Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) of the BNS - Alleged Facilitation of VISA Fraud – Bail Granted – The Applicant, a proprietor of an IELTS coaching centre, was accused of providing forged academic and financial documents to a student for submission to the U.S. Embassy – Held: The petitioner had joined the investigation on multiple occasions, and key electronic devices had been seized – No material indicated active creation of forged documents – No custodial interrogation warranted – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1, 8–11, 28–33].

Nature of Evidence – Lack of Direct Involvement in Forgery – Protection Extended – Though the co-accused admitted use of forged documents, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the Applicant to the actual act of forgery – Chats recovered showed document forwarding, but not fabrication – Supreme Court’s judgment in Munna Prasad Verma followed to hold that use or transmission of suspect documents, absent evidence of their creation, is insufficient to establish criminality [Paras 19–23, 30].

Investigation Stage – Material Evidence Already Seized – No Justification for Arrest – The prosecution failed to show that any further recovery or custodial interrogation was necessary – Printer, mobile phone, and SIM card already seized – Applicant not a flight risk – Investigation at an advanced stage – Bail refusal would amount to undue hardship [Paras 6, 8, 23, 29, 31].

Applicant’s Conduct – Sufficient Cooperation Shown – Absence Explained – Though the Applicant missed initial summons due to medical condition, he later joined the investigation on several dates – Lack of cooperation not established on record – Recovery of WhatsApp messages did not contradict petitioner’s version that documents were merely forwarded and not fabricated [Paras 5, 6, 11, 19, 23].

Final Relief – Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions – Court held that the Applicant should not be arrested – Directed that in the event of arrest, he be released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- – Required to cooperate with investigation, keep mobile active, and avoid contact with witnesses – Bail granted to ensure fairness without compromising the investigation [Paras 32–33].

Civil Writ - Redevelopment – Jurisdiction under Section 79-A of MHAD Act – Notices Held Illegal – Petitioners challenged large-scale issuance of redevelopment notices by MHADA’s Executive Engineers under Section 79-A without following mandatory preconditions – Held: Such notices are ex-facie illegal as jurisdiction under Section 79-A is triggered only upon declaration of a building as dangerous either by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the MMC Act or by a Competent Authority under MHAD Act; visual inspection by Executive Engineers cannot substitute this statutory requirement [Paras 3-6, 22-25].

Delegation of Authority – Executive Engineer’s Power – No Statutory Basis – The Court found that Executive Engineers had no statutory jurisdiction under the MHAD Act to issue Section 79-A notices – Held: Such authority lies solely with the Board and not with Executive Engineers; SOP dated 05/12/2024 issued by Vice-Chairman was without jurisdiction and cannot override statute – SOP declared contrary to the scheme of the MHAD Act and ultra vires [Paras 26, 28-30].

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Article 300A and Article 14 – Property Rights Affected – The Court held that issuance of notices without statutory backing violated stakeholders’ right to property under Article 300A and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution – Arbitrary and mass issuance of notices amounts to serious breach of rule of law [Paras 19-21, 33].

Remedial Measures – Inquiry Ordered – Committee Appointed – Considering the gravity of the illegalities, the Court appointed an independent Committee headed by Justice J. P. Devadhar (Retd.) and Shri Vilas Dongre (Retd. Principal District Judge) to examine the issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A, assess culpability, and the legality of the SOP issued by Vice-Chairman – Directed MHADA to furnish all relevant records – 46 post-judgment notices withdrawn; remaining 889 notices to be kept in abeyance [Paras 33(i)–(x)].

Final Decision – Notices Stayed – Inquiry Initiated – The High Court stayed the operation of all impugned notices not already withdrawn and directed full inquiry into legality and mala fides behind the mass issuance – Petitioners' rights protected pending report – Request for stay of order rejected considering the seriousness of the issue [Paras 33(v), 35].

Civil Law  – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Statutory Notices (s.80 CPC, s.280 ZP Act, s.180 MVP Act) – Plaint Rejected – Respondent filed suit on 30.07.2024 challenging eviction steps (order 01.03.2024; notice 15.07.2024) after issuing notice dated 24.07.2024 – Held: Pre-suit notice requirements under s.80 CPC (two months, waiver only per s.80(2)) and under s.280 ZP Act / s.180 MVP Act (three months; no waiver power) are mandatory – No pleadings of urgency/waiver; post facto waiver plea (Exh-48) inconsequential – Trial court erred in refusing O7 R11 – Order quashed; plaint rejected [Paras 2–6, 8–13, 14, 22].

