Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Petitioner apprehending arrest in complaint for unauthorized sale of nicotine-based e-cigarettes without valid license – Prosecution opposed maintainability citing proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Held: Petition maintainable under Section 482 BNSS as petitioner had challenged and quashed the proclamation order in separate petition – Anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with BNSS conditions [Paras 1, 5-7].

Drugs and Cosmetics – Unauthorized Sale of Nicotine Products – During raid, petitioner found stocking and selling products labeled as containing nicotine without valid retail/wholesale license – Petitioner failed to produce valid drug license or reveal source of procurement – Offence prima facie under Sections 18(c) and 18-A of the Act made out – Bail granted without commenting on merits [Paras 4, 7].

Bail Conditions – Aadhaar-based Surety Verification – Court noted prevalent misuse and corruption in verifying sureties through local officials like Lambardars or Sarpanch – Directed Aadhaar verification via mAadhaar app as primary method – Identification through local bodies to be resorted only if Aadhaar is unavailable – Direction to Chief Secretaries and Registries to consider implementing Aadhaar-based verification in legal documents [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted – Proclamation order already quashed – Aadhaar-based verification of sureties to be followed – All pending applications disposed of.

Taxation Law – Recovery of Tax - GST Liability – Liability of Retired Partner – Section 90 of CGST Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged a demand of Rs. 37,84,228/- and land attachment initiated against him under GST laws, arguing he had retired from the partnership firm on 20.04.2021 and was no longer responsible – The Court held that under Section 90 of the CGST Act, a partner remains jointly and severally liable until written intimation of retirement is furnished to the Commissioner – No timely intimation was made – Petitioner's continued reflection as active partner in GST records justified proceedings against him [Paras 5, 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of PGST Act – Writ Not Entertained – The Court observed that petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the PGST Act to challenge the assessment and recovery proceedings – Reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where statutory remedies exist unless exceptional circumstances are shown – No such circumstances made out [Para 5].

Land Attachment – Validity of Red Entry – Recovery Action Under Section 79 of PGST Act – Upheld – Petitioner's claim that he learned of land attachment only later and did not consent to it was held irrelevant in light of non-compliance with statutory requirements – The Department’s actions in seeking red entry and initiating recovery under DRC-09 and related provisions were found lawful [Paras 3, 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty Granted – The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Default Bail - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 29(1), 36A(4), 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act - Extension of Statutory Remand Period – Requirement of Specific Reasons – Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Extension Order Set Aside – The petitioner was arrested in connection with seizure of commercial quantity of methamphetamine and was in custody beyond 180 days – The Special Court extended remand without specific reasons in the Public Prosecutor’s report – Held: Report failed to disclose appreciable progress of investigation or compelling reasons for continued custody – Extension of custody beyond 180 days declared unsustainable and set aside [Paras 1-12].

Role of Public Prosecutor – Mandatory Independent Application of Mind – Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act, Public Prosecutor must independently evaluate the investigation status – In the absence of reasons in the Prosecutor’s report, continued custody of accused is unjustified – Courts cannot mechanically extend custody on vague or routine grounds – Reference made to Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 and Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, (2009) 17 SCC 631 [Paras 7-9].

Default Bail – Right to Statutory Bail under NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, having completed 180 days in custody without valid extension, entitled to default bail – Further, the Court satisfied twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act, namely reasonable grounds for believing the petitioner is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order extending time for filing final report beyond 180 days quashed – Petitioner granted bail on execution of bond and strict conditions including regular reporting to police, prohibition on tampering evidence, and presence at trial – Court empowered to cancel bail in case of violation [Para 12].

Writ of Mandamus – Section 67B of the Information Technology Act - Child Pornography Allegation – Teaser of Movie "Bad Girl" on YouTube – Direction Issued for Removal – Petitioners alleged that the teaser of a Tamil film hosted on YouTube contains child pornographic and obscene content in violation of child protection laws – Despite filing complaints with relevant authorities, no timely action was taken – Held: State and statutory authorities failed to act despite receiving complaints – Court directed the Union Government to issue appropriate orders for removal of the content and for the Women and Child Commissions to monitor the matter – Criminal proceedings not directed due to lack of specific accused details – Writ petition allowed with directions [Paras 1–14].

