Criminal Law – Quashing - Preventive Detention – Challenge to Detention Order – validity of a detention order issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act) against the petitioner, Nilesh Sunil Pendulkar. The order was challenged on several grounds, including delay in issuance, non-consideration of bail orders, and violation of constitutional rights. [Para 2-5, 10-14]

Delay in Issuance of Detention Order – held – significant delay in passing the detention order after the registration of the offence was not satisfactorily explained, resulting in a lack of promptitude by authorities, which rendered the detention order questionable. [Para 10-11]

Non-consideration of Bail Order – held – failure of the detaining authority to consider the petitioner's bail order and the reasoning provided by the Additional Sessions Judge vitiated the detention order. The detaining authority’s lack of consideration indicated a lack of proper application of mind. [Para 12-13]

Violation of Constitutional Rights under Article 22(5) – held – the petitioner's constitutional rights were infringed as the rejection of his representation was not communicated to him, and the documents served to him in detention were largely illegible, impairing his ability to make an effective representation. [Para 14-15, 19-20, 22-23]

Decision – Quashing of Detention Order – The Court quashed the detention order dated 06.10.2023 passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar, holding that the order was vitiated by procedural improprieties and violation of constitutional rights. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty. [Para 24]

Criminal Law – Gang Rape – Evidence Evaluation – involving the rape of a woman in the vicinity of a small stream on knife point by the three accused - appeals filed by the convicts against their conviction under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the IPC for gang rape - examined the credibility of the victim's testimony, the medical evidence, and the relevance of the absence of a test identification parade . [Para 1, 28, 31]

Testimony of Rape Victim – Credibility – The Court held that the testimony of the rape victim is of utmost importance in rape cases. Despite the absence of physical injuries or medical evidence conclusively proving rape, the victim's testimony, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction. The Court emphasized the need to consider such testimony with sensitivity and seriousness. [Para 21, 27]

Role of Hostile Witnesses – The Court observed that the entire testimony of a hostile witness need not be discarded. The evidence supporting the prosecution's case can be considered reliable even if the witness turns hostile. In this case, the witness, PW7, though hostile, indirectly supported the victim's account. [Para 23]

Corroborative Evidence in Rape Cases – Not Mandatory – The Court noted that corroborative evidence is not imperative in rape cases. Conviction can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim if it inspires confidence. [Para 27]

Medical Evidence in Rape Cases – The Court stated that the absence of external injuries or medical evidence explicitly indicating rape is not sufficient to discredit a rape allegation. The psychological and situational circumstances during such incidents were considered. [Para 25]

Failure to Conduct Test Identification Parade – The Court held that failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade is not always fatal to the prosecution's case. Identification in court can suffice if the accused were apprehended promptly and identified by the victim. [Para 29]

Appeals Dismissed – Both appeals dismissed, upholding the conviction by the trial court. [Para 32]

Civil Death Declaration – Suit by Legal Heir – Missing Husband for Over 13 Years – Appellant sought the declaration of her husband's civil death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act due to his 13-year absence to claim service benefits – Initial suits dismissed due to non-inclusion of Electricity Department and lack of specific consequential relief claims [Paras 3-5, 9, 14-15].

Legal Interpretation – Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 – The court examined whether a declaration of civil death is barred under this section when further relief is not claimed – Analysis of legal precedent and statutes indicated such a suit is maintainable [Paras 6-14].

Judicial Precedents – Consideration of judgments from various courts, including Bombay High Court and Allahabad High Court, on similar matters – Key judgments helped in interpreting the maintainability of the suit [Paras 6, 9-10].

Final Decision – The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside lower courts' judgments – Matter remanded to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow for a fresh order, recognizing that the suit for declaring civil death without specific consequential relief is maintainable [Paras 17-20].

Compassionate Appointment - Writ Petition - Denial of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) on compassionate grounds - Petitioners, wife, and son of deceased KSRTC employee, seek appointment for the son on compassionate grounds following the death of the father who was a senior driver in KSRTC - Petitioners contend that they are entitled to appointment as per the scheme existing at the time of the father's death in 2011 - Corporation contends that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is subject to the prevailing rules and schemes - Corporation offers appointments to Class-III posts to the son, which he refuses - Held that compassionate appointment cannot be insisted upon as a matter of right, nor can it be demanded for a specific post - Purpose of compassionate appointment is to alleviate immediate financial distress, which was not accepted by the son - Son's insistence on a particular post indicates lack of immediate financial necessity - Writ petition rejected. [Paras 1-9]

Erroneous Date of Birth Entry - Visually Impaired Candidate's Candidature Rejected - The petitioner, a 100% permanently visually impaired candidate, faced rejection of her candidature for the post of Assistant in Level-1 in 'D' grade due to an incorrect date of birth entry made inadvertently by a helper at an internet cafe [Paras 3, 12].

Legislative Protection for Persons with Disabilities - Emphasis on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, requiring authorities to approach cases of persons with disabilities with sensitivity and flexibility, particularly in the procedural aspects [Paras 14-15, 17].

Supreme Court's Guidelines on Reasonable Accommodation - Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court highlights the concept of Reasonable Accommodation, necessitating additional support and facilities for persons with disabilities beyond mere non-discrimination [Paras 14-15].