Statutory Notice – Section 80 CPC vs. Section 280 ZP Act / Section 180 MVP Act – Waiver Distinction – Two-month notice under s.80 CPC is mandatory but may be waived only with leave u/s 80(2); by contrast, ZP Act/MVP Act notice periods have no waiver provision – Trial court lacked jurisdiction to dispense with those notices – Suit within nine days of notice is non-maintainable [Paras 9–13].

Pleadings & Timing – No Urgency/Dispensation Pleaded – Post-facto Application Ineffective – Plaint contained no averment of urgency or waiver; Exh-48 seeking s.80(2) leave filed months after O7 R11 rejection – cannot cure initial defect; moreover, waiver not possible for ZP Act/MVP Act notices [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court’s Error of Jurisdiction – Reversal – Trial court considered only s.80(2) CPC and ignored the mandatory, non-waivable notices under special statutes – Findings termed perverse; plaint liable to rejection [Paras 12–13, 22].

Precedents – Distinguished – Pioneer Builders (AIR 2007 SC 113) concerned s.80 CPC and post-leave decree; Sudhir Kumar Sharma (MANU/SC/0892/2013) inapplicable as s.80(2) plea was not pending here and special statute notices applied; other authorities on s.80 CPC alone (Ghulam Rasool; Chandrashekhar P. Rathi; Vasant Ambadas Pandit; K.K. Sharma) not helpful [Paras 15–21].

Decision – Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 01.10.2024 quashed – Plaint in RCS No.652/2024 rejected [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Revision Against Dismissal of Discharge  - Illegal Emigration – Manipulation of Visa Classification – Prima Facie Case Against Counter Officer – CBI Allegation that the accused knowingly permitted travel of a passenger under manipulated tourist visa originally issued as employment visa – UID and visa number remained same despite label change – Allegation supported by email communications and documentary evidence – Held: Whether the visa verified was tourist or employment is a matter of trial and cannot be resolved at pre-trial stage – Dismissal of discharge petition upheld [Paras 6–14].

Conspiracy – Public Servant’s Role – Prima Facie Involvement in Forged Visa Clearance – The petitioner, then working as Armed Police Inspector at the emigration counter, allegedly facilitated clearance of an emigrant without PoE – The Court noted the existence of prima facie material indicating manipulation of visa type with his connivance – Held: Circumstances sufficient to frame charge under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Discharge rightly denied [Paras 5–8, 14–16].

Pre-Trial Evaluation – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Nature of Visa Requires Evidentiary Scrutiny – Court noted that the earlier challenge to discharge had already been dismissed by High Court and SLP disposed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise all contentions at charge stage – Held: Nature and classification of visa is a factual dispute requiring trial – Reassessment of facts at revision stage impermissible [Paras 9, 13–16].

Decision – Discharge Denied – Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court confirmed the Special Court’s order rejecting discharge of the accused – Held: Disputed question regarding visa classification requires trial evidence – Revision petition dismissed with liberty to raise contentions during trial – Interim stay vacated – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously [Para 16].

Bail in GST Offences – Regular Bail under Section 132 of the CGST Act – Right to Speedy Trial – Both petitioners sought regular bail after being accused of forming fake firms and fraudulently availing input tax credit worth Rs. 107 crore under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act – Allegation involved creation of 27 bogus entities and issuance of forged GST invoices – Petitioners in custody for over 9 months, with trial proceedings stalled at pre-charge evidence stage for 6 months – All documentary and electronic evidence already seized – Held: Prolonged incarceration, lack of progress in trial, and absence of risk of evidence tampering justify bail – The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighs prolonged detention when trial is unduly delayed [Paras 4, 15, 18-21].

Criminal Prosecution under CGST Act – Need for Completion of Assessment Proceedings – Interplay of Sections 73/74 and 132 CGST Act – Citing Supreme Court in Radhika Aggarwal v. Union of India, Court reiterates that, normally, completion of assessment proceedings under Sections 73/74 should precede criminal prosecution under Section 132, except in exceptional cases with detailed reasons – Empirical data reveals rare convictions and delays in adjudication; procedural deviations by prosecuting agencies adversely affect accused’s rights – Judicial scrutiny must guard against arbitrary or mechanical arrests without due process [Paras 10-13].

