Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Successive Applications – Petitioners filed fourth and third petitions under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 348 dated 06.10.2014, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 IPC. High Court held that successive bail applications are not maintainable unless based on new substantial grounds not available when the previous applications were decided on merits. Previous grounds cannot be construed as fresh grounds for subsequent bail prayers [Paras 1, 21, 23].

Bank Fraud – Specific Allegations – FIR registered based on the complaint that the petitioners, in connivance with bank officials, fraudulently transferred Rs. 2 crores from the complainant's account to their company's account by misusing security cheques without consent. High Court dismissed the petitions, finding that the new grounds raised were either exhausted or inconsequential [Paras 2, 13, 14].

Conduct of Investigation – Police Procedures – High Court criticized the practice of conducting inquiries post-FIR registration instead of statutory investigations, highlighting the need for fair and impartial investigations as part of the criminal justice process. Directed that pending investigation be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to lack of confidence in the state police's handling of the case [Paras 37, 43, 44].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the petitions with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs each, to be deposited with PGIMER, Chandigarh, within two months. Directed the transfer of the investigation to the CBI to ensure a fair and impartial probe [Para 44].

Cancellation of Bail – Non-disclosure of Pending Application – Mere non-disclosure of the factum of a pending bail application before the High Court while moving a bail application before the Sessions Court is not a ground for canceling bail – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment Mohan Singh v. UT, Chandigarh – Simultaneous bail applications permissible – Cancellation of bail order reversed [Paras 1-10].

Scope of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. – Application for cancellation of bail should apply only when the person has been released on bail and sought to be arrested and committed to custody – Petitioner was in judicial custody when cancellation was sought – Application legally not maintainable under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 11-12].

Consideration of Age and Health – Petitioner a 63-year-old woman – No recovery of narcotics from petitioner – Held in custody since 22.03.2021 – Chalan filed and trial set to commence – Bail initially granted based on merits and circumstances [Para 12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned order dated 16.07.2021 set aside – Original bail order dated 28.06.2021 reinstated – Petitioner's incarceration due to non-disclosure not justified – Revision petition merits accepted [Paras 12-14].

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Filing of Detailed Reply – The Court held that when material regarding the arrest and detention of the detenue is already before the Court, filing a detailed reply to the habeas corpus petition is not required. Granting an adjournment for filing a detailed reply may defeat the purpose of the habeas corpus petition, which concerns the serious issue of illegal detention. Hence, interim or final orders can be passed on the material produced before the Court without granting such adjournments [Paras 34, 62-70] .

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Blanket Bail – The Court ruled that blanket orders of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed. Directions that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever" should not be issued. However, in special circumstances, and on ample material being placed on record, the Court may balance individual rights of personal freedom with the investigation rights of the police and pass appropriate orders, including directing the prosecution to give advance notice for a reasonable time [Para 16] .

Decision – Habeas Corpus Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the illegal detention. The interim orders were made absolute, emphasizing the need for protecting personal liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Paras 1, 13, 21-24] .

Constitutional Law – Age Relaxation – Petitioners sought age relaxation for applying against posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic delayed recruitment processes, thus affecting their eligibility – High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no legal obligation on the State to fill vacancies immediately, and age relaxation depends on public need, administrative exigencies, and budgetary provisions [Paras 1-14, 24-28].

Recruitment Process – Age Criteria – Petitioners contended that the Chief Minister’s tweet indicated an increase in the recruitment age limit from 28 to 32 years – High Court found that no official amendment was made to the relevant rules and that the decision to increase the age limit had not been implemented – The Court held that such social media announcements do not confer a legal right [Paras 8, 23, 24].

Rule 12.6(c) of Punjab Police Rules – Special Circumstances – Petitioners argued that the Director General of Police could relax the upper age limit under special circumstances – High Court held that no such special circumstances were found and that the decision to grant age relaxation lies within the discretion of the State [Paras 9, 11].

Promissory Estoppel – Petitioners cited the principle of promissory estoppel based on the Chief Minister’s tweet – High Court rejected this argument, stating that promissory estoppel does not apply against statutory provisions and that no unequivocal promise was made [Paras 15, 22, 27].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no legal or fundamental right of the petitioners was violated – Directed that the recruitment process proceed as per existing rules without granting age relaxation [Para 30].

summoning orders issued by the ACJM, Hoshiarpur, contending that the undertakings given to the Election Commission of India and the Gurudwara Election Commission were contradictory – High Court upheld the summoning orders, emphasizing that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator during the preliminary evidence recording and that there was sufficient material on record to summon the accused [Paras 1-14, 27-37].

