Unlawful Activities – Bail under UAPA – Long Incarceration – Bail Granted - Appellant, accused of involvement in ISIS-related recruitment and conspiracy, was in custody since 02.08.2023 – Charge not yet framed and further investigation ongoing – Court considered prolonged incarceration, bleak chances of trial commencement, and parity with similarly placed co-accused who was granted bail by Apex Court – Held: Incarceration of over 8 months without trial violates right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 6-8].

Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Pankaj Bansal Doctrine – Not Applicable Retrospectively – Appellant challenged arrest as illegal due to non-supply of written grounds – Court held that Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively – Since arrest occurred before the judgment date (02.08.2023 vs 03.10.2023), protection under the precedent not available – Arrest upheld [Para 5].

Jurisdiction of NIA – FIR Registration – Section 6(5) of NIA Act – Validity Upheld - Challenge to FIR on ground that NIA registered it directly without prior State referral – Court relied on prior ruling in Ali K. v. Union of India to affirm that Central Government can direct investigation under Section 6(5) even without prior case registration – No illegality found in FIR registration [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to stringent conditions including travel restrictions, regular reporting, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses – Breach of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail [Para 8].
 

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – Consent of Complainant Mandatory – Petition Dismissed – The petitioners sought compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act after a delay of over 12 years, but the complainant did not consent – Held: As per settled legal position, compounding under Section 147 NI Act cannot be allowed without complainant’s consent – The impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting compounding was upheld [Paras 4-6].

Judicial Discretion – Quashing vs Compounding – Distinction Maintained – The petitioners relied on judgments suggesting courts can close proceedings even without consent – Held: A five-Judge Constitution Bench clarified in Expeditious Trial of NI Act Cases (2021) that Kanchan Mehta’s observation allowing closure without consent is not good law – Court reiterated the distinction between quashing and compounding, emphasizing that compounding is rooted in consent [Paras 6-7].

*Decision – Revision Dismissed – No Interference with Trial Court Order – The High Court held that in the absence of any illegality or perversity, the trial court’s order refusing compounding due to lack of complainant’s consent was valid – Petition dismissed accordingly [Para 7].

Service Law – Termination of Contractual Employees – Protection under Section 18(iii) of 1989 Act – Tribunal’s Order Upheld – Petitioners challenged Tribunal’s direction to reinstate temporary teachers, arguing Section 18 and Rule 39 did not apply to fixed-term appointments – Held: Employees of recognized institutions, even if temporary, are covered under Section 18 – Termination without six months’ notice/salary and Director’s consent is illegal – Tribunal rightly intervened [Paras 22-28, 31-34].

Maintainability of Appeal – Section 19 – Contractual Employees Entitled to Remedy – It was argued that no appeal lies for employees not appointed through regular process – Held: No person can be left remediless; appeal under Section 19 maintainable even for temporary employees terminated in violation of Section 18 [Paras 12-21, 33].

Interpretation – Social Welfare Legislation – Wide Protection to Employees – Act of 1989 aims to curb arbitrary actions by private institutions – Term ‘employee’ under Section 2(i) includes all employees irrespective of nature of appointment – Provisions must be liberally interpreted to avoid exploitation and promote fair practices in private educational institutions [Paras 27, 32].

*Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Tribunal’s Order Affirmed – High Court rejected all writ petitions challenging reinstatement orders – Held: Termination was arbitrary and contrary to Section 18(iii) – Petitioners granted liberty to take action afresh following due process [Paras 34-38].

PIL – Civil - Town Planning – Section 21(4A) vs. Section 162 MRTP Act – Composite Draft Development Plan – State  Government Empowered – Petitioners challenged appointment of Respondent No.6 by the State under Section 162, arguing only the “concerned” officer under Section 21(4A) could prepare draft development plan following planning authority’s failure – Held: Though Section 21(4A) mandates specified officers, supervening events and consensus in contempt proceedings justified State’s action under Section 162— Appointment upheld [Paras 24–27, 36, 40–41]. 
 
Contempt Proceedings – Statement Accepted by Court – Later Challenge Not Barred – Liberty Preserved – Petitioners argued contempt order dated 03.08.2023 was breached—Court held SLP was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ—Thus, petitioner was not barred from challenge, but no illegality found in State’s subsequent action [Paras 31–32, 36]. 
 
