NDPS  - Bail - Arrest and Charges – Petitioner arrested under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly directing the procurement of drugs and possession of drug money – No criminal antecedents apart from an unrelated pending case under Section 379 IPC. [Para 1-2, 8]

Bail Plea and State's Opposition – Petitioner seeks bail, citing no objection to stringent conditions and arguing against the validity of the evidence, particularly the recovery of alleged drug money – State opposes bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of contraband and petitioner’s supposed role in the drug trafficking. [Paras 3-8]

Court's Analysis and Reasoning – The Court notes the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the drug sale proceeds and the absence of substantial proof of guilt – Considers parity with co-accused granted bail and deems petitioner's involvement based mainly on co-accused's disclosure. [Paras 9-10]

Application of Section 37 NDPS Act – Detailed discussion on the twin conditions under Section 37 for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband – Court finds the petitioner satisfying these conditions. [Paras 12-13, 20, 21]

Bail Conditions – Detailed and stringent conditions imposed for bail, including financial bonds, personal identification details, restrictions on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, limiting possession of prepaid SIMs, and surrendering firearms. [Paras 14-19, 23]

Decision – Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted bail under stringent conditions. [End of Document]

Additional Accused - Summoning Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Revision petition against order dated 13.11.2019 for summoning petitioner as additional accused in an FIR dated 28.04.2017 under Sections 308/34 IPC - Petitioner, Davinder Singh @ Kala, challenged his inclusion in the case, arguing improvements in the injured's statements and highlighting inconsistency with medical evidence showing only one injury attributed to another accused - The Court considered whether there were reasonable prospects of the petitioner's conviction [Paras 1, 8, 14].

Inconsistency in Witness Statements - Petitioner's argument based on variations in the injured's statements from FIR, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and in court deposition - Originally accused of inflicting injuries while the victim was on the ground, later statements added that the petitioner caught the victim's wrist and inflicted blows - Improvements in statements noted by the Court [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 14].

Medical Evidence Analysis - Medical evidence (MLR) indicated only one lacerated wound on the victim, specifically attributed to co-accused Ravinder Singh @ Gogi - The Court found this incongruous with the allegations against the petitioner, suggesting possible false implication [Para 14].

Judicial Precedents on Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Reference to Supreme Court judgments including "Michael Machado vs. CBI" and "Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab" for principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Emphasis on the need for reasonable satisfaction and higher degree of satisfaction for summoning additional accused compared to the original accused [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Decision - High Court quashed the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda - The Court found substantial merit in the petitioner's argument about inconsistencies and improvements in witness statements and lack of corroborative medical evidence - The petition was allowed, and the order summoning the petitioner was set aside [Paras 14, 15].

Pensionary Benefits – Counting of Seasonal/Contract Service for Pension – Petitioners seeking inclusion of seasonal/contract service period for qualifying service for pension under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India – Service rendered on an ad-hoc basis by petitioners before their regularization in 2004 not sufficient for pensionary benefits under old pension scheme – Regular appointments post-2004 fall under new pension scheme as per BBMB Regulations and Punjab CSR. [Para 1, 8]

Employment Regularization and Pension Scheme Applicability – Regularization of service and its impact on pension scheme entitlement – Employees regularized after 01.01.2004 not eligible for old pension scheme – Court upholds that sporadic and brief contractual service prior to 2004 does not qualify for old pension scheme benefits. [Para 7, 8]

Judicial Precedents on Pensionary Benefits – Reliance on previous judgments for pension entitlement of contractual employees – Division Bench judgments (Harbans Lal, Karan Singh, and Hari Chand cases) distinguished due to non-continuous service of petitioners before regularization – Regularization post-2004 places petitioners under new pension scheme. [Para 3, 7]

Final Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Petition dismissed for lack of merit – Court holds that petitioners’ service prior to regularization does not count for pensionary benefits under old scheme – Petitioners’ liberty to raise individual regularization cases to the respondent-Board for consideration. [Para 9, 10]

Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute with Elements of Criminality – FIR Not Quashed – The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute was purely civil in nature and related to non-compliance with contractual obligations – Allegations included siphoning of ₹6.32 crore from complainants under false assurances of timely completion of a real estate project – Held: While the dispute involves contractual issues, the allegations prima facie suggest criminal misappropriation and cheating, as dishonest inducement is evident in the context of non-delivery of possession despite receipt of 87% payment – FIR cannot be quashed at the nascent stage of investigation [Paras 13-15].

