Regular Bail – Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act -  Sections 137(2) and 126(2) of the BNS - Allegation of Sexual Assault – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Bail Rejected – The applicant sought regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC in connection with offences under POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging unnatural carnal intercourse with a minor boy – Victim's immediate reporting of the offence, prompt FIR, and medical report indicating recent forceful penetration established a prima facie case against the applicant – Court held that inconsistencies in victim’s statement regarding identification were minor and explained by trauma – Non-conduct of Test Identification Parade did not vitiate prosecution case – Court observed that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, extra caution is required and bail can be denied despite completion of investigation if there is apprehension of victim influence – Held: Prima facie case established, reasonable apprehension of influence on victim, bail application rejected [Paras 7-19].

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Section 411 IPC – Sentence Modified – Petitioner convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to 1-year rigorous imprisonment with fine – Having undergone 3 months and 12 days of imprisonment, he sought modification of sentence – High Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to already undergone period – Held: No minimum sentence prescribed under Section 411 IPC; sentence modified considering proportionality, length of trial (22 years), and scope for reformation [Paras 1–2, 5, 10].

Sentencing Principles – Discretion and Proportionality – No Minimum Punishment under Section 411 IPC – The Court emphasized that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but requires judicial discretion based on circumstances – Referred to Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 – Held: Discretion must be exercised keeping gravity of offence, age, and reformation prospects in view [Para 6].

Reformation and Deterrence – Balanced Sentencing – Citing Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Court stressed that sentencing should strike a balance between deterrence and reformation – The petitioner, having faced trial for over two decades and shown good conduct, merited leniency – Sentence of 1 year reduced to 3 months and 12 days already undergone [Paras 7, 9–10].

Conviction Unchallenged – Only Sentence Disputed – Counsel for the petitioner did not challenge conviction on merits – Judgment of conviction upheld as well-reasoned and based on correct appreciation of evidence – Only sentence was modified [Paras 3, 8].

Bail in Money Laundering Case – Twin Conditions Under Section 45 PMLA – Bail Granted – Petitioner, former bank president, arrested in connection with ECIR/BGO/05/2021 for offence under Section 4 PMLA – Court considered that trial was unlikely to commence soon, complaint had been filed, and proceedings in predicate offences were either stayed or not yet cognized – Held: Requirements under Section 45 PMLA not an absolute bar, bail can be granted based on foundational facts, absence of strong evidence, and petitioner’s age and medical condition [Paras 1, 4, 22, 27–28].

Predicate Offences – FIR Quashed and Cognizance Not Taken – Impact on PMLA Proceedings – Court noted that FIR in Crime No.16/2021 was quashed and that petitioner was not originally charge-sheeted in Crime No.325/2014 – Additional charge sheet filed without invoking scheduled offences and cognizance yet to be taken – Held: Absence of valid foundational proceedings for scheduled offences undermines the money laundering prosecution [Paras 3, 15–17, 20].

Presumption Under Section 24 PMLA – Foundational Facts Must Be Established – Burden Not Yet Shifted – Prosecution relied on confessions of co-accused, but no independent evidence presented – Citing Prem Prakash and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, Court held presumption under Section 24 arises only when foundational facts are made out – Held: In absence of admissible material, petitioner not required to rebut presumption [Paras 7, 14, 24–25].

Confession of Co-Accused – Not Substantive Evidence – Cannot Alone Justify Custody – Petitioner’s alleged involvement was based on confessional statements of co-accused in predicate cases – Relying on Prem Prakash and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Court held such confessions are not substantive evidence and cannot be sole basis to deny bail [Paras 24–25].

Delay in Trial – Long Custody and Health Grounds – Bail Justified – Petitioner in custody since April 2025 and undergoing medical treatment including advised cataract surgery – Considering health condition, age, and delay in trial, Court found continued detention unjustified – Bail granted with conditions ensuring trial attendance and non-interference [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302 IPC – Appeal Against Conviction – Sole Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Based Solely on PW1 Not Sustainable – Appellant convicted on basis of uncorroborated deposition of PW1 – Court found PW1’s credibility questionable due to past enmity with deceased and lack of contemporaneous reporting – Held: Sole testimony cannot be the basis of conviction where it suffers from serious doubt and contradiction with material evidence. Acquittal. [Paras 1–3, 11, 21].

Recovery of Weapon – Non-Compliance with Section 27 of Evidence Act – Seizure Unproven – Axe allegedly recovered on appellant’s confession not proven in accordance with law – No recovery statement exhibited or proven – Weapon not recovered from accused’s control nor tested for blood stains – Held: Alleged recovery inadmissible and fails legal standards under Section 27 Evidence Act [Paras 4, 12–14].

Defective Section 313 CrPC Examination – Failure to Put Inculpatory Evidence – Prejudice Caused – Material evidence such as seizure lists, post-mortem report, and recovery documents not brought to accused’s attention – Examination held to be cryptic and in gross violation of Section 313 CrPC – Held: Accused was denied fair opportunity to explain incriminating material, vitiating trial [Paras 6, 16, 19–20].

