Criminal Law – Child Trafficking – Cancellation of Bail – Grave Offence – Modus Operandi of Organized Crime Syndicate – Bail Granted by Trial Court Set Aside – FIR revealed inter-State infant trafficking network with accused persons involved in procurement, delivery, and sale of newborns from poor families for profit – Trial Court granted bail to two accused (Pooja and Bimla) without proper consideration of the seriousness of offence or role of accused – High Court held that the impugned orders were mechanically passed and failed to assess parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad and Pinki – Bail orders cancelled and accused directed to surrender [Paras 2–14, 38–39, 41–46, 55–61].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Jurisprudence – Factors for Grant and Cancellation – High Court Emphasizes Need to Consider Public Interest, Risk of Witness Tampering, and Offence Gravity – Trial Court erred in granting bail solely on ground that charge sheet was filed and no further custodial interrogation was needed – Held: Filing of charge sheet is not the sole test for granting bail – Risk of absconding, destruction of evidence, and societal impact must be weighed [Paras 45–50, 55].

Evidence – CDRs, WhatsApp Chats and Video Footage – Destruction of Mobile Phones by Accused – Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Against Respondents Upheld – Court noted mobile data, call records, money transfers, and video footage placed on record – Alleged destruction of phones showed consciousness of guilt – Prima facie links between co-accused (Pooja and Bimla) established through digital evidence and co-accused statements – Bail granted despite such material found unsustainable [Paras 19–21, 25, 42–44, 57–58].

Human Trafficking – Adoption as Defence – Rejected at Bail Stage – Judicial Caution Mandated – Defence plea that infants were given in adoption rejected – Court held that claim cannot overshadow serious allegations of trafficking and is matter for trial – Held: In cases involving vulnerable victims (infants), strict scrutiny and protective approach necessary at bail stage [Paras 47–48].

Precedent – Ashok Dhankad and Pinki Cases Applied – Grave Offences Demand Heightened Judicial Scrutiny – Court reiterated principles from Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pinki v. State of U.P. – Bail in cases of grave offences like child trafficking must consider societal impact and risk of recurrence – Mechanical grant of bail undermines public confidence in justice system [Paras 48–52].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Impugned bail orders dated 22.07.2025 (Bimla) and 30.07.2025 (Pooja) set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within 7 days – Trial Court directed to proceed with expeditious trial – Observations confined to bail proceedings and not to influence merits of trial [Paras 60–65].

Suo Motu - Education Law – Suicide of Law Student – Alleged Mental Harassment – Attendance Norms – Institutional Responsibility – Court-Initiated Writ Petition – Directions Issued for Mental Health and Legal Education Reform – Held: Criminal proceedings closed due to lack of evidence linking suicide to any direct instigation – However, Court proceeds to address systemic failures in mental health and rigid attendance requirements in legal education – Guidelines issued to Bar Council of India and UGC for reform [Paras 1–13, 144–147, 233–252]

Criminal Law – Section 306 IPC – Suicide – Closure Report – Lack of Proximity – Ld. ACJM accepts cancellation report in FIR No. 153/2017 filed against faculty and administration of Amity Law School, Delhi – Held: No act of instigation, provocation or conspiracy made out – No mens rea established – Student had not attended college in three months preceding the suicide – Detention due to low attendance was in line with university and BCI norms – No legal ground to prosecute faculty or administrators [Paras 11–13, 146–147]

Evidence – Mental Harassment Allegations – Unsubstantiated Claims – Email communication from deceased seeking exemption from debarment cited – Held: Lack of direct communication or threats from faculty – Conversations with friends cited general dissatisfaction but not sufficient to show intention to provoke suicide – Relying on M. Arjunan v. State, mere harsh behaviour insufficient to constitute abetment [Paras 146, 39–41]

Settlement – Out-of-Court Agreement – Amity Law School and deceased’s family enter into settlement – All legal proceedings including protest petition to be withdrawn – Professors removed from array of parties – Institution to remain only for assisting Court on systemic issues – No further claims to be pursued against them [Paras 19–21, 12, 20]

Judicial Review – Scope – Court holds it cannot interfere with criminal court’s acceptance of closure report – However, exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 to address larger public interest issues of mental health and attendance in legal education [Paras 147–148]