FIR as Basis for Investigation – Role of Mens Rea and Dishonest Intent – Investigation Necessary – Allegations in the FIR suggest that the petitioners misled complainants by making false assurances and misusing funds intended for the project – Mens rea, an essential ingredient of Sections 406 and 420 IPC, is a factual question requiring investigation – Quashing of FIR at the threshold would thwart a legitimate investigation – Investigating agency must be permitted to collect evidence [Paras 15-17].

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 528 BNSS – Interference at Investigation Stage – Rare Instances for Quashing – Courts should rarely interfere at the investigation stage unless the FIR lacks prima facie cognizable offence or is inherently absurd – Guided by Supreme Court precedents (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401), the Court held that investigation is essential to ascertain criminality, if any, in the acts of the petitioners [Paras 6-12].

Judgment and Outcome – FIR quashing petition dismissed – Investigation to proceed to ascertain whether offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are made out – Clarified that observations in the order shall not prejudice the petitioners during investigation or trial [Para 17].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Investigation to proceed – FIR not quashed.

Import of Guns for Entertainment Purposes - Petitioner's claim that imported guns, which do not release a projectile, should not be classified as "firearms" under Section 2(e) of the Arms Act, 1959, thus negating the need for a license [Paras 1-2].

Exemption Under Arms Rules, 2016 - Reference to exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 for “firearm replicas”, with the argument that the petitioner’s imported guns are akin to firearm replicas as they only fire blank cartridges emitting sound [Paras 3-4].

Representation to Ministry of Home Affairs - Court's suggestion for the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2, the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, for examination of the forensic report and related materials [Para 5].

Direction for Comprehensive Representation - Court instructs the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent no.2, to be considered and responded to with a speaking order within eight weeks [Paras 6-7.1].

Disposal of Writ Petition - The writ petition is disposed of with directions for action based on the digitally signed copy of the order [Para 8].

Custody and Guardianship of Minor Child – Varunavi, a minor whose parents died in a road accident, became the subject of a guardianship dispute between the paternal grandfather (Appellant) and the maternal grandmother (Respondent) – Both filed petitions under the Guardians and Wards Act for appointment as guardian of the child's person and property. [Para 2]

Trial Court Decision – Custody of the child was granted to the maternal grandmother with the trial court allowing G.W.O.P. No. 8 of 2012 filed by the maternal grandfather and dismissing G.W.O.P. No. 9 of 2012 filed by the paternal grandmother. [Para 3]

High Court Ruling – Following an interim order and mutual agreement by both parties, the Court confirmed the interim order as final – The maternal grandparents are appointed guardians of Varunavi for both person and property, with specific conditions regarding custody and care arrangements – The paternal grandfather to hand over the child to the maternal grandparents every weekend and comply with certain conditions regarding the child's care. [Paras 4, 5]

Directions Issued – Conditions set for the care and custody of the minor child, including provisions for food and contingencies if the appellant cannot care for the child. [Para 4]

Appeals Disposed – Both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals disposed of with the above directions, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [Para 5]

Writ - Seizure of Driving Licenses and Legal Arguments – Petitioners, drivers in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, had their licenses seized following accidents and subsequent registration of criminal cases under Section 304 (A) IPC – Petitioners argued that they were not convicted and no offence under the Motor Vehicles Act was committed – Respondent Police argued that licenses could be suspended for cognizable offences under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules – Petitioners approached the court without responding to show cause notices, leading to the contention that the writ petitions should be dismissed. [Paras 2-3]