False Undertaking – Specific Averments – Petitioners argued that the undertakings submitted to the Election Commission of India and the Gurudwara Election Commission were contradictory and that the constitution filed with the Election Commission of India was false – High Court found that there were specific averments and sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners [Paras 12, 14, 27, 28].

Procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court reiterated that interference under Section 482 is justified only in rarest of rare cases where the complaint is frivolous or there is a clear abuse of process – Held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and the summoning orders were based on sufficient material [Paras 13, 22, 23, 46].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments challenging the summoning orders – Directed the trial court to proceed with the case as per established procedure [Para 37].

Benami Transactions – Exception under Section 2(9)(A) – Dismissal of Application for Rejection of Plaint – Property transferred or held by a person where consideration is paid by another person and held in a fiduciary capacity not a benami transaction – Procedure for declaring a benami transaction outlined in the Act – Mere assertion by petitioner insufficient to abort claim – Dismissal of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC upheld [Paras 1-12].

Cause of Action – Rejection of Plaint – Evaluation of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC requires reading averments as a whole – Plaint should not be rejected if it discloses material facts and cause of action – Defence contentions not relevant for determining application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC – Proper cause of action disclosed in the plaint warrants continuation of suit [Paras 7-15].

Registration of Property – Section 17 of the Registration Act – Plea of compulsory registration not applicable at stage of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC application – Oral understanding regarding transfer of property validly explained – Defence arguments regarding registration cannot be considered [Para 13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Plaint sufficiently discloses cause of action – No merit in arguments for rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC – Observations not to affect merits of the ongoing suit [Paras 15-16].

Promotion Criteria – Eligibility for Inspector of Police – Rule 13.14(2) of Punjab Police Rules – Petitioners challenged promotions to post of Inspector based on eligibility criteria of eight years' experience – Held, Rule 13.14(2) applies to all Sub-Inspectors regardless of direct recruitment or promotion – No discrimination in eligibility criteria – Petitioners failed to meet criteria of eight years' service – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-39].

Discrimination – Equal Opportunity – Article 16 of the Constitution – Challenge to Rule 13.14(2) on grounds of discrimination against direct recruits – Court held eligibility criteria uniform and non-discriminatory – Requirement of eight years' experience as upper subordinate not violative of Article 16 – Criteria applied equally to direct recruits and promotees [Paras 22-39].

Judicial Interpretation – Rule Application – Rule 13.14(2) interpreted to include promotion to Inspector – Court emphasizes purposive interpretation to ensure effective application of statutory rules – Consistent practice of following Rule 13.14(2) for promotions upheld [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Promotion orders upheld – Eligibility criteria under Rule 13.14(2) confirmed as valid and non-discriminatory – Petitioners not entitled to promotions as Inspectors due to lack of required experience [Paras 30-39].

Habeas Corpus – Minor Marriage – Release of Detenue – Detenue aged 17 and a half years asserted marriage with respondent and desire to live with him – No FIR registered against detenue or her husband – Marriage not void but voidable at detenue's option – Even without proof of marriage, partners entitled to live-in relationship – Prosecution not justified for irregularity/illegality in marriage certificate – Petition by father for release dismissed [Paras 1-12].

Live-in Relationship – Detenue's Right to Live with Partner – Detenue asserted majority age and willingness to live with respondent – Court emphasizes individual's right to choose living arrangements – Protection granted despite father's objections – Live-in relationship permissible even without marriage validity [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Propriety – Abuse of Process – Court finds prosecuting detenue and respondent for marriage certificate irregularity an abuse of process – Complaint and inquiry report against them quashed – Court ensures protection of life and liberty of detenue [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Detenue allowed to live with respondent – Directions issued for financial security in favor of detenue – Complaint and inquiry report quashed to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Impropriety – Pendency of Petition – Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Application by Magistrate during pendency of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court – Held, absence of any such infirmity – Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a statutory power – Order by Magistrate not an act of judicial impropriety [Paras 1-30].

Magistrate's Discretion – Registration of Complaint – Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Statutory power conferred upon Magistrate – Essential for Magistrate to take appropriate decision and exercise jurisdiction – Failure to do so would amount to abdication of powers [Para 29].

Custodial Interrogation – Pre-judging Case – Magistrate's observation regarding custodial interrogation not amounting to pre-judging the case – Mere registration of FIR not prejudicial to accused – Court required to examine existence of cognizable offence and direct FIR registration if necessary ingredients are met [Para 30].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders by Additional Sessions Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate upheld – Directions for registration of FIR found legally sustainable and not an act of judicial impropriety [Paras 31-32].