Civil Writ - Immigration Law – Deportation – Exit Permit – Mother and minor daughters found living in a cave in Gokarna – Russian Consulate issued Emergency Travel Documents (ETDs) requesting immediate repatriation – Mother explicitly communicated her intent to return to Russia with children – FRRO processing Exit Permits – Held: Action of authorities in facilitating return based on ETDs and mother’s request not arbitrary – Does not amount to forced deportation – No violation of children's rights [Paras 1–4, 6–9, 12–13].

Child Rights – Best Interest Principle – UNCRC – Goa Children Act – Petitioner contended that deportation violates best interests of children and that he had applied for custody – Court noted the unexplained circumstances of mother and children being found in a cave – Russian government actively involved and committed to welfare – Return facilitated through consular cooperation and with mother’s consent – Held: Best interest of children would be served by enabling voluntary return to Russia – Petitioner's objections outweighed by compelling facts [Paras 7–11, 12–13].

Jurisdiction – Scope under Article 226 – Voluntary Repatriation Distinguished from Deportation – Court clarified that issuance of Exit Permits pursuant to ETDs and mother’s request cannot be equated with deportation under law – Repatriation action lies within executive domain and is lawful when done with procedural safeguards and consular coordination – Held: No case for interference under Article 226 [Paras 8–10, 13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Union of India permitted to issue necessary documents to enable mother and children’s return to Russia – No interference warranted.

Civil Law - Stamp Duty – Lease Deed – Article 36(ii) vs. 36(iii) – Lease period held nine years only – Indenture of Lease dated 19.12.2014 provided for initial three-year term with two automatic renewals aggregating to nine years – Clause 3C merely contemplated option for further renewal on fresh mutually agreed terms or right to match third-party offers – No automatic renewal or agreed rent for post-nine-year period – Held: Lease is for nine years, not eighteen – Stamp duty payable under Article 36(ii) only – Demand under Article 36(iii) quashed [Paras 25-31, 35-41, 61].

Renewal Clause – Construction – “With a renewal clause contingent or otherwise” under Article 36(ii)/(iii) applies only where subsequent rent and terms are fixed within same instrument – Where future renewal is left to mutual agreement or contingent on third-party offers, it is merely an agreement to enter into lease, not a present demise – Such renewal cannot be reckoned for stamp duty [Paras 24-29, 45].

Explanation II to Article 36 – Scope – Renewal period is part of present lease only when expressly provided and terms agreed in same deed – Not attracted where post-term renewal is dependent on fresh agreement – Respondents’ reliance on Explanation II rejected [Para 43].

Subsequent Conduct – Fresh Lease Executed – Parties executed fresh lease on 11.12.2023 for five years and paid duty under Article 36(i), duly accepted by authorities – Confirms intent that 2014 lease was for nine years only – Supports petitioner’s case [Para 44].

Precedents – Distinction between Renewal and Extension – Cited authorities, including Union Bank of India v. State of Maharashtra, Lalji Tandon, and Allahabad High Court rulings, reaffirmed that renewal requires a fresh deed, whereas extension continues existing lease – Since 2014 lease envisaged renewal on fresh terms, Article 36(iii) inapplicable [Paras 47-52, 57-58].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Orders dated 10.01.2017 and 20.01.2020 demanding deficit duty of ₹64,75,500/- set aside – Lease covered by Article 36(ii) – Rule made absolute in both petitions – No liability under Article 36(iii) [Paras 62-65].

Criminal Law – Gangsters Act – Proceedings Based on Acquitted Base Case – Applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act based on a solitary FIR in which he was later acquitted – Held: Once the accused is acquitted in the base case forming the foundation of gang chart, continuation of prosecution under the Gangsters Act becomes unsustainable – Gangster proceedings quashed as per ratio in Farhana v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 118 and other High Court precedents [Paras 3, 5-6].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Ruling – Court relied on binding precedent of Farhana (Supreme Court) to hold that exoneration in the primary case bars continued prosecution under the Gangsters Act – Also followed prior rulings of Allahabad High Court in Salim @ Piyaoo, Jai Prakash, and Sartaj cases [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire trial proceedings in Gangsters Act case – Clarified that authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings based on any other future or independent cases [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Application allowed – Charge-sheet dated 10.03.2023, cognizance order dated 05.04.2023, and entire proceedings in Session Case No. 249 of 2023 under Gangsters Act quashed as against applicant – Liberty reserved for authorities to initiate action in future based on other grounds or cases [Paras 6-8].