Mental Health – Student Suicides in Higher Education – Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) – Held: Mental health is part of right to life under Article 21 – Courts cite cases from NIT Jamshedpur, IIT Guwahati, NLU Delhi – Supreme Court decisions in Amit Kumar and Sukdeb Saha underscore institutional responsibility – Institutions act in loco parentis – GRCs to include 50% student representation, not just special invitees – Presence of trained counsellors/therapists mandatory – Weekly, proactive engagement with students emphasized [Paras 149–163, 248]

UGC Regulations – Grievance Redressal Committees – UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 – Held: Current structure insufficient – Student role must be strengthened – Mandate issued to UGC to amend regulations – Institutions to immediately appoint 2–3 student members on GRCs pending amendments [Paras 156–163, 248]

Legal Education – Mandatory Attendance – Rigid Norms Under BCI Rules – Held: Rule 12 of BCI Legal Education Rules, 2008 too inflexible – Penalises students with detention for not meeting 70% attendance without adequate flexibility – Disproportionate and archaic in light of NEP 2020 – Fails to consider internships, moot courts, model parliaments as educational equivalents – NEP and 2003 UGC Regulations emphasize flexibility, blended learning – Court directs BCI to reconsider attendance norms and consult stakeholders [Paras 164–229, 249–250]

Comparative Standards – Attendance in Other Disciplines – Court finds professional courses like medicine/dentistry justify attendance due to practical lab/patient work – However, legal education has multiple dimensions including court visits, moots, field work – Flexibility necessary – Institutions like BITS Pilani show attendance can be voluntary with continuous evaluation [Paras 177–179]

Right to Education – Attendance and Right to Appear in Exams – Held: Barring students from exams for shortage of attendance disproportionate – Institutions to adopt flexible measures – Weekly attendance updates, parental intimation, extra classes, home assignments, internships to compensate shortage – If attendance not met despite measures, student may face grade reduction but not be barred from exams or progression [Paras 215–232, 249]

Data Privacy – Biometric and CCTV Attendance Surveillance – BCI Circular dated 24.09.2024 mandates biometric tracking and CCTV in classrooms – Court finds it invasive – Rejects implementation citing privacy and disproportionate surveillance – Held: Data protection under Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not justify intrusive attendance mechanisms – Circular not to be enforced [Paras 207–209, 249(4)]

Regulatory Oversight – Role of Bar Council of India – BCI retains authority to set standards – But must act in consonance with NEP 2020 and evolving student welfare needs – Court directs BCI to publish city-wise list of advocates and firms offering internships, especially for EWS and differently abled students – Timeline of three months given [Paras 243–244, 249(3)]

Decision: Writ Petition disposed – Criminal case closed based on closure report – Professors removed as parties – Institution to remain for systemic reform – Directions issued to UGC and BCI for reformation of GRCs and attendance norms – Biometric tracking circular of BCI stayed – Institutions directed not to bar students from exams solely on attendance shortfall – Alternative evaluative measures and reforms ordered in line with NEP 2020 [Paras 233–252]

Labour Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – MRTU & PULP Act – Situs of Employment – Cause of Action – Head Office as Nerve Centre – GlaxoSmithKline Impliedly Overruled – The Division Bench of this Court in GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. held that the situs of the employee’s employment alone governs territorial jurisdiction – Held: This view stands impliedly overruled by the later Supreme Court decisions in Nandram v. Garware Polyester Ltd. and Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. – The cause of action also arises where the head or corporate office took the impugned decision, issued appointment, transfer or termination orders, or paid salary – The situs test alone cannot determine jurisdiction – both the situs and the place of managerial decision are relevant [Paras 90–107, 111–112, 147].

Doctrine of Implied Overruling – Effect of Later Supreme Court Decision – A later, inconsistent Supreme Court decision operates as an implied overruling of an earlier High Court ruling – Following S.E. Graphites Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana and C.N. Rudramurthy v. K. Barkhatullah Khan – The decision in GlaxoSmithKline is inconsistent with Nandram and Rakesh Kumar Verma and is therefore impliedly overruled [Paras 83–91].

Industrial Adjudication – Applicability of CPC Principles – Territorial Jurisdiction – Although the Code of Civil Procedure is not directly applicable to labour adjudication, its principles concerning accrual of cause of action and concurrent jurisdiction are relevant – Section 20 CPC can guide determination of jurisdiction where part of the cause arises – Industrial disputes may give rise to concurrent jurisdiction in more than one State [Paras 108–136].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Cause of Action Arising at Multiple Places – When part of the cause of action arises within Maharashtra (where the head or corporate office is located) and part outside (where the employee is posted), both courts have jurisdiction – No extra-territorial application of the MRTU Act arises in such cases [Paras 106–109, 130].