Bias and Enmity – Witnesses Had Personal Interest – Testimony of PW1 and family tainted by past allegations – Deceased had earlier lodged case against PW1’s family – Witnesses from same family unusually active in present prosecution – Held: Doubt over credibility of prosecution witnesses not dispelled by trial court – Conviction unsafe [Paras 10–11, 21].

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Failure to Establish Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution failed to explain inconsistencies, motive, and source of hearsay evidence – No forensic support – Held: Prosecution unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant [Paras 5, 7, 8, 21].

Decision – Acquittal - Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 302 IPC – Impugned judgment dated 09.10.2018 and sentence dated 10.10.2018 set aside – Directed to be released unless wanted in any other case [Para 22].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Bona-fide Requirement – Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act – Eviction Allowed – The petitioners, NRIs residing abroad since the 1970s, sought eviction of tenants from properties in Delhi Cantonment to start a food-related business in India – The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petitions holding that the premises were too small for a restaurant and the petitioners being well-settled abroad did not require the premises for subsistence – Held: The Rent Controller’s view was erroneous – It is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of how to use the premises – A food take-away or delivery outlet qualifies as legitimate use – Requirement cannot be discounted merely because the petitioners are NRIs or financially well-off – Eviction petitions allowed [Paras 6-9, 28-32].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Challenge to Ownership – Not a Bar to Eviction – The respondents contended that the petitioners were not owners due to disputes over a family settlement – Held: Once landlord-tenant relationship is admitted and rent was paid to the landlord or their predecessor, challenge to ownership is immaterial in eviction proceedings – The landlord needs only better title than the tenant – Objection dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – Misapplication of Law by Rent Controller Correctable – While revisional jurisdiction is limited, interference is justified when findings are based on misapplication of legal principles or misreading of evidence – High Court rightly interfered where the ARC imposed irrelevant standards regarding the viability of the landlord’s proposed business and the NRI status of the landlord [Paras 25-27].

Alternate Accommodation – No Evidence by Tenant – The Rent Controller failed to examine the aspect of alternative accommodation – Held: In absence of any specific plea or proof from tenants about the existence of alternative accommodation with the landlord, the petition cannot fail on this ground – This is not a fatal defect [Paras 34-37].

Final Decision – Eviction Allowed – Impugned judgments dated 25.07.2013 set aside – Eviction petitions allowed – Petitioners entitled to obtain vacant physical possession of the subject premises from the respondents in accordance with law [Para 42].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 305, 331(3), 331(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Civil Dispute with Criminal Colour – Prima Facie Civil Nature – Bail Granted - The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR alleging theft and criminal intimidation – Held: The dispute pertained to possession of a shop already sub judice in civil courts with pending suits and earlier judicial findings confirming the applicant’s possession under a consent deed – Court found that the FIR reflected a civil dispute being given criminal colour – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–4, 7–9].

Possession of Property – Civil Court Findings – No Prima Facie Criminal Offence – Bail Allowed - Applicant relied on findings in RCS No. 27/2022 where the Civil Court had observed that the shop was in his possession under a registered agreement and consent deed – Held: The allegations of theft cannot prima facie sustain when possession of the accused is recognised by court orders – Ingredients of criminal offences under BNS not attracted at this stage – Custodial interrogation not warranted [Paras 4, 7–9].

Criminal Antecedents – Must be Judged in Context – Clean Acquittal and Bail Orders Considered – Not a Bar to Bail - The prosecution cited four prior FIRs – Held: The Court considered the applicant’s acquittal in one case and bail orders in another, affirming that antecedents must be assessed case-wise and are not a bar to anticipatory bail where a prima facie case is made out [Para 8].

Recovery – Partial Recovery Made – Bail Not Denied for Remaining Property - Of the ₹27 lakh worth items alleged stolen, ₹15 lakh had already been recovered – Held: Partial recovery supported the applicant’s claim that theft allegations were exaggerated in a civil dispute context – No need for custodial interrogation solely for recovery purposes [Para 9].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – Anticipatory Bail Application Allowed - Applicant directed to be released on furnishing bond, with directions to cooperate with investigation, attend police station weekly, and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses – Bail granted in view of prima facie civil nature of the dispute and pending litigation [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law - Probation – Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act – Sentence Modified – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment – Petitioner already underwent 1 month and 26 days of sentence – High Court while upholding the conviction granted benefit of probation for good conduct – Held: In view of no criminal antecedents and short sentence, release on probation appropriate under Sections 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Paras 1–2, 10–11].

Sentencing – Principles of Reformative Justice – Emphasis on Rehabilitation – Referring to Som Dutt v. State of HP, (2022) 6 SCC 722 and Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 2 SCC 763 – Court reiterated the growing importance of reformation over punishment – First-time offenders should be provided a chance to reform rather than be exposed to hardened criminals [Paras 6–8].

