Civil Law - Joinder of Parties – Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC – Legal Heirs of Plaintiff’s Brother Held Proper Parties – Petition Dismissed – Trial court correctly permitted respondents to be added as co-plaintiffs in suit challenging unauthorized sale of ancestral property – High Court held that limitation issues must be adjudicated during trial, not at stage of joinder – Respondents were found to be necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication [Paras 13–20].

Scope of Article 227 – High Court Cannot Interfere Absent Jurisdictional Error – No Procedural Illegality Found – Reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional or procedural errors, not substituting appellate review – Citing Sameer Suresh Gupta and Garment Craft, Court emphasized that the writ remedy under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly [Paras 10–12, 21].

Limitations Argument – Deferred to Trial Stage – Court held that bar of limitation, claim to relief, and inheritance rights must be evaluated on pleadings and evidence during trial – At joinder stage, sole test is necessity or propriety of parties under Rule 10(2) CPC [Paras 14–19].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed with Respondents as Co-Plaintiffs – No jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity found – Ad-interim relief vacated [Paras 22–23].

Land Acquisition – Market Value Assessment – Appeal for Further Enhancement Rejected – Appellants sought increased compensation by relying on nearby land valuations fixed in earlier case (LAA No. 57/2015) at ₹56,41,905 per acre – Held: Mere proximity not sufficient; no evidence led to establish comparability or compliance with CPC Order XLI Rule 27 – Existing award at ₹39,10,000 per acre upheld [Paras 6.3–8].

Comparable Sales – Legal Standards for Admissibility – Reliance on Judgment in Other Cases Requires Evidence of Similarity – Held: Prior award not inter partes and not part of evidentiary record – Without proving comparability, mere citation of earlier decision not valid ground for enhancement – Appellants failed to meet legal test [Paras 7–7.4].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Evidence of Comparable Market Value – Held: Appellants did not produce sale deeds or comparable exemplars from time of notification – Map relied upon not exhibited during trial – No new evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 submitted – Appeal lacks substantiation [Paras 6.5, 7.4, 8].

Judicial Precedents – Court Reiterates Principles for Compensation Assessment – Reference made to multiple Supreme Court rulings including Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, Ravinder Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana, and Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO – Held: Appellants failed to discharge burden under established legal principles [Paras 7.1–7.4].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Case for Further Enhancement Made Out – High Court found no infirmity in trial court’s valuation – Appeal dismissed with no costs – Compensation at ₹39,10,000 per acre with statutory interest and solatium sustained [Para 8].
 

NDPS Act – Freezing of Properties – Section 68F(2) – Freezing Order Confirmed – Petitioner’s challenge to freezing of assets on the ground that properties were acquired prior to registration of NDPS cases was rejected – Held: Authorities acted within legal bounds and confirmed freezing order based on investigation and financial analysis – Burden to prove legitimacy of assets under Section 68J lies on petitioner – No violation of natural justice found – Writ dismissed with liberty to approach Trial Court for conditional withdrawal of future bank credits [Paras 27-49].

Alternate Remedy – Appeal under Section 68O of NDPS Act – Writ Petition Maintainability – Not Allowed – Petitioner failed to exhaust alternative statutory remedy of appeal – Court held that availability of specialized Appellate Tribunal warranted rejection of writ – No compelling circumstances shown to bypass statutory process [Paras 38-41].

Illegally Acquired Property – Burden of Proof – Section 68J of NDPS Act – Petitioner Failed to Discharge Onus – Petitioner did not provide documents to justify source of income or prove legality of properties in name of self and family – Disproportionate assets vis-à-vis declared income supported “reasons to believe” for freezing under Section 68F [Paras 36-38, 41-42].

Violation of Article 21 – Conditional Relief Granted – Access to Frozen Accounts – Despite rejecting the writ petition, Court acknowledged hardship due to freezing of bank accounts – Allowed conditional access to frozen accounts for essential expenses subject to Trial Court’s permission – Direction issued in interest of justice [Paras 47-49].

Natural Justice – Hearing Opportunity Given – No Violation – Respondents issued hearing notices and considered petitioner’s written reply before confirming freezing – Court found adequate compliance with natural justice under Chapter VA of NDPS Act [Paras 30-33].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal - Appreciation of Evidence – Eye-Witness and Medical Testimony – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted all accused in a murder case citing contradictions and unreliable witness testimony – The High Court reversed the acquittal of Accused No.1, holding that minor contradictions did not discredit consistent and corroborated eye-witness accounts – Medical and FSL evidence supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the murder weapon was properly proved – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 6–34].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld – The co-accused (Nos. 2 to 5) were present at the scene but the prosecution failed to prove they shared a common object or instigated the murder – FIR did not mention their instigation – Their presence was deemed natural and not sufficient to prove constructive liability – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 25–26].

Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Legal Position Clarified – Minor discrepancies or omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements do not vitiate credible eye-witness evidence – Reaffirmed that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India – Conviction can rest on truthful core of testimony even if peripheral inconsistencies exist [Paras 19–21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment with Consideration for Health – Accused No.1 was bedridden and paralysed – Court granted six months' time for surrender and directed jail authorities to provide medical care – Life imprisonment imposed under Section 302 IPC [Paras 40–42].
 

NDPS Act – Prolonged Pre-trial Custody – Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted - Despite applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act due to commercial quantity involved, petitioner granted bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration of over 1 year and 5 months – Cited multiple Supreme Court rulings allowing bail in similar cases where trial unlikely to conclude soon – Bail conditions imposed [Paras 7-11].