Rejection Deemed Oppressive and Contrary to Legislative Intent - The Court finds the rigid stand of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature as unduly oppressive, violating the objective of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Para 16].

Dismissal of Alternate Remedy Argument - The Court rejects the respondents' contention that the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, emphasizing the need for immediate judicial intervention to prevent failure of justice and uphold the spirit of the Act of 2016 [Para 17].

Direction to Process Candidature - The Court directs Respondent No. 2, Railway Recruitment Cell, to process the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant as per Advertisement No. CEN RRC- 01/2019 within six weeks [Para 18].

Relief Granted - The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's candidature [Para 19].

Writ - Disability Rights – Reasonable Accommodation and Fairness – The High Court examined the Railway Recruitment Cell’s rejection of a 100% visually impaired candidate’s application due to an inadvertent error in the date of birth entry. The Court emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation and affirmative action for persons with disabilities, underscoring the importance of treating such individuals with sensitivity and flexibility. [Para 2, 12-15, 18]

Error in Application Form – Visual Impairment – Consideration of Specific Needs – The Court highlighted the specific circumstances under which the error in the application form occurred, considering the Petitioner’s visual impairment and reliance on assistance. The Court found that minor mistakes due to disabilities should not lead to disproportionate consequences like loss of job opportunities. [Para 12-13, 15]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Enforcement and Application – The Court elaborated on the principle of reasonable accommodation as mandated by the Act of 2016. The judgment stressed the proactive creation of conditions conducive to persons with disabilities and the requirement for authorities to adapt procedures to align with legislative objectives. [Para 14-15, 18]

Judicial Intervention – Upholding Disability Rights – The High Court intervened to set aside the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature by the Railway Recruitment Cell, directing the processing of her application. This decision underscores the Court’s role in enforcing disability rights and ensuring justice. [Para 17-18]

Domestic Violence – Economic Abuse – Maintenance and Compensation – The High Court of Bombay examined whether the facts of the case constituted economic abuse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and assessed the appropriateness of the maintenance and compensation awarded to the respondent. [Para 13, 17, 19-21]

Findings on Economic Abuse – Held – The Court found that the petitioner had deprived the respondent of economic resources and properties she was entitled to, thereby constituting economic abuse as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act. This included the deprivation of the respondent's right to use properties jointly owned and the lack of provision for her maintenance. [Para 12-13]

Quantum of Maintenance – Upheld – The Court upheld the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court, considering the petitioner's undisclosed income, properties in his name, and the needs of the respondent and children. The Court noted that the income tax returns of the petitioner were not a true reflection of his actual income. [Para 16-21]

Compensation Awarded – Justified – The Court held that the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded to the respondent was justified, considering her mental agony, deprivation of property use, and lack of maintenance over the years. [Para 23]

Refusal of Cohabitation by Respondent – Reasonable – The Court found the respondent's refusal to resume cohabitation reasonable, as she was justified in fearing deprivation of her rights over the properties in her name. [Para 24]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of economic abuse and upholding the maintenance and compensation awarded to the respondent. [Para 26]

Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Rejection  – Accused as a chemist found with unaccounted intoxicant capsules and tablets – Court observes serious drug menace in Punjab and emphasizes stringent approach against drug trafficking – Held that there are no reasonable grounds to believe innocence of the accused – Bail application dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Presumption of Culpable Mental State – Section 35 of NDPS Act – Court notes absence of a satisfactory explanation by the accused to rebut the presumption of culpable mental state as per Section 35 NDPS Act – Finds the medical prescription submitted by accused to be unreliable at this stage – Bail cannot be granted due to the gravity of the alleged offence and pending FSL report. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Rejection of Bail – High Court, considering the gravity of the offence, ongoing investigation, and lack of substantial evidence to prove innocence, denies bail to the petitioner – Observes necessity to combat drug menace and its impact on society firmly. [Para 13]

Writ - Issue of Protection in a Live-in Relationship – Addressed – The petitioners sought protection from interference and harassment by family members in their live-in relationship. They claimed their relationship was threatened by the respondent, primarily petitioner No.1's father. The petitioners also sought a legal mandate to prevent such interference and for the provision of security. [Para 2-3]

Legal Status of Petitioner No.1's Marriage – Examined – Petitioner No.1, a married Muslim woman without a formal divorce, cohabiting with Petitioner No.2. The court considered the legal implications of this arrangement under Muslim Law and the Indian Penal Code, referring to previous rulings that such relationships do not qualify as 'live-in relationships' or 'relationships in the nature of marriage.' [Para 6-9, 11]

Principle of Legal Right for Mandamus – Applied – The Court evaluated the requisites for issuing a writ of mandamus. It concluded that a writ can only be issued if there is a legal right to the performance of a legal duty. The relationship between the petitioners, in violation of existing laws, did not constitute a legally protected right. [Para 10, 13]

Decision – Dismissal of the Petition – The court dismissed the petition, noting that the relationship between the petitioners, being in violation of Muslim Law and Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, cannot be legally protected or supported by the Court. The petitioners' request for protection and non-interference was thus held to be without legal basis. [Para 14-15]