SC/ST Act – Cognizance – Caste-based Abuse – Public View – Appellants challenged cognizance order under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act – Alleged that caste-based remarks were made inside house and not in public view – Trial court relied on FIR, injury report, restatement of informant and witness statements indicating villagers assembled after hearing alarm – Held: When villagers gathered on hearing alarm and were present at the time of utterance, the abuse qualifies as being made within "public view" – Ingredients of offence under SC/ST Act prima facie made out – No interference warranted [Paras 3, 8, 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance – Application of Judicial Mind – Appellants contended that trial court did not apply judicial mind while taking cognizance – Held: Trial court examined FIR, case diary paras 5, 6, 7, and 31, and found prima facie case – Re-statement of informant corroborated allegations – Application of judicial mind evident – Cognizance order upheld [Paras 6, 13]

Judicial Review – Scope at Cognizance Stage – Defence arguments based on case law (Hitesh Verma, Swaran Singh, Karuppudayar) rejected as distinguishable – Held: At cognizance stage, court only needs to assess prima facie case based on prosecution material – Not required to evaluate defence evidence or potential for conviction – FIR and case diary provide sufficient basis for prima facie case under SC/ST Act [Paras 5, 9, 12]

Marriage – Caste-Based Discrimination – Scheduled Caste Woman Harassed by In-laws – Informant, a Scheduled Caste woman, married into upper-caste family – Allegedly subjected to caste-based abuse and physical assault by in-laws – Trial court found allegations supported by injury report and witness statements – Held: Prima facie case made out for caste-based harassment, physical assault, criminal intimidation and trespass [Paras 3-4, 6-8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 27.03.2023 taking cognizance upheld – No interference warranted – Appeal rejected at admission stage.

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Notice – Service Not Proved – Two post-dated cheques of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs issued by respondent towards repayment of alleged loan – Cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds – Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act – Magistrate convicted accused – Appellate court reversed conviction, holding that service of demand notice was not duly proved – High Court upholds appellate court’s view – Acknowledgement card in one case signed by unidentified minor girl not shown to be family member – In another case, notice sent to incomplete address – Held: Presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act not available where service is not proved – Conviction unsustainable in absence of valid notice [Paras 18–21].

Presumption – Burden on Drawer – Rebuttal – Accused did not enter witness box – However, burden on complainant to prove essential ingredients of Section 138 not discharged – Statutory presumption under Section 27 GC Act arises only if notice is sent to correct address and delivery is probable – Court distinguishes C.C. Alavi Haji and Uttam Ram on facts – Held: Rebuttable presumption of notice receipt not established on flawed evidence [Paras 17–20].

Criminal Procedure – Ingredients of Offence – Section 138 NI Act – Legal requirement of notice and failure to pay within 15 days of receipt are mandatory – Failure to prove receipt of notice fatal to prosecution – Offence under Section 138 not made out [Paras 16, 21].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction order passed by Magistrate set aside by Sessions Court affirmed – Acquittal of Respondent in both cases under Section 138 NI Act upheld.

UAPA – Bail – Prima Facie Accusation Not Made Out – Section 43-D(5) – Appellant arrested for alleged links with banned terrorist organizations and accused of maintaining accounts for drug and arms smuggling operations – Prosecution relied only on co-accused’s disclosure and vague secret information – No recovery made from appellant – No material corroborating disclosure – Held: Accusation not prima facie true – Bail cannot be denied solely based on vague, uncorroborated claims [Paras 14-15].

Right to Speedy Trial – Long Incarceration – Delay in Trial – Appellant in custody for nearly 3 years – Only 3 out of 39 witnesses examined – Trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Long pre-trial custody and delay in proceedings violate Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent continued deprivation of liberty [Paras 16-17].

Constitutional Courts – Power to Grant Bail Despite Statutory Bar – UAPA – Supreme Court jurisprudence in K.A. Najeeb, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen and others reiterated – Held: Constitutional Courts can override statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) if trial is unduly delayed or rights under Article 21 are violated – Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail [Paras 15, 17-21].

Parity – Bail to Similarly Placed Co-Accused – Appellant’s co-accused Lovepreet Singh and Sukhjinder Singh granted regular bail in similar circumstances – Held: Parity a relevant factor in bail decisions – No justification to deny bail to appellant when similarly situated co-accused are on bail [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned bail rejection order set aside – Appellant ordered to be released on regular bail with stringent conditions – Clarification that observations are limited to bail and not on merits [Paras 23-27].