Judicial Precedents and Legal Provisions – Examination of precedents and legal provisions regarding the authority’s power to revoke or suspend driving licenses – Discussion of the limitation of police power under Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act for specific offences – The court noted that the seizure of the license is not mandatory for action under Section 19 of the Act and that the police do not have the power to seize the license based solely on the registration of an FIR for offences other than those specified in Section 206. [Paras 6-8]

Decision and Directions – The court held that the respondent police cannot seize driving licenses and that it is not for the Regional Transport Authority to pre-judge the guilt of the petitioners before the filing of the final report in the criminal cases – Directed the respondent RTOs to return the driving licenses of the petitioners within one week and allowed the respondent Police to forward relevant materials to the RTOs post-filing of final reports for appropriate action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [Para 9]

Decision: Petitions allowed – Respondent RTOs directed to return the driving licenses to the petitioners – Respondent Police can forward materials to RTOs for potential action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act after filing final reports. No costs.

Land Allocation Dispute – Denial of Land to Petitioners – Challenged Order of Financial Commissioner Dismissing Petitioner's Claim for Land – No Entitlement to Specific Land Proved – Writ Petition Dismissed. [Para 1-14]

Land Allocation and Ownership – Dispute over 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of Land in Village Kalauli Jattan – Petitioners' Claim for Allocation for House Construction – Dispute Originating from Orders of Financial Commissioner and Director of Rural Development and Panchayats – Various Legal Proceedings Traced Including Writ Petitions and Supreme Court Order – Final Determination that Land Not Reserved for Petitioners, Leading to Dismissal of Writ Petition. [Para 1-14]

Panchayat Land Partition – Partition of Land Between Gram Panchayat Kalauli and Kalauli Jattan Based on Voter Count – Division of Land and Determination of Ownership – Relevant Khasra Numbers Specified for Both Panchayats. [Para 6-7]

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Multiple Orders and Reports Regarding Land Dispute – Consideration of Revenue Records, Committee Reports, and Orders from High Court and Supreme Court – Ultimate Rejection of Petitioners' Claim to Specific Land Parcel in Village Kalauli Jattan. [Para 3-13]

Decision – High Court Upholds Order of Financial Commissioner – Petitioners' Claim to Land in Khasra No. 80 of Village Kalauli Jattan Rejected Based on Evidence and Legal Precedents – Writ Petition Dismissed with No Merit Found. [Para 14]

Anticipatory Bail Plea by ASI in Bribery Case – Petitioner ASI Kulwant Singh, involved in FIR No. 23 dated 09.09.2023 for demanding and accepting a bribe. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Allegations include demanding Rs. 50,000 and accepting Rs. 20,000 as a bribe from the complainant, Bhuvan Singh. [Paras 1-3]

Interim Bail and Background – Petitioner was granted interim bail on 18.12.2023, continuing till the date of judgment. Case background includes petitioner's previous investigation against the complainant, leading to allegations of demanding a bribe for favor in investigation. [Paras 2, 4-5]

Audio Evidence Against Petitioner – State provided audio recordings establishing petitioner's demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Court listened to these recordings and found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. [Para 5, 7]

Nature of Allegations and Need for Custodial Interrogation – Given the serious allegations and evidence, custodial interrogation deemed necessary. The Court referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments underscoring the gravity of economic offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation in corruption cases. [Paras 9-17]

Delay in Filing Complaint Not Fatal – Despite a three-month gap between bribe demand and complaint filing, the Court found the delay not fatal to the case due to the evidence and the nature of the offence. [Para 8]

Decision – Anticipatory bail denied considering the serious nature of allegations and evidence. The interim bail granted earlier is vacated. [Paras 10, 18-19]