NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 8, 21, 29 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity – Procedural Lapses – Bail Granted – Petitioner arrested on 21.04.2023 for alleged possession of 50 bottles of Myberry (Codeine Phosphate) – Co-accused arrested based on petitioner's disclosure – Final report filed on 17.07.2023 – Trial delayed with less than half of 21 witnesses examined – Held: Petitioner in custody for over 2.5 years with no prior criminal history – Material contradictions in prosecution evidence – Mandatory procedural safeguards under NDPS Act found breached – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 1–9, 20]

Criminal Law – Reasonable Grounds under Section 37 NDPS Act – Interpretation – Court clarified that “reasonable grounds” for believing guilt under Section 37 require more than suspicion but less than proof – Held: No cogent evidence to support prima facie guilt of petitioner – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner stands on parity – No apprehension of tampering with evidence or absconding [Paras 9–10]

Bail Jurisprudence – Constitutional Safeguards – Liberty vs. Public Interest – Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Siddharam Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Court reiterated that bail is the rule, jail the exception – Long incarceration without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment – Denial of bail not justified solely by seriousness of charge in absence of risk of misuse of liberty [Paras 14–19]

Discretion in Grant of Bail – Judicial Principles – Court must consider gravity of offence, likelihood of conviction, potential for interference with justice, and balance individual liberty with societal interest – No blanket rule – Each bail decision must be context-specific and factually grounded [Paras 12–13, 18]

Decision:

Bail granted – Petitioner to be released upon furnishing personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each from relatives – Subject to compliance with conditions: (a) regular appearance at trial, (b) no tampering with evidence or witnesses, (c) no travel outside UT of J&K without court’s permission, (d) no repetition of offence – Trial court empowered to proceed under Sections 491 and 492 BNSS in case of breach of conditions.

Criminal Law – Snatching – Conviction under Section 379-A(2) IPC – Reversed – Prosecution case based on complaint alleging mobile phone snatched by appellant and co-accused – Complainant and alleged victim (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile and denied appellant's involvement – Admitted in cross-examination that no mobile phone was in possession at the time of incident – Ownership of allegedly snatched mobile not proved as bill was in name of third party – Held: Essential ingredient of snatching not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2, 11].

Evidence Act – Recovery of Stolen Property – Police witnesses (PW-4 and PW-7) testified to recovery based on disclosure by appellant – No independent witnesses joined at the time of recovery – Investigating Officer failed to confirm basic facts like time of complaint or recovery – Recovery not proved to be reliable – Presumption under Section 114(a) of Evidence Act not attracted – Recovery at best could lead to inference of receiving stolen property, not robbery/snatching [Paras 12].

Juvenile Co-accused – Acquittal – Co-accused found to be juvenile and acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board – Trial Court failed to consider this exculpatory aspect in assessing appellant's guilt – Further weakens prosecution version and identification of accused [Paras 2, 8, 11].

Held: Conviction under Section 379-A(2) IPC unsustainable – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 12].

Civil Law – Title and Possession – Declaration and Recovery – Plaintiffs filed suit claiming title to Ava lands in Timmapuram village alleging wrongful classification as tank poramboke during 1960 survey – Defendants contended that land vested in Government post-abolition of Pithapuram Estate and was leased to Sanghams in 1976 – Trial Court decreed suit granting declaration and possession – High Court held plaintiffs failed to prove title or continuous possession – Held: Declaration of title requires proof of valid title; land revenue receipts and oral evidence insufficient [Paras 18-27, 42-44].

Estates Abolition – Classification of Lands – Ava Tank Lands – Plaintiffs contended classification as poramboke was illegal and lacked notice – Court found no challenge to classification from 1960 till suit filed in 1988 – Records (Ex.A.11) showed lands as Cheruvu Padaka (tank bed) not Zeroyiti – Held: No evidence of Zamindari pattas or valid change of classification – Tank lands not eligible for Ryotwari pattas under Section 3(g) of Abolition Act [Paras 24-25, 50-51].

Limitation – Recovery of Possession – Delay Unexplained – Plaintiffs alleged dispossession after 29.06.1976 but failed to mention exact date in plaint or prove it through evidence – Suit filed in June 1988 – No continuous cause of action or extension of limitation shown – Legal notices (Ex.A.9, A.49, A.146) insufficient to extend limitation for all plaintiffs – Held: Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 52-59].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff's Failure to Establish Title – Court reiterated that in suits for declaration, burden lies on plaintiffs to prove title irrespective of weakness in defendants’ case – Admissions of plaintiffs in cross-examination showed lack of possession and title – Many plaintiffs did not even enter the witness box or file pattas – Held: Plaintiffs must stand or fall on strength of their own title [Paras 20-22, 26, 43-44].