Precedents – Interpretation of Earlier Rulings – Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. – The decision is not an authority for the proposition that jurisdiction lies only at the employee’s situs – Read harmoniously with Laxman Baburao Repal v. Poona Labour Court and Workmen v. Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. to mean that the place where the dispute substantially arises, including the head office, may confer jurisdiction [Paras 117–122].

Judicial Discipline – Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court’s Law – High Courts are bound by Supreme Court pronouncements – If inconsistency exists, the High Court’s earlier contrary view stands impliedly overruled even if not expressly mentioned [Paras 88–89].

Waiver of Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 21 CPC – Objections as to territorial jurisdiction are technical and must be raised at the earliest stage; otherwise, they are deemed waived – Belated objections after prolonged proceedings are unsustainable without proof of prejudice [Paras 159–160, 205].

Labour Litigation – Delay and Prejudice – Employees were denied adjudication on merits for over 15 years due to technical objections on jurisdiction – Court deprecated such tactics and directed expeditious disposal within one year in each remanded case [Paras 158–160, 213].

Remand and Relief – Orders dismissing complaints for want of jurisdiction under GlaxoSmithKline set aside – Complaints restored for decision on merits – Employers directed to pay costs ranging from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the employees/unions [Paras 170–213].

Decision – GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Labour Court, Mumbai and decisions following it held impliedly overruled – Labour and Industrial Courts within Maharashtra have jurisdiction where part of the cause arises due to managerial decisions at head office – Appeals and writ petitions allowed; complaints restored; costs imposed; direction for decision within one year [Paras 161–214].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Issued as Security – Accused issued cheque for ₹10 lakhs, allegedly in discharge of loan liability – Defence claimed cheque was given as security for registration charges in real estate transaction – Trial Court held real estate transaction and RTGS payment occurred on same date, lending credence to defence – Held: Cheque not proved to have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal upheld [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles – High Court reiterated that unless trial court’s view is perverse or impossible, appellate court will not interfere – Omission in statutory notice and doubtful version of complainant regarding earlier cheques considered relevant – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and not liable to be disturbed in appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Accused denied liability and explained cheque was given as security – Complainant failed to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of existing debt – Held: Presumption rebutted – Burden not discharged by complainant – DW-1’s testimony partially favourable but insufficient to prove complainant’s case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Pleadings – Omission in Statutory Notice – Complainant admitted two earlier cheques were issued and replaced by impugned cheque – Omission to mention earlier cheques in statutory notice undermined credibility – Held: Such omissions can raise doubt about genuineness of transaction when key part of liability is left out [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court upheld – No perversity or illegality found in the reasoning – Complainant failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act successfully rebutted.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Appeal against concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts granting injunction against encroachment on Abadi Deh land – Held: No substantial question of law involved – High Court cannot interfere with pure findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Property Law – Abadi Deh Land – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiff proved ownership of Khasra No. 44 and joint proprietary rights in Abadi Deh land (Khasra No. 54) – Site plan and oral evidence proved encroachment by defendants on portion marked ‘ABCD’ – Defendants violated compromise to measure land before construction – Held: Plaintiff entitled to protection and restoration of possession [Paras 8–10].

Injunction – Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff initially sought only permanent injunction, but replication raised issue of ongoing illegal construction – Court exercised power under Order VII Rule 7 CPC to mould relief – Held: Mandatory injunction justified where encroachment proved and issue raised during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 11].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Witnesses – Defendants’ witnesses gave inconsistent evidence and contradicted own pleadings – Plaintiff’s witnesses supported site plan and compromise – Held: Trial court rightly relied on consistent and trustworthy plaintiff evidence – No error found in appreciation of facts [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings upheld – Plaintiff’s entitlement to permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of.

Civil Law – Suit For Recovery - Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – Barred Suit – Plaintiff relied on alleged last payment of ₹4,080 on 18.07.1992 as acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court held the document (Ex-A10) untrustworthy due to surrounding circumstances and timing amid criminal litigation between parties – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove valid acknowledgment – Suit filed on 17.07.1995 is barred by limitation [Paras 14, 21–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Inchoate Instrument – Section 20 NI Act – One promissory note (Ex-A5) left blank in the promisee column though duly stamped and signed – Plaintiff failed to fill in promisee’s name before filing suit – Held: Document incomplete and unenforceable – Section 20 does not rescue claim absent completed instrument at time of suit – No decree can be granted on incomplete negotiable instrument [Paras 18–19].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Defendants admitted borrowal of ₹2,04,000 in reply notice (Ex-A9) but claimed it was paid via Ashok Sharma and related to another entity – Held: Presumption under Section 118 applies to Ex-A2 to A4, which were in plaintiff’s name and not rebutted by acceptable evidence – However, relief denied due to bar of limitation and defects in Ex-A5 [Paras 15–17].