Denial of Bail Due to Pending Investigation Against Co-Accused – Individual Assessment Required – It is settled law that bail must be considered individually for each accused based on their specific role; pending investigation against another co-accused is not, by itself, a valid ground to deny bail to a petitioner against whom the investigation is complete and no non-cooperation is alleged – Supreme Court precedent in Prahlad Singh Bhati applied – Held: Petitioners cannot be denied bail solely due to incomplete investigation against others [Paras 16-17, 20].

Nature of Evidence and Risk of Tampering – Documentary and Electronic Evidence – Where the prosecution case is based on documentary and electronic evidence already in agency’s possession, and prosecution witnesses are official witnesses, risk of evidence tampering is minimal – Bail cannot be denied merely on general apprehensions, especially when petitioners have clean antecedents and have cooperated during investigation [Paras 12, 18-19].

Systemic Delays and Accountability in Prosecution – Empirical data from multiple GST jurisdictions in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh shows a pattern of arrests without timely trial or convictions – Court criticizes prosecuting agencies for lack of priority in concluding trials and emphasizes need for accountability and adherence to the right to speedy trial under Article 21 [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Regular Bail Granted – Petitioners Manish Kumar and Amit Kumar Goyal granted regular bail, subject to standard conditions including surrender of passports, cooperation during trial, and prohibition against tampering with evidence or disposing of property – Bail not to be construed as opinion on merits; prosecution may seek cancellation if conditions are violated [Paras 21-24].

Civil Writ – Urban Planning & Civic Governance – Unauthorized Occupation Without OC – Massive municipal inaction – Public Safety Concerns – In a batch of petitions concerning a partly redeveloped building at Dadar, the Court found that 12 commercial shops and 2 first-floor premises were being illegally occupied for over a decade without an Occupation Certificate, while 110 residential tenants were deprived of their rightful premises for more than 15 years. The Court recorded serious dereliction and collusion by municipal officers, absence of statutory action under MMC Act/MRTP Act/Fire Safety law, and sham prosecutions leading to acquittals. It condemned the “blame game” between departments, misuse of litigation to perpetuate illegality, and waste of public resources. Emphasising constitutional governance, public accountability, and urgent systemic reforms, the Court appointed a two-member Special Committee (former Justice G.S. Patel & Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer) with four senior municipal officers to recommend measures within four months to curb such illegalities, reduce litigation, and strengthen enforcement. All lawful municipal actions in the case permitted to proceed [Paras 1–39].

Urban Planning – Unauthorized Occupation – Sections 353A & 471 MMC Act – MRTP Act – Failure to Act – Despite knowing no OC was issued, municipal officers allowed illegal commercial use of ground floor for over 12 years; notices issued only after Court intervention – Prosecution under MMC Act failed due to hearsay evidence; acquittal used by occupants as shield – Held: deliberate inaction and complicity by officers aided illegality; such lawlessness undermines rule of law [Paras 7–15, 25–28].

Municipal Governance – Accountability & Litigation Burden – Court criticised culture of inaction, blame-shifting, and generation of unwarranted litigation at public expense – Directed Municipal Commissioner to define roles/duties of officers, maintain ward-wise data on illegal structures, implement technology for transparency, and introspect on litigation costs – Special Committee constituted for systemic reforms [Paras 19, 30–37].

Public Safety – Fire Safety Act, 2006 – Section 8 – Illegal Occupation – Court noted Chief Fire Officer’s duty to act against commercial premises occupied without OC or fire clearance; directed to take lawful sealing action where required [Para 24].

Decision: Special Committee constituted to recommend systemic reforms and enforcement measures within four months; Municipal Commissioner to nominate four senior officers to assist; all lawful actions against illegal occupants permitted; MHADA to take steps for redevelopment, structural audit, and provision of transit accommodation to eligible tenants.

Service Law – Withholding of Gratuity – Rule 2.2(b), 2.2(c) & 9.14 Punjab CSR – Criminal Case Unrelated to Official Duty – Petition Allowed – Petitioner retired in 2004, gratuity withheld due to criminal proceedings—convicted in 2013 but acquitted by High Court in 2018—State’s appeal pending in Supreme Court—Court held Rule 2.2(b) applies only to grave misconduct/negligence during service and related to official duties—four-year limitation in proviso to Rule 2.2(b) indicates departmental nexus—Offences unrelated to official duties fall outside its scope—Since employee was acquitted and later deceased, pendency of State’s appeal lost significance—Directed release of gratuity with 7.5% interest from filing of petition, failing which additional 2.5% interest from date of retirement to payment [Paras 8–18].