Probation – Scope and Overriding Effect – Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Supreme Court in Lakhanlal v. State of MP, (2021) 6 SCC 100, held that the provisions of the 1958 Act have overriding effect – Section 360 CrPC applies additionally but not to the exclusion of the Probation of Offenders Act – Trial courts must consider probation where applicable [Paras 8–9].

Conviction and Service Benefits – Effect of Probation – Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Court clarified that conviction and sentence would not act as a bar to petitioner’s retiral or service benefits – Judgment shall not be treated as stigma in employment context [Para 12].

Family Law – Matrimonial Dispute – Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA Act - Section 18, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act - Divorce, Maintenance, and Return of Gold Ornaments – Partial Relief Granted to Both Spouses – The Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce and the wife’s claim for return of gold and maintenance, except for maintenance of the minor child – On appeal, the High Court held that the wife is entitled to recover 15½ sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband and his parents – Divorce granted in favour of the husband on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Future maintenance of ₹10,000/month awarded to the wife until remarriage – Orders of Family Court modified accordingly [Paras 1, 11, 13, 17-18].

Return of Gold Ornaments – Partial Entitlement Proven – Burden Shifted to Husband – Wife alleged entrustment of 40½ sovereigns of gold ornaments to husband and in-laws – Husband admitted possession and claimed return, but failed to substantiate full restitution – Held: Wife entitled to recover 15½ sovereigns or its market value – Family Court erred in disbelieving wife’s consistent narrative based on minor inconsistencies – Order set aside [Paras 6-11].

Divorce – Matrimonial Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce Granted – Husband alleged cruel behaviour by wife, including threats of suicide and violence toward in-laws – Parties separated since 2014 – Reconciliation attempts failed – Held: Evidence proved matrimonial cruelty and irretrievable breakdown – Compelling continued cohabitation would amount to further cruelty – Marriage dissolved [Paras 12-15].

Maintenance – Wife Denied Past Maintenance – Future Maintenance Granted – Child Maintenance Confirmed – Family Court awarded maintenance only to the minor child – High Court upheld denial of past maintenance to wife but awarded future maintenance of ₹10,000/month, considering husband’s earnings and wife's needs – Property of husband made subject to charge for payment – No interference with child maintenance [Paras 16-17].

Appellate Review – Findings of Fact Re-evaluated – Family Court’s Errors in Appreciating Evidence – High Court found that Family Court misappreciated the wife's deposition and failed to account for the husband's partial admission regarding custody of gold – Held: Appellate court may reappreciate evidence where factual findings are perverse or flawed in law [Para 10-11].

Decision :

Mat.Appeal No.672/2017 (by wife) – Partly allowed – Wife entitled to 15½ sovereigns of gold or equivalent market value

Mat.Appeal No.763/2017 (by husband) – Allowed – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce

Mat.Appeal No.671/2017 (by wife) – Partly allowed – Wife granted future maintenance at ₹10,000/month until remarriage, charge created over husband’s immovable properties

Mat.Appeal No.667/2017 (by husband) – Dismissed – Maintenance to minor child confirmed

Civil Law – Section 55 of the T.P. Act - Recovery of Sale Consideration – Sale Agreement vs. Sale Deeds – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff filed suit claiming balance consideration of ₹1.16 crores alleging that only ₹16 lakhs was paid under a sale agreement – Held: Plaintiff cannot rely on earlier agreement to contradict terms of registered sale deeds; as per Section 92 of Evidence Act, oral or documentary evidence varying contents of registered documents is inadmissible – Sale consideration under sale deeds found to be fully paid – No unpaid amount recoverable – Suit and appeal rightly dismissed [Paras 2, 6, 11, 16, 18].

Encumbrances – Interpretation of Contract – Sale Was Free of Liabilities – Plaintiff argued that liabilities were to be cleared by purchaser in addition to agreed price – Held: Sale was intended to be free of encumbrances and liabilities were to be cleared from sale price – Conduct of parties and security given by plaintiff corroborated this understanding – Vendee had no independent liability to clear dues beyond consideration [Paras 13-15].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Bank Transactions and Official Documents Sufficient – Defendants produced proof of payments including bank receipts, tax clearances, and PF dues – Plaintiff admitted major heads of liability – Trial court rightly concluded that total consideration was discharged and no dues remained – Challenge to receipts rejected due to lack of cross-examination or contrary proof [Para 16].

Limitation and Conduct – Delay in Legal Action – Plaintiff executed cancellation deeds in 1993 but never sought to set aside the sale deeds – Suit filed 8 years later – Held: Delay and lack of appropriate relief further weaken plaintiff’s claim – Findings of trial court affirmed [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Suit for recovery of unpaid sale consideration based on pre-sale agreement was legally unsustainable – No dues shown under registered deeds – Appeal found to be without merit and dismissed without costs [Para 18].