Constitutional Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Custody Beyond Reasonable Time – Bail Justified - Emphasizing the right to life and liberty under Article 21, Court held that conditional liberty must prevail when prolonged detention causes irreversible harm – Cited Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas v. State of W.B., Rajib Dey v. State of W.B., Nandalal Mondal v. State of W.B., and others [Paras 8-9].

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Monitoring – Restriction on Firearms – Preventive Steps - Bail conditional on non-involvement in further offences, disclosure of identity information, and surrender of weapons if any – Reinforced preventive purpose of bail to protect public interest and ensure fair trial [Paras 12-19].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed with Conditions - Petitioner released on bail subject to statutory and special conditions including non-interference with trial and no involvement in similar offences – Trial court empowered to cancel bail on breach [Paras 20-22].
 

Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy – Sentence Modified – Section 120-B IPC – Sentence Reduced to Time Served – Appellant convicted for conspiracy in a violent robbery incident and sentenced to 3 years’ simple imprisonment – Held: Though conviction upheld, sentence reduced to time already served (5 months 28 days) – Court noted no minimum sentence prescribed, no other criminal involvement, and long pendency of trial since 2019 – Appellant shown reformation and desire for peaceful life [Paras 1, 3–4, 6, 10–11].

Sentencing Principles – Discretion and Proportionality – Sentence Must Reflect Justice, Not Mere Formality – Court reiterated that sentencing should consider nature of offence, role of accused, conduct post-offence, and scope for reformation – Emphasized balance between deterrence and rehabilitation in criminal jurisprudence – Discretion must be applied judiciously and not arbitrarily [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Modified – High Court upheld the conviction dated 11.12.2024 but modified the sentence dated 17.12.2024 to the period already undergone – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 11–13].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Confirmed – Petitioner convicted for issuing a cheque of ₹5 lakhs which was dishonoured for "insufficient funds" – Trial Court convicted him to one year simple imprisonment and fine – Conviction upheld by Appellate Court – Held: Evidence of complainant and bank officials, along with cheque, return memo, statutory notice, and acknowledgment, conclusively proved offence – Petitioner failed to rebut legal presumption [Paras 2–7].

Legal Presumption – Unrebutted by Accused – No Defence Evidence – Petitioner neither denied signature nor produced any evidence disproving legally enforceable debt – Legal presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – Held: Courts below rightly convicted based on unrebutted evidence [Paras 6–7].

Modification of Sentence – Compensation in Lieu of Imprisonment – Sentence Reduced – Considering petitioner's willingness to pay cheque amount and part payment already made, Court modified sentence of imprisonment to compensation of ₹5 lakhs – ₹2.5 lakhs already deposited; remaining ₹2.5 lakhs paid via DD in court – Held: Imprisonment undergone shall be treated as sufficient punishment [Paras 10–13].

Final Directions – Compensation of ₹5 Lakhs – Conviction Maintained – Petitioner released – Respondent permitted to withdraw court-deposited amount – Criminal Revision allowed in part to modify sentence [Paras 14–15].
 

Criminal Procedure – Multiple FIRs – Same Incident – Quashing of FIRs - Petitioners challenged registration of multiple FIRs (Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024) arising from the same occurrence as Cr.No.153 of 2024 relating to an alleged attack on government officials – Court held that multiple FIRs for the same incident and cause of action are impermissible and amount to abuse of process – Held: Subsequent FIRs quashed, and related proceedings set aside [Paras 2-7, 32-44].
Unlawful Assembly and Conspiracy – Allegations against Petitioners – Petitioners alleged to have conspired to obstruct public servants and attack them during land acquisition hearing – Court found allegations against Petitioners were identical in all FIRs without specific distinct acts – Held: Allegations insufficient to justify continuation of multiple proceedings [Paras 6, 9-11, 40].
Police Procedure – Registration of FIRs – Commonality in Complaints – Complaints in three crimes prepared by same scribe without specific individualization by complainants – Court observed that multiple FIRs with identical allegations prepared mechanically were impermissible – Held: Abuse of process established [Paras 36-39].
Investigation – Consolidation of Evidence – Statements recorded in subsequently quashed FIRs can be treated as evidence in main FIR – Court permitted Investigating Officer to treat materials from Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 as part of investigation in Cr.No.153 of 2024 [Para 45].
Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Remand orders dated 09.01.2025 in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 set aside – Proceedings in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 against petitioners quashed – Investigation to proceed in Cr.No.153 of 2024 alone [Paras 47].
 

Criminal Law - Bail Application – NDPS Act – Section 37 Bar – Stringent Compliance Required – Petitioner accused of active involvement in organized narcotic syndicate – Court emphasized strict application of twin conditions under Section 37 for grant of bail – Reasonable belief of innocence not established [Paras 23-28].

Role of Intercepted Calls and CDRs – Voice Sample Match – Strong Prima Facie Evidence – Intercepted conversations between petitioner and co-accused, coupled with CDR analysis and voice sample match confirmed by FSL, prima facie established petitioner's active role in narcotic distribution network [Paras 17, 24-25].

Recovery at Instance of Petitioner – 1 Kg Heroin and Other Seizures – Recovery of 1 Kg heroin from petitioner’s shop and further arrests and seizures linked to disclosures made by petitioner weighed heavily against grant of bail [Paras 9-10, 23-24].

Parity with Co-Accused – Distinguished – Bail of Co-Accused Not Sufficient Ground – Court rejected plea of parity with co-accused Jaipal, noting stronger and more incriminating evidence against petitioner, including recoveries and role in network [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Petitioner’s request for regular bail rejected – Court held that involvement in organized narcotics network necessitated cautious approach, and no grounds existed for believing petitioner not guilty or unlikely to reoffend [Paras 28-29].