Cheque Bounce - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Legally Enforceable Debt – Cash Transaction Above ₹20,000 – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque for ₹9,00,000 allegedly towards discharge of a debt – The defence contended that the debt was created through a cash transaction in violation of Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Held: Such cash transactions above ₹20,000 without explanation under Section 273B of the Act cannot be treated as legally enforceable debts – Section 139 NI Act presumption stands rebutted when the transaction violates statutory norms and is unaccounted – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act is not sustainable – Accused acquitted [Paras 1, 3, 27-30, 35].

Income-Tax Act – Sections 269SS, 271D – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Legal Sanction Denied – The Court held that accepting large cash transactions in violation of Section 269SS, without any valid explanation under Section 273B, renders the underlying debt illegal – Observed that criminal courts should not legalise transactions that are statutorily discouraged in order to uphold fiscal discipline and promote digital economy – Disregarded contrary view taken by Division Bench of Bombay High Court – Held: Debt created in contravention of Income-Tax law is not legally enforceable under Section 138 of NI Act [Paras 17-24, 26-27].

Presumption Under NI Act – Section 139 – Rebuttal Through Preponderance of Probabilities – Complainant Failed to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt – Reiterated the law that presumption under Section 139 includes legally enforceable debt, but can be rebutted by raising a probable defence – In the present case, complainant admitted non-disclosure of cash in tax returns and gave no valid explanation – Held: Accused successfully rebutted presumption – No legally enforceable debt existed [Paras 12-16, 29-30].

Judicial Discipline – Per Incuriam Decision Overruled – Earlier Ruling in Sugunan v. Thulaseedharan Declared Per Incuriam – The Court held that the earlier view that violation of tax law does not affect enforceability under NI Act failed to consider binding precedents of Supreme Court – Expressly overruled such view as being inconsistent with Rangappa v. Sri Mohan – Directed prospective application of the current ruling to avoid reopening of concluded trials [Paras 30-34].

Criminal Writ - Temporary Access To  Sealed Structure – BNSS ss.164 & 438 – Article 227 – Interim festival access to sealed premises – Order Quashed – Common order in criminal writ challenged interim arrangement by Sessions Court permitting respondents limited use of sealed structure for Nagpanchami – Held: In a revision arising from Section 164 BNSS proceedings, the revisional court at the interim stage could only stay or suspend the SDM’s order and could not grant possession-like relief – High Court exercised Article 227 to keep the subordinate court within bounds – Impugned order dated 23.07.2025 quashed – Revision directed to be decided expeditiously [Paras 19–25, 28–29].

Section 164 BNSS – Nature and Scope – Determination confined to actual possession for public peace – Rights not adjudicated – Executive Magistrate under s.164 decides who was in possession on the date of notice for maintaining public order – not the parties’ substantive rights – Here, SDM recorded petitioner’s possession of Survey No.171/6 and structure and restrained interference to prevent breach of peace [Paras 19–22].

Revisional Power under Section 438 BNSS – Interim jurisdiction limited – At the interim stage, the Sessions Court may only stay or suspend the impugned order – it cannot temporarily put a party in possession or vary the Section 164 arrangement – Sessions Court exceeded jurisdiction by permitting use of the sealed structure for festivals [Para 23].

Interim Sealing and D-17 Application – Background Considered – During hearing of stay application, Sessions Court ordered sealing of the structure and custody of keys – later, by Exhibit D-17, allowed limited opening for Nagpanchami/Ganesh Chaturthi with safeguards – Petitioner objected to maintainability under s.438 BNSS and to risks of breach of peace [Paras 8–11].

Article 227 – Supervisory Control – Rare but warranted where subordinate court acts beyond authority – Applying Shalini Shyam Shetty principles, High Court interfered as the revisional court’s interim order was beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to the nature of Section 164 proceedings aimed at public tranquillity [Para 28].

“Consent” Recording – Not determinative of jurisdiction – Petitioner disputed that counsel consented to D-17 relief – in any case, jurisdictional limits of s.438 BNSS cannot be overcome by alleged consent [Paras 15–17].

Directions – Impugned order dated 23.07.2025 quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (A) – Trial Court requested to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 47/2025 preferably by 20.08.2025 [Para 29].