Binding Precedent – Previous Suit in Similar Lands – Plaintiffs relied on O.S. No. 149/1977 – Court held that judgment in earlier case not binding since plaintiffs and lands in current case were different – Findings in that suit cannot operate as res judicata or bind present parties [Para 47, 49].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Decree and judgment of Trial Court set aside – Suit dismissed – No costs.

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Trial Concluded – Plaintiff sought to amend plaint to correct typographical errors, add omitted Khasra numbers and names of co-sharers – Amendment allowed despite trial having concluded – Held: Amendments were minor, clarificatory, and necessary for complete adjudication of the partition suit – Procedural law should not obstruct substantive justice – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC not an absolute bar where amendment is bona fide and avoids multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 3, 4, 10, 12-14]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court allowed impleadment of legal heirs of deceased co-sharer and one omitted necessary party – Held: In a partition suit, all co-sharers are necessary parties – Impleadment essential to ensure binding and executable decree – Trial court correctly exercised discretion to avoid piecemeal litigation [Paras 4, 6, 11-14]

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order allowing amendment and impleadment – Held: Discretion exercised by trial court was judicial, reasoned and not perverse – No interference warranted under supervisory jurisdiction of High Court [Paras 13-15]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned composite order dated 25.09.2025 upheld – Amendment and impleadment rightly allowed in the interest of complete adjudication and justice.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 435 Days – Rejected – State sought condonation of 435-day delay in filing appeal against decree dated 10.09.2022 – Claimed delay due to procedural steps, internal processing, and official hierarchy – Held: Documents on record showed Collector Ratlam was aware of the decree as early as August 2023 – Despite this, certified copy was sought only in February 2024 and appeal filed in March 2024 – No explanation provided for the interregnum – Delay not satisfactorily explained [Paras 2, 9–10]

Condonation of Delay – Government as Litigant – Equal Treatment with Private Parties – Cited precedents including Postmaster General v. Living Media and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board – Court reiterated that governmental entities are no longer entitled to liberal delay condonation solely on ground of bureaucratic inertia – Delay must be supported by bona fide and credible explanation, not mere procedural excuses [Paras 6–8]

Explanation vs Excuse – Judicial Approach Clarified – Court distinguished between ‘explanation’ (a reasoned account showing due diligence) and ‘excuse’ (an afterthought to avoid responsibility) – Held: Delay explanation in this case amounted to an excuse rather than a bona fide explanation – Mere assertion of internal delay without substantiating timelines or diligence rejected [Para 10]

Judicial Discretion – No Sufficient Cause Made Out – Dismissal of Appeal – Held: Delay not explained with sufficient cause – Absence of credible justification indicated gross negligence and lack of diligence – I.A. for condonation of delay dismissed – Consequently, the appeal itself dismissed as barred by limitation [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2236/2024) rejected – First Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation – Direction issued to return trial court record with copy of order.

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Power to Summon Not Automatic – Petitioner injured in assault named five accused including private respondents in FIR – Police found private respondents innocent and placed them in Column No. 2 – During trial, complainant reiterated same allegations in testimony – No fresh or additional material presented to justify their summoning – Held: Power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly only on strong and cogent evidence indicating likelihood of conviction – Mere repetition of FIR content insufficient [Paras 7–10]

Evidentiary Threshold – Testimony of PW-1 – No Independent Material – Complainant, though injured eyewitness, offered no new material in chief-examination beyond what was recorded in FIR – Hon’ble Court held that evidence must go beyond probable suspicion and create near-certainty of guilt for summoning under Section 319 – Allegations found to be generic and possibly exaggerated [Paras 8–10]

FIR Delay – Doubts on Credibility – Incident dated 07.07.2018 but FIR lodged after 10 days on 17.07.2018 – Trial Court noted unexplained delay, which casts doubt on spontaneity and reliability of accusations – No fresh injuries or medical evidence brought during trial to substantiate the role of private respondents [Para 9]

