Wakf Property – Gazette Notification – Binding Nature on Third Parties – Inclusion Not Final – Appellants’ land was classified as Wakf property in a 1962 gazette without notice to them – High Court held that such notification under Wakf Act, 1954 is not binding on third-party purchasers – Appellants can file civil suit to challenge inclusion – Held: Notification per se does not extinguish private ownership rights absent adjudication [Paras 1–16, 21–23].

Alternative Remedy – Civil Suit for Title – Writ Not Maintainable – High Court Reaffirms Principle – Appellants directed to seek remedy by filing suit under Wakf Act, 1995 challenging validity of notification – Status quo protection granted for 3 months – Held: Proper remedy lies in civil forum, not under writ jurisdiction when disputed questions of title exist [Paras 16, 20, 23].

Wakf Act – 1954 vs. 1995 – Change in Language – No Retrospective Effect – Notifications Made under 1954 Act Continue to Be Governed by Earlier Law – Contention that Wakf Act, 1995 binds all persons rejected – Held: Inclusion in Wakf list under 1954 Act not binding on strangers, as held in Radha Krishna case – No requirement to file suit within one year if not “interested persons” [Paras 13–15].

Section 22-A of Registration Act – Bar on Registration of Wakf Land – Deletion Possible – Appellants Entitled to Seek Deletion – Full Bench Judgment in Vinjamuru Rajagopala Chary Referred – Held: Appellants can move Wakf Board to seek deletion of their land from prohibited list under Section 22-A(c) [Paras 17–19].

Decision – Writ Appeal Disposed – Appellants Given 3 Months to File Suit – Status Quo to Be Maintained Until Suit is Filed and Thereafter Until Disposal – Civil remedy held open, writ remedy denied due to availability of alternative forum [Paras 23–24].
 

Discharge Application – Absence of Sanction – Cognizance Invalid – Prosecution Barred – Petitioner, a retired official, was prosecuted without obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences – Court held cognizance taken without required sanction is procedurally defective and unsustainable – Impugned order rejecting discharge application set aside [Paras 5–9, 27–28, 33].

Delay in Prosecution – Cognizance After 14 Years – Right to Speedy Trial Violated – Court noted extraordinary delay from FIR in 2003 to cognizance in 2017, despite earlier closure report – Held: Such delay without protest petition or justification violates Article 21 of the Constitution and vitiates trial [Paras 10, 13–18, 23–26, 30–32].

No Criminal Intent – Administrative Lapse Not Criminal Misconduct – Charges Unsubstantiated – Petitioner involved in contract processing with no personal gain – Closure report filed recommending departmental action – Held: No prima facie case under PC Act; mere procedural lapses don't establish criminality [Paras 7–8, 14, 29].

Double Standards – Closure Accepted in Parallel Case – Discriminatory Prosecution – Same facts led to closure in VGR No. 35 of 2003, but cognizance taken in VGR No. 29 of 2003 – Court held inconsistent treatment undermines fairness of prosecution [Paras 21–22, 33].

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Order Rejecting Discharge Set Aside – Prosecution against Petitioner Quashed – Cognizance taken without sanction and after excessive delay held invalid [Paras 34–35].
 

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Recruitment Process – Junior Accountant Selection Challenge – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners assailed the selection process and final appointments of Junior Accountants, raising grievances related to the merit list, document scrutiny, and transparency – The Court held that unless there is proven illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, judicial review of recruitment decisions is limited – No violation of Articles 14 and 16 was established – Held: Petitions dismissed with no case for interference in finalized selection and appointment process [Paras 23–30].

NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence – Procedural Irregularities in Seizure – Bail Granted Pending Appeal – Appellant convicted under Sections 8/15(c) and sentenced to 12 years RI – Trial court's judgment challenged – Court observed serious discrepancies: seizure conducted 101 km away from interception site, samples taken without presence of Magistrate, and uniform samples drawn from multiple bags – Held: Procedural lapses such as violation of Section 52-A NDPS Act and questionable sanctity of seizure and sampling warranted suspension of sentence – Bail granted pending appeal on personal bond and sureties [Paras 5–9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR -  Medical Negligence – Criminal Liability – Applicability of Bolam Test – FIR Quashed – The petitioners, associated with Vasundhara Hospital, faced criminal proceedings under Section 105 BNS arising from allegations of medical negligence following the death of a patient post fibroid surgery – The State and District Medical Expert Committees, after reviewing clinical records and protocols, found no prima facie evidence of gross negligence or recklessness – Held: Allegations did not meet the threshold for criminal negligence under Section 105 BNS – The FIR and proceedings were quashed [Paras 11-12, 20-21, 31-33].

Medical Negligence – Role of Expert Opinion – Absence of Prima Facie Case – The Court emphasized that in the absence of an independent expert opinion attributing culpable negligence, continuation of criminal prosecution would constitute abuse of process – Cited binding precedents including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital [Paras 12, 17, 19, 31].