Child Protection – State Obligation under Article 39(f) and Article 45 – Responsibility Affirmed – The Court emphasized the constitutional duty of the State to safeguard the moral and emotional well-being of children – Held: Online dissemination of sexually inappropriate material impacts children's minds – Authorities must act proactively to protect young viewers – Court found failure to act contrary to constitutional duties [Paras 7–11].

Criminal Prosecution – No Direction for FIR – Lack of Specific Allegations – Petitioners sought initiation of criminal proceedings under POCSO and POSH Acts – Held: Court declined to issue direction for prosecution since names of accused and full facts were not provided – Petitioners are at liberty to file a complaint before competent authorities [Para 13].

Duty of Online Platforms – Accessibility of Obscene Content – YouTube Not Impleaded – Not Fatal – Though YouTube was not made a party, the Court held that the Union Government has authority to direct removal of content under IT laws – Held: First respondent to act and issue directions within one month to remove the obscene teaser and related content [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Taxation Law - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest Declared Illegal – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – In a petition under Article 226 seeking release of the detenue, the Court found that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence officials had kept the detenue in custody for over 30 hours without presenting him before a Magistrate and without serving grounds of arrest – The arrest was held to be in clear contravention of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also violated mandatory procedures under Sections 69 and 70 of the CGST Act – Held: The arrest was illegal and the detenue is entitled to release – Further, DGGI officials are to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing a Warrant Officer appointed by the Court [Paras 1-33].

Illegal Detention – Overnight Custody by DGGI – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Detention Unlawful – The detenue was kept in the GST zonal office overnight for more than 30 hours without production before Magistrate – Held: Detention amounts to violation of constitutional protections and is illegal – Consent under coercive circumstances is invalid – Arrest is deemed to have commenced with the unlawful restraint [Paras 13-20].

Section 69 CGST Act – Arrest Authorization Without Application of Mind – Arrest Vitiated – The Additional Director General merely endorsed the proposal for arrest forwarded via the E-office system without independent analysis or satisfaction – Held: Mechanical authorization without reasons to believe or application of mind violates the safeguards under Section 69 and Supreme Court rulings – Arrest declared illegal [Paras 21-25].

Grounds of Arrest – Delay in Communication – Arrest and Remand Vitiated – Although the detenue was restrained at 5:46 PM, grounds of arrest were communicated only at 8:40 PM – Held: Arrest becomes illegal when grounds are not promptly served at the moment of restraint – Subsequent remand proceedings also rendered invalid [Paras 26-29].

CCTV Surveillance – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Inference of Malafide – Despite court direction, DGGI failed to produce CCTV footage and claimed cameras were dysfunctional – Held: Excuse rejected – Inference drawn that non-compliance was deliberate and intended to conceal illegality – Non-adherence to Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh binding directions [Para 12].

Obstruction of Warrant Officer – Prima Facie Contempt – DGGI Officials Misbehaved and Obstructed Judicial Function – The Court-appointed Warrant Officer was stopped from recording the detenue's statement and had official papers snatched – Held: Prima facie contempt made out – Officials directed to show cause – Law cannot be allowed to be subverted by such conduct [Paras 2.1, 9, 10, 33].

Detenue’s Rights During Interrogation – Statement Must Be Recorded During Office Hours and Under CCTV – The Court reiterated that summoned persons are entitled to legal safeguards during questioning – Held: DGGI must ensure statements are recorded in office hours, preferably under CCTV surveillance, and allow presence of counsel within visible range during investigation – Directions consistent with Mahesh Devchand Gala and Agarwal Foundries cases [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Arrest Held Unlawful – Detenue Entitled to Release – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 were violated by illegal detention and arrest – Authorization under Section 69 was procedurally defective – Arrest and remand are declared null and void – Matter adjourned for final orders on release and contempt action [Paras 30-33].

Civil Law - Negligence – Electrocution Death – Damages - Liability under Fatal Accidents Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellants, legal heirs of deceased Naresh Kumar, sought damages for his death caused by electrocution from a live electric wire on a pole, alleging negligence on part of the electricity board in maintaining safety of electric lines – The Trial Court granted ₹2 lakhs as damages but the First Appellate Court reversed the decree citing lack of conclusive evidence and attributing contributory negligence to the deceased – The High Court, on appreciation of witness testimony, postmortem and viscera reports, held that death was due to electrocution caused by negligent maintenance of electric wires – The absence of burn marks was held not decisive against electrocution in light of medical jurisprudence – No contributory negligence was found on part of the deceased – Held: The electricity department is responsible to ensure public safety, and the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the decree – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside and the Trial Court decree is restored, awarding compensation to the appellants [Paras 4-15].