Abuse of Process – Over-implication of Accused – Hon’ble Court cautioned against tendency of complainants to amplify number of accused to include peripheral or unrelated persons – Specific finding that attributing individual superficial injuries to each of 5 alleged assailants lacks prudence and may indicate exaggeration – Summoning rejected to prevent misuse of judicial process [Para 10]

Interpretation – Guiding Principles from Hardeep Singh Case – Section 319 CrPC allows summoning of even discharged or not charge-sheeted persons – However, the evidentiary standard required is higher than for framing charge – Satisfaction must be equivalent to prima facie case capable of ending in conviction if unrebutted – Merely naming someone in FIR does not meet this test [Paras 7, 10]

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No error found in Trial Court's dismissal of Section 319 CrPC application – No new evidence beyond FIR narration – Trial Court rightly exercised judicial restraint – Observations not to affect merits of ongoing trial.

Service Law – Anganwadi Selection – Challenge to Selection Process – Appellant alleged denial of marks for experience and bias in interview process – However, no certificates substantiating claims were produced before Selection Committee – No selected candidate was impleaded – Held: Mere general allegations without proof or proper parties cannot vitiate selection process – Writ appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4, 6].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Discretion of Selection Committee – Court reiterated that judicial review of interview marks is limited – Allocation of marks lies within discretion of Selection Committee unless process is palpably arbitrary or mala fide – No such case made out – Held: Courts will not substitute their opinion with that of Selection Committee [Paras 3, 6.1].

Procedural Fairness – Non-Impleadment of Selected Candidates – Appellant sought to set aside appointments without impleading selected candidates as parties – Held: Relief cannot be granted affecting others’ rights in their absence – Petition rightly dismissed on that ground as well [Para 6].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – No infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge – Selection process upheld [Para 6.1].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Discharge – Petitioner, a Building Inspector, sought discharge from corruption charges arising from illegal construction of hotel in restricted heritage zone – Prosecution alleged conspiracy with building owner (A-6) and failure to act despite prior complaints – Court held that prima facie evidence including complaints dated 13.09.2006 and 25.11.2006, duty records, and witness statements indicate culpable omission – Held: Discharge rightly rejected by Special Court [Paras 3-12].

Conspiracy – Public Servant’s Omission – Wilful Inaction – Revision Petitioner was duty-bound to inspect and act upon a complaint dated 13.09.2006 – Court found that despite being present and on squad duty, Petitioner failed to take timely action, enabling near-completion of illegal building – Held: Petitioner’s omission facilitated offence, forming sufficient basis for prosecution – Discharge not permissible at this stage [Paras 8, 10-12].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Court reiterated that discharge is maintainable only where prosecution records fail to disclose strong suspicion or prima facie involvement – Held: Conspiracy cannot be ruled out solely on plea of late joining or post-facto actions – Trial court to decide involvement based on evidence – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Special Court directed to expedite the trial [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Section 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, Nigerian nationals, arrested with 500g and 300g heroin respectively, also linked to further recovery of 4 kg of chemical substances used for drug preparation – Involvement in manufacturing process alleged – Held: Recovery falls under ‘commercial quantity’ attracting Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin conditions for bail not satisfied – Bail refused [Paras 2-4, 16-17].

Foreign Nationals – Illegal Entry – Forged Passports – Petitioners unable to prove valid immigration or nationality – Furnished fake accommodation and identity details – No arrival/departure stamps on passports – Attempted to mislead authorities by falsely claiming to be from UK and Singapore – Held: Petitioners are flight-risks and misuse of forged documents warrants continued custody [Paras 11, 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Article 22(1) – Grounds of arrest not supplied in writing – Petitioners claimed arrest invalid under Constitution and NDPS Act – Held: No prejudice shown due to procedural lapse – As per Supreme Court in Darshan (2025 INSC 979), mere procedural lapses do not ipso facto vitiate arrest or entitle bail [Paras 7, 14-15].

Delay in Trial – Prosecution examined only 2 out of 13 witnesses in over 4 years – Petitioners alleged violation of Article 21 – Held: Liberty must be balanced with public interest – In view of serious charges and bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, delay alone not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 5-6, 18].

Search & Seizure – No Independent Witnesses or Videography – Petitioners challenged validity of recovery – Held: Absence of videography/independent witness not fatal – Police evidence cannot be disbelieved solely on that basis – Cited precedents: Surinder Kumar, Kallu Khan, Ram Swaroop [Paras 8, 12-13].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Petitioners to remain in custody – No expression on merits of the case [Paras 20-21].