16–17].

Implementation of Supreme Court Guidelines – FASTER & e-Prison Integration – Following Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail [(2024) 10 SCC 685], High Court reiterates that bail orders must be emailed to jail authorities on same/next day; Jail Superintendents must record date of bail in e-Prisons software – Delays or corruption in verification of sureties noted as systemic issue requiring reform [Paras 11–17].

Administrative Directions – Mandatory Jail Details & Electronic Surety Verification – Court issues binding directions:

(i) Advocates to mention jail details in bail applications;

(ii) Reporting Section not to process applications lacking such details after 01.12.2025;

(iii) CPC to obtain NIC access to e-Prison portal for direct electronic transmission of bail orders;

(iv) State to establish in-court electronic surety verification to prevent delay or corruption;

(v) Jail authorities to release prisoners immediately on receipt of electronic BOMS order without evening delay [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Reform – Enforcement Mechanism – Registrar (Compliance) directed to circulate order to Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General (Prison), NIC, and Court administration for strict adherence – Reinforces judicial accountability in ensuring that bail orders translate into immediate liberty [Para 20].

Decision: Bail granted to applicant Sohrab @ Sorab Ali on personal bond with two sureties – Detailed procedural and systemic directions issued to ensure compliance with Supreme Court’s bail policy and safeguard fundamental right to liberty – No costs.

NDPS Act – Section 21 – Conviction – Appeal – Appellant convicted for possession of commercial quantity of heroin (nearly 6 kg) recovered from bag on motorcycle – Search conducted after informing appellant of right under Section 50 NDPS Act – Recovery in presence of DSP and consent recorded – Samples drawn on spot and sealed – Produced before Magistrate next day – Seals found intact – Held: Recovery not from person but from bag – Hence, Section 50 not applicable – Compliance with Section 52A satisfied – Conviction upheld [Paras 6-12].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Heroin recovered from bag carried on motorcycle – Not personal search – Held: As per SC rulings (Pawan Kumar, Ranjan Chadha, Prabhu), Section 50 applies only to personal search – Voluntary consent given and recovery witnessed by DSP – No violation found [Paras 8-9].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Drawing of Samples – Appellant contended that samples not drawn before Magistrate – Held: Samples taken at spot in accordance with Standing Orders – Inventory, samples, and case property presented before Magistrate next day – Seals intact – No prejudice shown – Procedural compliance deemed sufficient – Recent SC judgment in NCB v. Kashif relied on [Paras 10-11].

Independent Witness – Non-joinder – Contention of no public witness during recovery – Held: Ruqa shows attempt was made to join public witnesses but none were available – Prosecution version corroborated by consistent testimony of officials – Not fatal to case [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 21 NDPS Act confirmed – No infirmity found in trial court’s findings [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Seizure of Vehicle – Prohibition Offence – Interim Custody – Vehicle seized under FIR for carrying liquor in violation of Gujarat Prohibition Act – No confiscation proceedings initiated under amended Section 98(2) of Prohibition Act despite seizure exceeding 20 litres – Vehicle lying idle in police custody – Held: In absence of confiscation action and to prevent deterioration of vehicle, release of vehicle ordered with stringent conditions – Power under Article 226 rightly exercised [Paras 1–8].

Confiscation – Non-Initiation of Proceedings – Despite mandatory nature of amended Section 98(2), no steps taken by prosecution for confiscation or approaching Magistrate – Held: Delay defeats purpose – Following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, vehicle must be released to registered owner with safeguards – Mere pendency of FIR does not justify continued seizure indefinitely [Paras 7–8].

Article 226 – Powers of High Court – High Court has wide jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to direct release of property when delay or inaction by authorities causes prejudice – Held: No bar under Section 98 in current facts where no action for confiscation was taken – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Para 8].

Direction for Release – Vehicle to be released to registered owner (Ahir Enterprise) through Power of Attorney holder on furnishing solvent surety and undertakings – Future confiscation proceedings not barred – Magistrate can still initiate action under Section 98(2) if warranted – Police to photograph vehicle and prepare panchanama before release [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Vehicle Ashok Leyland Ltd UM4220/66 H CC (Goods Carrier) bearing registration No. GJ-16-AV-9994 to be released to petitioner on strict conditions – Rule made absolute – Direct service permitted [Paras 9–13].

Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Allegations that petitioners received ₹3.86 crore under subcontract agreement but diverted construction material and failed to complete work – Specific allegations of dishonest intention and misappropriation of funds from inception of contract found in complaint – Petitioners allegedly shifted materials to personal project and retained valuable equipment – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC made out – FIR not liable to be quashed merely because of existence of arbitration clause or civil nature of dispute – Delay in lodging FIR explained – Limitation under Section 468 CrPC not a bar to investigation of offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment [Paras 2–4, 8–11, 16–21].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Lifting of Corporate Veil – Petitioners being Managing Director and Director accused of personal misuse of company funds and materials – Specific allegations of active involvement in acts of misappropriation – Held: When individuals controlling company are accused of dishonest acts, they cannot seek shelter under corporate veil – Sufficient averments to continue criminal proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Place of Cause of Action – Petitioners contended that no part of offence took place in Hyderabad – Held: Transfer of misappropriated funds occurred in Hyderabad; company offices located in Hyderabad – Investigation can proceed even if jurisdiction questionable – As per Section 156(2) CrPC and Satvinder Kaur judgment, police can investigate offence irrespective of territorial jurisdiction at this stage [Paras 4.6, 28–29].

Civil vs Criminal Remedy – Arbitration Clause – Petitioners argued arbitration clause existed in contract – Held: Arbitration clause does not bar criminal prosecution if allegations make out prima facie offence – Allegations in FIR include dishonest intention and misappropriation from inception, which cannot be resolved merely by arbitration [Paras 4.4, 16, 19].

Power under Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Court reiterated that inherent power must be used sparingly – When FIR discloses cognizable offence and investigation is ongoing, courts should not interfere at threshold stage – Petitioners not entitled to quash FIR when disputed facts require investigation [Paras 20, 27, 30–31].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not quashed – Criminal proceedings to continue – Observations confined to decision on quashment and not to affect merits of investigation or trial [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Rape – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix – FIR lodged after delay of one day, allegedly after husband’s consent – Medical examination showed ruptured hymen but no external injuries – Neighbours, husband, and key witnesses not examined – Held: In absence of corroboration and amid glaring contradictions regarding the occurrence, identification of accused, sleeping arrangement, and presence of weapon, conviction cannot be sustained – Sole testimony not inspiring confidence [Paras 10–16, 18–21].

Criminal Evidence – Delay in FIR – Victim lodged complaint one day after incident citing need for husband’s permission – Husband not examined to corroborate – No neighbour examined despite claim that one informed husband – Delay and absence of explanation create serious doubt on authenticity of allegation [Paras 11–13].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Doctor found only ruptured hymen, no external injuries or marks of violence – Victim a married woman with three children – Held: Medical findings inconsistent with allegation of forcible rape; rupture of hymen not conclusive of sexual assault [Paras 14–15].

Defective Investigation – Investigation found to be perfunctory – Failure to seize mat, weapon, or clothing – No site sketch or verification of call records – No examination of key witnesses – Held: Though defective investigation alone not ground for acquittal, when coupled with unreliable and inconsistent evidence, prosecution case collapses [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion cannot substitute proof – Major inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances warrant benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Trial court erred in relying solely on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix despite serious contradictions and lack of evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 22–23].

Co-operative Societies – Recovery Certificate – Section 101, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners denied disbursement of loan and alleged fabrication of loan documents by the Bank – Deputy Registrar issued recovery certificate under Section 101 without deliberating on specific defences raised by petitioners – Held: Registrar is statutorily bound to consider the defence and render a reasoned judgment as mandated under Rules 86-A to 86-F of 1961 Rules – Failure to record reasons amounts to violation of principles of natural justice – Order unsustainable [Paras 11–16].

Alternate Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of remedy under Section 154(2)(A) of the Act not an absolute bar when impugned order is passed in breach of statutory procedure and natural justice – Writ maintainable [Para 9].