Change of Officer – Mere Replacement Not Illegal – No Vested Right to Continue – Petitioners objected to replacement of Respondent No.4 who had completed draft up to Section 25—Court found no right to continue for any officer—State’s decision to appoint Respondent No.6 valid under Section 162 in light of practical need for a composite plan [Paras 33–36]. 
 
Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners Acted in Collusion – Accessed Sealed Draft Unlawfully – Court found petitioners accessed and relied on draft documents submitted under seal by Respondent No.4— Held: Conduct casts doubt on fairness—Petitioners failed to approach court with clean hands, undermining relief sought under Article 226 [Paras 37–38]. 
 
Decision – All Writ Petitions and PIL Dismissed – Rule Discharged – Composite Development Plan by Respondent No.6 Validated – Future Objections to be Addressed under MRTP Act Framework [Paras 40– 43]. 
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Presence Proved – Appellant assaulted his brother with a trident and bamboo lathi, packed the body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in a jungle – Held: Evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16, corroborated by recovery of the body and medical testimony, proved the crime beyond doubt [Paras 6, 8-10].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Verbal Shout – Res Gestae Covered – Victim’s last words calling for help and naming his assailant, heard by P.W.16, admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Held: Statement reliable and can form basis for conviction [Paras 9, 35].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Under Section 27 – Trident Seized – Admissible Evidence – Appellant’s disclosure led to recovery of the murder weapon (trident) concealed near a well – Doctor opined injuries were possible by the recovered weapons – Held: Discovery valid, despite absence of blood on trident [Paras 4, 8-10, 31-33].

Minor Contradictions – Eyewitness Versions Consistent – Discrepancy Not Material – P.W.13 and P.W.16 gave slightly different versions of what was heard but corroborated each other on material facts – Held: Discrepancies minor and immaterial, consistent with age and perception variations [Paras 9, 30-32].

Motive – Familial Dispute Over Mango Tree – Sufficient Background – Motive established through testimony about dispute between appellant and deceased over falling mangoes from a tree – Held: While motive is not necessary in all cases, it supports prosecution story [Para 36].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment with fines upheld – Held: Trial court rightly relied on credible eyewitnesses, corroborating medical and forensic evidence [Paras 10, 37].
 

Employment Law - Absorption in Government Department – Valid Exercise of Option Required – Claim Denied – Petitioner claimed adjustment in GWS&I after abolition of his post in OLIC, but failed to establish he exercised a valid option within stipulated time – Held: Absence of timely option and pending VRS application disentitles petitioner to absorption under transfer circular [Paras 6-8, 15-17].

Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Application Withdrawn But Not Relieved – No Jural Break – Petitioner applied for VRS but was never relieved; continued under interim protection of court – Held: While legal employment relationship continued, this does not create a vested right to absorption in absence of option [Paras 7-8, 10].

Doctrine of Negative Equality – Illegal Appointments of Others Not Ground for Parity – Petitioner relied on absorption of juniors to claim parity – Held: Article 14 does not permit perpetuation of illegality – Petitioner cannot claim relief based on benefit wrongly granted to others [Paras 8, 20-21].

Creation and Abolition of Post – Policy Decision – Not Justiciable – Cabinet decision to abolish 7341 posts including 39 tracer posts upheld – Held: Court cannot interfere unless mala fide shown – Decision found to be bona fide administrative restructuring [Paras 5-6, 13-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court found no legal basis to direct petitioner’s absorption or declare cabinet action illegal – Petition dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 9-10].
 

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Permissible – Miscarriage of Justice Avoided – Appellate court found trial court’s acquittal perverse due to misreading and omission of critical evidence – Held: Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 reversed, convictions recorded based on consistent and corroborated evidence [Paras 31-32, 58].

Eyewitnesses – Injured Witnesses Credible – Conviction Based – PWs 1 and 2, both injured in the attack, provided clear, consistent testimony identifying accused – Supported by medical and recovery evidence – Court found no ground to doubt reliability [Paras 9-11, 15-19, 39].

Test Identification Parade – Fair and Valid – Witnesses Identified Accused Repeatedly – PW53 conducted parades for accused 1 to 5 with PWs 1 and 2 identifying the accused in multiple rounds – Accused failed to discredit TIP process – Identification upheld [Para 24].

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprints, Hair, DNA, and Blood Match – Forensic reports linked accused 2, 4, and 5 to the crime scene vehicle and weapons – Blood on MO4 knife matched deceased’s blood group – DNA confirmed presence of accused in getaway van [Paras 26-28, 52].