Vicarious Liability – Private Hospital Directors – No Active Participation in Treatment – Petitioners in CRLMP No. 7770/2024 were hospital functionaries not directly involved in clinical decisions – Held: In absence of wilful neglect or supervisory failure, criminal vicarious liability could not be imputed – Quashing justified [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Petitions Allowed – FIR Quashed – Criminal Proceedings Held Unsustainable – The Court found that the treating doctors acted within the acceptable bounds of medical judgment under clinical exigencies – Neither intent nor gross recklessness was established – FIR No. 388/2024 and all proceedings therefrom were quashed as continuation would be an abuse of legal process [Paras 31-33].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity and Twin Conditions under Section 37 – Bail Denied – Petitioners sought bail in FIR No. 72 of 2020 involving recovery of over 3 crore intoxicant tablets and capsules – Allegations of operating a multi-state drug network involving illicit manufacture, supply, and sale of psychotropic substances – Court held: Despite prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) must be satisfied, which were not met – Serious recovery, criminal antecedents of several petitioners, and risk of evading trial considered – Bail rejected for all 17 petitioners [Paras 1–20].

NDPS Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions Not Satisfied – Bail Denied - The petitioners sought regular bail in FIR involving seizure of over 3 crore tablets and capsules of psychotropic substances, drug money, vehicles, and mobile phones – Petitioners included directors of pharmaceutical firms, chemists, and transporters – Charges framed, 54 out of 160 prosecution witnesses examined – Held: The magnitude of recovery, involvement in organized inter-State racket, and pending examination of key witnesses negate twin-test under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act – Long incarceration alone does not dilute statutory bar when prosecution is proceeding efficiently – Bail rejected [Paras 6-13, 18].

Conscious Possession – Applicability of Section 37 – Commercial Quantity – Recovery from Different Locations – Retrospective Effect of Bail Precedents Denied - Despite prolonged custody, petitioners were denied bail due to direct recovery or association with contraband – Petitioners failed to dislodge presumption of conscious possession or demonstrate lack of nexus with recovered drugs – Arguments based on Supreme Court judgments like Tofan Singh and Dheeraj Shukla distinguished – Bail under Section 37 requires stronger case than prima facie non-involvement [Paras 11-14, 17-18].

Criminal Antecedents – Repeat Offenders – Relevance in Bail Consideration – Past Involvement in Similar Offences – Bail Denied - Multiple petitioners found involved in prior NDPS cases and offences under the Prisons Act – Held: History of similar criminal conduct and possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing remaining accused justifies continued detention – High threshold under Section 37 not met in any case – Bail dismissed across all petitions [Paras 18-19].

Public Interest – Drug Menace in Punjab – Supreme Court’s Concern – Strict Scrutiny Mandated – Bail Denied - Court reaffirmed that drug-related offences severely affect the public health and safety in Punjab – Cited recent Supreme Court observations urging caution in bail for repeat offenders in drug cases – Held: No mitigating circumstance present to deviate from legislative mandate – Bail petitions dismissed [Para 14].

Decision – All Petitions Dismissed – Interim Orders Vacated - After detailed analysis of evidence, law, and custody status, Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 37 NDPS Act – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments [Paras 20-23].
 

Civil Procedure – Closure of Evidence – Repeated Defaults by Plaintiff – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner-plaintiff failed to produce any evidence despite multiple adjournments and even defaulted in paying imposed costs – Trial Court closed evidence vide order dated 29.07.2024 – Held: The impugned order is justified and reflects due judicial discretion – High Court refused to interfere under Article 227 due to lack of procedural diligence by the petitioner [Paras 2-5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope under Article 227 – Limited Interference Permissible – The High Court reiterated that its power under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly and with judicial restraint – Held: Interference is unwarranted unless manifest injustice or gross procedural error is apparent – Reliance placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Closure of Evidence Upheld – Revision Petition Dismissed - The Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the revision petition as meritless [Para 7].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Twin Conditions under Section 37 Not Satisfied – Bail Rejected – Petitioners sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a large-scale NDPS case involving over 3 crore intoxicant tablets, capsules, drug money, and vehicles – Court held that the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act applies and petitioners failed to meet twin conditions of proving they are not guilty and not likely to re-offend – Petitioners’ prolonged custody and ongoing trial held insufficient to dilute statutory mandate [Paras 10–13, 18].

Long Incarceration – Not Ground for Bail in Commercial Quantity Case – Trial Progressing Reasonably – Petitioners argued delay in trial and lengthy custody as grounds for bail – Court noted 54 prosecution witnesses already examined out of 160, no prosecutorial delay, and 46 witnesses given up – Held: Ongoing incarceration alone does not relax statutory bar under Section 37 where trial is active and serious recovery involved [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Antecedents – Multiple Petitioners Previously Involved in NDPS and Other Offences – Bail Denied – Court considered that most petitioners had pending or past cases, some convicted – Held: Antecedents and role in organized inter-state drug racket weigh against release – Risk of tampering with evidence or absconding highlighted [Paras 18, Annexures].

Disclosure Statements – No Evidentiary Value Alone – But Supported by Recovery – Petitioners argued disclosures inadmissible under Tofan Singh – Court noted recovery of contraband and other corroborative evidence support complicity beyond mere confessions [Paras 6–9, 13, 15].

Decision – Bail Petitions Dismissed – No Interim Relief – All 17 petitions dismissed – Special Court directed to expedite trial and avoid unwarranted delays – Observations not to affect merits of trial [Paras 20–24].