Scope of Inquiry under Section 101 – Registrar’s jurisdiction limited to verification of correctness of arrears – If bona fide dispute as to loan disbursement or fraud is raised, Registrar must refuse to issue certificate and direct parties to remedy under Section 91 – Registrar cannot decide disputed questions of fact in summary recovery proceedings [Paras 10–12].

Reasoned Orders – Quasi-Judicial Duty – Requirement of recording reasons inherent in Section 101 read with Rule 86-F – “Rubber-stamp” or mechanical orders vitiate decision-making process – Reiterated principles in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 applied [Para 15].

Decision: Writ Petitions partly allowed – Order dated 24.09.2024 of Deputy Registrar set aside – Matter remanded for de novo inquiry and fresh decision in accordance with Rules 86-A to 86-F within four weeks – Parties directed to appear on 17.11.2025 [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].

Right to Privacy – Posthumous Personality Rights – Not Heritable – Petitioner, daughter of Late Shah Bano Begum, sought injunction against the film ‘Haq’ claiming it dramatizes and distorts the private life of her late mother without consent – Alleged violation of right to privacy and dignity – Held: As per K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and Deepa Jayakumar (2021), right to privacy extinguishes upon death – Personality and privacy rights are not inheritable – No cause of action survives for legal heirs to claim violation of deceased’s privacy – Petition dismissed [Paras 8–10]

Freedom of Expression – Fictional and Dramatized Works – Use of Public Record – Film inspired by Supreme Court’s judgment in Shah Bano case and adaptation of published book – Contains disclaimer clarifying fictional nature and non-association with real individuals – Held: Once information enters public domain and court records, right to privacy ceases – Creative and artistic liberty protected under Article 19(1)(a) – Film does not claim to be a biopic – Use of dramatization permissible – No legal basis to restrain its release [Paras 11–13]

Certification of Film – Judicial Review – CBFC Certificate Grants Prima Facie Validity – Alternative Remedy Not Exhausted – Petitioner did not challenge certification through available remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act – Held: High Court not to interfere unless certification is challenged for procedural irregularity, which was not done – Absence of challenge to certificate fatal to relief sought – Writ petition dismissed for not availing alternate statutory remedy [Paras 14–15]

Delay and Laches – Knowledge of Film Production Since February 2024 – Petition Filed Just Before Release – Film teaser released in September 2025 – Certification granted in October 2025 – Petition filed on 01.11.2025 despite wide publicity – Held: Petitioner not vigilant – Delay defeats equitable relief – Writ petition suffers from laches [Para 16]

New Grounds Raised in Oral Argument – Not Pleaded – Not Permissible – Petitioner sought to raise community-based objections during hearing which were not part of pleadings – Held: Factual contentions not pleaded cannot be raised during argument – Court declined to consider unpleaded grounds [Para 7]

Precedents – Petitioner’s Reliance Misplaced – Cases cited concerned living persons or different contexts (e.g. defamation, copyright, decency) – Held: Inapplicable to case involving dramatized depiction of deceased person and lack of legal injury to petitioner herself – Respondents’ reliance on Babuji Rawji Shah (2023), Viacom 18 Media (2018), and R. Rajagopal (1994) upheld [Para 17]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No violation of legal or constitutional rights shown – Film’s release upheld – No interference with CBFC certification justified. [Para 18]

Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 212 Days – Dismissed – Applicant filed criminal revision with 212-day delay challenging order granting probation to private respondents – Delay attributed to mistaken advice regarding remedy under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Explanation vague, lacking particulars, and unsupported by any material – No genuine, exceptional, or unavoidable circumstances shown – Application dismissed [Paras 6–7.1]

Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Liberal Approach Not Absolute – Legal Position Reiterated – Liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” cannot be stretched to condone unexplained or negligent delay – Condonation requires cogent, credible, and satisfactory explanation – Merits of case not a ground for condonation – Reliance placed on Deepak v. Noori (CRR(F)-1844-2023) and Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024 INSC 286) [Paras 4–5]

Procedural Law – Effect of Dismissal of Delay Application – Consequential Dismissal of Main Petition – Since delay was not condoned, the accompanying revision petition against probation order was also dismissed without consideration on merits [Para 8]

Decision: Application for condonation of 212-day delay dismissed – Criminal revision petition dismissed as a consequence – Pending applications, if any, also disposed.