Civil Procedure – Verification of Pleadings – Inconsistency in description of plaintiff's status—Suit filed as "Proprietor" but verified as "Partner/Manager"—Held: Unexplained ambiguity in business structure and verification creates procedural defect—Plaintiff failed to clarify firm status even after remand—Trial Court rightly found plaint defective [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Against Dismissal – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court dismissed suit after remand for failure to prove limitation and validity of documents – High Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence – Held: No reason to interfere with findings—Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court dated 04/09/2013 in O.S. No. 5989 of 1997 upheld – Suit barred by limitation and based on incomplete documents – Defendants entitled to recover deposit amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC for allegedly murdering his wife by strangulation with a saree and shifting the body to another village – Trial Court relied on Ex.P2 (alleged note by deceased), medical opinion and recovery of saree pieces – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Death occurred in matrimonial home but no direct evidence linking accused – Circumstances insufficient to convict [Paras 12, 17, 22, 41]

Evidence Law – Expert Opinion – Dying Declaration – Handwriting of deceased in Ex.P2 (notebook) opined by expert to be genuine – However, discrepancies in name, date, and content – No corroboration from surrounding facts – Held: Opinion of handwriting expert is weak evidence and cannot solely form basis of conviction – Ex.P2 not reliable or admissible as dying declaration – Not put to accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – Cannot be used against him [Paras 19, 30-33]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden on Accused – Accused’s explanation of bleeding and shifting to hospital found false – But held: Mere false explanation not sufficient – Failure to explain under Section 106 is an additional link, not a substitute for complete chain of evidence – Prosecution must first establish prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18, 22, 25]

Criminal Trial – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Use of Accused's Statement – Accused’s responses under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence – Circumstances not properly put to accused – Held: Violation of procedural safeguards – Statements under Section 313 must be specific and complete – Incriminating material not placed for explanation – Ex.P2 not referred – Violates right to fair defence [Paras 26-27, 33]

Motive – Absence of Proof – Alleged motive of accused wanting to marry another woman not substantiated – No independent witness to cruelty – Family members' testimony lacked corroboration – Held: Motive not proved – In case of circumstantial evidence, motive is key – Its absence weighs in favour of accused [Paras 13, 36-40]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine amount to be refunded – Accused already on bail directed to complete legal formalities [Paras 42-43]

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – NTC Employee – Validity of Reduction in Retirement Age – Petitioner, a mill-grade employee of Model Mills (taken over by NTC), challenged superannuation at age 58, claiming his retirement age was 60 – Labour Court and Industrial Court rejected complaint holding employer had legal authority to reduce retirement age to 58 – Writ Court upheld concurrent findings, relying on NTC Rules, 1985 and Section 14 of the Nationalisation Act, 1974 – Held: NTC validly altered conditions of service, including retirement age – No unfair labour practice established [Paras 2.3, 3, 6–8, 10].

Labour Law – MRTU & PULP Act – Complaint Under Item 1 of Schedule IV – Illegal Termination – Not Made Out – Superannuation notice challenged as illegal termination – Labour Court held notice was legal as per service rules – Revision by employee dismissed by Industrial Court – Writ Court concurred with lower courts and held action of employer did not amount to unfair labour practice [Paras 3, 4, 10].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Applicability of NTC Rules, 1985 – Whether Agreement with Union Overrides Rules – Petitioner relied on past agreement between Model Mills and Union to claim retirement age of 60 – Court held such an agreement was not an industry-wise agreement under Rule 2.3 of NTC Rules – Held: Agreement confined to one establishment cannot override NTC Rules applicable post-nationalisation [Paras 7–8].

Binding Precedent – Reliance on Division Bench Decision in Vasant Sheshrao Kale (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 610) – Issue squarely covered by binding precedent holding that NTC validly altered age of superannuation through statutory rules – Petition devoid of merit in light of precedent and concurrent findings of fact [Paras 6–8, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No error found in concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court – No unfair labour practice or illegal termination established – Rule discharged, no costs awarded [Para 10, Order].