Conspiracy – Charge Not Proved – Evidence Lacked Specificity – Witnesses PW7 and PW9 failed to establish a common design among all ten accused – Court found no cogent motive or agreement connecting all accused – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 under Section 120B upheld [Paras 33-36, 49].

Section 109 IPC – No Instigation Established – Accused 6 Allegedly Procured Vehicle – Mere ownership insufficient to establish active instigation – Acquittal on this count confirmed [Paras 56].

Section 201 IPC – Suppression of Evidence Not Proved – Evidence against accused 8, 9, and 10 found unreliable or uncorroborated – Alleged concealment of swords not adequately linked – Acquittal sustained [Paras 50, 57].

Delay in FIR and FIR Forwarding – Explained and Acceptable – Court found delay justified due to injuries of witness PW1 – No deliberate suppression of facts or masking of accused identity – Trial court’s inference found flawed [Paras 40-42].

Identification of Assailants – No Masks Worn – Prosecution Rebutted Mask Theory – Despite initial medical reports suggesting masked assailants, eyewitnesses and corroborative testimonies confirmed clear identification of attackers – Trial court’s reliance on this theory overturned [Paras 43-44].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment Imposed – Accused 1 to 5 convicted under Section 302 IPC – Accused 2 and 4 also sentenced under Sections 324 and 326 IPC respectively – Court imposed minimum statutory sentence citing mitigating factors – Concurrent sentences awarded – Victim compensation ordered [Paras 4-8 of sentencing order].
 

Criminal Law - Arms Act – Conviction under Section 7 vs Section 3 – Prohibited Arm Not Proven – Conviction Modified - Appellant was initially convicted under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act for possession of a country-made revolver – Trial court relied on a District Magistrate's report but no ballistic report or scientific evidence was produced to prove it was a prohibited arm – Held: In absence of proof that seized arm was automatic or met other criteria under Section 2(1)(i), conviction under Section 7 not sustainable – Conviction altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Proof of Weapon Type – No Expert or Technical Evidence Produced – Prosecution Failed to Prove Prohibited Nature of Weapon – No ballistic expert opinion or technical data was produced to confirm the nature of the firearm as “prohibited” – Armourer was a field constable without expert credentials – Held: Failure to meet evidentiary threshold required under Arms Act to convict under Section 7 [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Sentencing – Reformative Justice – Probation Principles Applied – Sentence Reduced - Appellant was 21 years old at time of offence, with no prior criminal record and had already undergone over 2 years in custody – Maximum punishment for Section 3 offence is 3 years – Held: Sentence reduced to period already undergone and benefit of reformative principles under Probation of Offenders Act considered appropriate [Paras 5.7–Conclusion].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Modified – Appellant Acquitted of Section 7 Charge - Court set aside conviction under Section 7/25 – Convicted instead under Section 3/25 of Arms Act – Sentence modified to time already served – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith [Conclusion].
 

Civil Law - Validity of Marriage – Arya Samaj Ceremonies – Presumption of Validity – Application Dismissed - The applicant contended that marriage with opposite party no. 2 performed at Arya Samaj Mandir was invalid and hence proceedings under Section 498A IPC were untenable – Court held that marriages performed as per Hindu rites (including Kanyadan, Panigrahan, and Saptapadi) at Arya Samaj Mandir are valid under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The Arya Samaj marriage certificate may lack statutory force but can be supported by testimony of Purohit – Held: Marriage not invalid on this basis, and criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 4, 6–10, 17–19].

Dowry and Cruelty Allegations – No Requirement of Dowry Demand – Cruelty Alone Suffices - The applicant argued absence of dowry demand in FIR – Court relied on SC ruling in Aluri Venkata Ramana vs Aluri Thirupathi Rao that cruelty under Section 498A includes both physical/mental harassment and dowry-related harassment – Presence of cruelty alone sufficient to sustain charges – Held: Prima facie case made out; petition dismissed [Paras 20–21].

Evidentiary Value of Marriage Certificate – Not Determinative – Facts to be Proven at Trial - Court clarified that registration under U.P. Hindu Marriage Rules or U.P. Marriage Registration Rules may serve as prima facie evidence but not conclusive proof of marriage – Question of validity is factual and must be decided on evidence during trial – Held: Disputed factual issues inappropriate for resolution under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Valid Marriage Presumed and Cruelty Allegations Require Trial - The Court found no legal basis to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC – Held: Alleged marriage fulfilled conditions of Hindu Marriage Act; cruelty allegations require factual determination during trial – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Para 21].