Arbitration – Legal Heirs as Parties – Clause Permitting Continuation of Firm – Arbitration Agreement Extends – The partnership deed contained a clause (Clause 15) allowing continuation of business with legal heirs after a partner's death – Clause 16 permitted arbitration of disputes – Held: Legal heirs are entitled to invoke arbitration despite absence of reconstitution deed – Dispute maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 3-5, 14, 33-35].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Petition – No Grounds Made Out – Application Rightly Dismissed – Court found that none of the conditions under Order VII Rule 11 were satisfied – There was a valid cause of action and no legal bar to institution of proceedings – Allegations raised in arbitration petition were not inherently meritless – Commercial Court’s order upheld [Paras 6-7, 22-32].

Partnership Act – Dissolution Not Automatic on Death – Clause in Deed Overrides Section 42(c) – Partnership at Will – Deed explicitly stated that firm would not dissolve on a partner’s death and would continue with successors – Held: Such contractual stipulations prevail over Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act [Paras 33-34].

Commercial Courts Act – Writ Petition Maintainable Despite Section 8 – Constitutional Jurisdiction Not Ousted – Section 8 bars revision/petition against interlocutory orders of Commercial Court – However, High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutional and not excluded by statutory bar – Court may interfere in rare and compelling circumstances [Paras 16-21].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to interfere with Commercial Court’s rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application – Matter directed to proceed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Civil Dispute Escalated to Criminal Litigation – Supreme Court Orders Executed – Conditional Bail Granted – Petitioners involved in property dispute culminating before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27400 of 2023 sought pre-arrest bail in cross criminal cases registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging mutual criminal trespass and violence after property possession was delivered pursuant to Supreme Court orders – Held: Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners in Cr.P.Nos.5730/2025 and 5860/2025 as there was no prima facie evidence of direct involvement, but rejected for petitioner in Cr.P.No.5861/2025 (A1) in view of previous criminal antecedents, credible allegations of criminal conduct, and statements implicating him in engaging antisocial elements – Court considered the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) 5 SCC 1 regarding grant of anticipatory bail and the nature of allegations – Custodial interrogation held necessary for certain accused, pre-arrest bail allowed/disallowed accordingly [Paras 16-34].

NDPS Act – Successive Bail – No Change in Circumstances – Application Dismissed – The applicant moved a second regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS – The court found no change in circumstances since rejection of prior bail – Held: Successive bail not maintainable in absence of fresh grounds; rejection sustained [Paras 1.0, 6.0, 10.0].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Applicability of Rigorous Bail Conditions – Commercial Quantity – Court reiterated that commercial quantity of Mephedrone was recovered and hence rigors of Section 37 applied – Held: Applicant failed to satisfy dual conditions of Section 37(1)(b) – Not entitled to bail [Paras 7.1–7.5, 8.0–8.6].

Parity in Bail – Not Applicable – Distinguishable Role from Co-Accused – Bail of Co-Accused Ronak Not a Ground – Ronak’s case lacked conscious possession and material link – Here, conscious possession, CDR, and money trail established against applicant – Held: No parity can be claimed [Para 7.3].

Section 29 NDPS Act – Criminal Conspiracy – Supply Chain Established – CDR Records, Bank Transactions and Co-Accused Statements Indicate Nexus – Held: Applicant was active participant in drug supply chain; Section 29 charges sustainable [Paras 7.1–7.2, 7.4–7.6].

Evidence Appreciation at Bail Stage – Premature – Section 52A Compliance a Trial Matter – The applicant’s objection regarding procedural lapses in sampling and evidence was rejected – Held: Evidence appreciation is beyond scope at bail stage; trial court to determine [Paras 9.1, 9.6].

Final Decision – Bail Rejected – Trial to Be Expedited – Court directed trial court to conclude proceedings within 10 weeks and appoint amicus if needed – Held: Application devoid of merits; liberty of accused subordinate to societal interest in drug trafficking matters [Paras 10.0–11.0].