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Quashed – Appeal under Section 14A SC/ST Act – Appellant summoned under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act in a complaint case arising from a failed land transaction – Delay of over six months in lodging complaint – Allegation of rape found not credible and summoning not done for offence under Section 376 – Held: Present prosecution is based on identical facts as prior case and amounts to abuse of process of law – Complaint filed with the intent to pressure refund of earnest money, which is a civil dispute – Summoning order set aside [Paras 16–23].

Abuse of Process – Duplicate Proceedings – Two FIRs on Similar Facts – Earlier prosecution already pending under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act – Both complaints arise from the same transaction and contain nearly identical averments – Second complaint includes new rape allegation not found credible by trial court – Held: Repeated criminal proceedings on same cause of action are impermissible and attract constructive res judicata – Entire proceedings quashed [Paras 9–13, 20–23].

SC/ST Act – Intention to Offend on Caste Grounds – Essential Element – Mere abuse or insult not sufficient – Allegation must show intention to commit offence because of the victim’s caste status – Held: No prima facie case under SC/ST Act made out – Caste-related language insufficient absent clear intent [Paras 6, 10, 20].

Frivolous Litigation – Court’s Duty – High Court emphasized judicial scrutiny when multiple FIRs are filed or vexatious allegations made to settle personal scores – Cited Supreme Court decisions in Mohd. Wajid, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, Bhajan Lal, and Rajiv Thapar to hold that courts must “read between the lines” when allegations appear fabricated [Paras 13–21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Summoning order dated 23.07.2024 set aside – All criminal proceedings against the appellant in Complaint No. 26 of 2023 quashed.

Criminal Law – Bail – Land Dispute – Delay in FIR – Petitioners alleged to have threatened and criminally intimidated complainant over land pooling – Multiple incidents reported with significant delays (up to 68 days) – Held: Delay in filing FIR and complainant’s own criminal antecedents cast doubt on veracity – Bail granted [Paras 5, 14, 15, 19].

Anticipatory Bail – Accused No.2 – Political Vendetta – Petitioner claimed political rivalry as motive for false implication – No recovery from petitioner – Call data record not sufficient at this stage – Held: Custodial interrogation not justified – Pre-arrest bail granted with conditions [Paras 6, 8, 21–22].

Regular Bail – Accused No.1 – Technical Objection Overruled – Bail application filed before formal arrest – Court held liberty must prevail over procedural technicality – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 17, 18, 23].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be ground to deny bail – Petitioners entitled to fair process – Supreme Court’s ruling in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. reiterated [Paras 20, 21].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 9677 and 9967 of 2025 allowed – Bail and pre-arrest bail granted to Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively with stringent conditions – Criminal Petition No. 9669 of 2025 dismissed as infructuous [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Bail – Abetment of Suicide – Charge-sheet filed under Section 306 IPC after initial FIR for murder – Allegations based on last-seen theory and post-mortem injuries – Doctor’s opinion ruled out strangulation – Court held that cause of death was drowning and injuries were simple and ante-mortem – Bail granted considering petitioner’s custodial conduct and lack of evidence indicating direct involvement in suicide or murder [Paras 1, 2, 7, 8].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Injury on neck not indicative of strangulation – Opinion of Professor, FMT, Burla, clarified that injury no.5 was not consistent with ligature mark – Court declined to enter into detailed evaluation at bail stage and reserved such consideration for trial after expert testimony [Paras 7, 8].

Criminal Procedure – Interim Bail – Conduct – Petitioner had availed interim bail and surrendered voluntarily – No misuse of liberty or breach of conditions noted – Held: This weighs in favour of grant of regular bail [Paras 4, 8].

Influence & Witness Tampering – Allegation of petitioner’s father being in influential position rejected for lack of evidence – Petitioner residing in Bhubaneswar and no material shown to indicate threat to witnesses in Sambalpur – Tripod test of bail (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering evidence) satisfied – Safeguards imposed [Paras 8, 10].

Pending De-novo Investigation – Informant’s prayer for re-investigation in CRLMC No. 2665 of 2024 and CRLMP No. 777 of 2023 – Held: Mere pendency of plea for fresh investigation cannot justify denial of bail – Bail not inconsistent with further probe or constitutional guarantee under Article 21 [Paras 4.2, 9].

Bail Principles – Personal Liberty – Court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment – Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is foundational – Petitioner in custody since 31.03.2025 and facing maximum punishment of 10 years under Section 306 IPC – Held: No compelling reason to deny bail [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner directed to furnish bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed regarding passport, cooperation with any future investigation, and attendance before trial court [Para 12].