Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 14A of SC/ST Act, 1989 – Maintainability – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for offenses under IPC and SC/ST Act – Respondent argued bar under Sections 18 and 18A of SC/ST Act on anticipatory bail – High Court held that where allegations prima facie disclose offenses under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable due to the jurisdictional bar under Section 14A [Paras 1, 58, 60].

Jurisdiction – High Court Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 14A of SC/ST Act, 1989 – Petitioners argued High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS – High Court emphasized that anticipatory and regular bail petitions must first be filed before Special Courts – Appellate jurisdiction of High Court preserved under Section 14A [Paras 58-59].

Investigation Powers – Addition of Penal Provisions During Investigation – Legality – Petitioners challenged addition of SC/ST Act sections during investigation – High Court held that investigating agencies are empowered to add appropriate provisions based on evidence – Initial absence of such sections does not invalidate later inclusion [Paras 60-61].

Allegations – Political Vendetta and Fabrication – Petitioners alleged case was politically motivated – High Court refrained from examining merits of evidence, as appropriate forums are available to address such claims – Observed delays in FIR registration are not automatically fatal [Paras 59, 60].

Precedent on SC/ST Act and Anticipatory Bail – High Court relied on rulings affirming jurisdictional bar for anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act unless prima facie case is absent – Referred cases include Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, Nakka Nagireddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and K.M. Basheer v. Rajani K.T. [Paras 60-61].

Decision: All Criminal Petitions dismissed as not maintainable under the jurisdictional bar of Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Petitioners at liberty to move appropriate applications before Special Courts. Observations in this order confined to these petitions and do not affect future proceedings.
 

Criminal Law – Rape on the False Promise of Marriage – Prima Facie Evidence – Discharge Application Dismissed – Accused allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim repeatedly on the false promise of marriage, persuaded her to send explicit photographs, and later retracted the promise – Special Court held that consent, if any, was vitiated under Section 90 IPC, as it was obtained on the basis of a false promise – Supreme Court precedents reiterated: Consent under false pretenses is not valid consent – Held: Sufficient prima facie evidence existed to proceed with trial under Sections 376(2)(n) and (f) IPC – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 3, 6, 8, 9].

Scope of Discharge – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Limited to Prosecution Records – Accused contended that a complaint by the victim to the Yuvajana Commission, admitting consensual relations, was ignored by the Special Court – High Court held: At the discharge stage, the court must restrict itself to the materials placed by the prosecution and cannot consider evidence produced by the accused – Non-consideration of the document justified – Special Court’s dismissal of discharge application upheld [Paras 6, 10, 11].

Principles of Framing Charges – Prima Facie Case – Judicial Examination at Discharge Stage – High Court reiterated: At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the court must evaluate whether materials placed on record disclose a prima facie case, without delving into the probative value of evidence – Even strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed to trial – Held: The Special Court applied the correct legal principles and rightly concluded that the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case to frame charges [Paras 7, 8].

Promise of Marriage – Vitiation of Consent – Section 90 IPC – Victim’s consent was allegedly obtained under a false promise of marriage, which the accused later retracted – High Court held: Consent obtained by deception regarding marriage is vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Prima facie evidence sufficient to establish that sexual intercourse was non-consensual under law – Application for discharge was rightly rejected [Paras 3, 8].

Judicial Precedent – Reaffirmation of Discharge Principles – Relying on Sheoroj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 476, and Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala, (2024 SCC OnLine KER 3564), High Court reiterated: At the discharge stage, the court must presume the prosecution’s materials to be true and evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial – Special Court’s decision consistent with settled legal principles [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – High Court upheld the Special Court’s order refusing discharge of the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Special Court directed to proceed with the trial [Paras 12–13].
 

Motor Accident Claims – Applicability of Limitation Period Under Amended Section 166(3) – Prospective Effect – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, arguing that it was barred by the six-month limitation period introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Held: The six-month limitation under Section 166(3), effective from 01.04.2022, applies prospectively – Claims relating to accidents occurring prior to this date are governed by the unamended law, which imposed no limitation period – Petition dismissed, affirming that benevolent legislation should be liberally interpreted in favor of claimants [Paras 6.1-7.1].

Legislative Intent – Benevolent Interpretation of MV Act – Compensation to Victims – The legislative intent behind Section 166 of the MV Act is to provide a mechanism for victims of road accidents to claim compensation – Courts must prioritize the purpose of the enactment over technical objections – Amendment introducing limitation was prospective and does not extinguish pre-existing rights [Para 7.1].

Claims Process – Detailed Accident Report (DAR) as Claim Petition – Section 166(4) – Emphasized the role of investigating authorities under Sections 159 and 166(4) of the amended MV Act – Report filed by police authorities, including the Detailed Accident Report, is deemed sufficient to initiate claims proceedings, reducing procedural burdens on victims [Para 6.8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order rejecting the objection to maintainability was dismissed – Held: The claim petition was correctly entertained, as the accident occurred before the introduction of Section 166(3), MV Act – No costs awarded [Paras 8-9].
 

Bail in UAPA Cases – Prima Facie Evidence – Under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the court must determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true – Held: The material collected by the NIA, including WhatsApp group activity, videos, pamphlets, and digital records, establishes a prima facie case against the appellant [Paras 9-22].

Role of Appellant – Leadership and Radicalization – The appellant allegedly led a group promoting the ideology of ISIS, created propaganda materials, and conspired to attack the Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur – Held: The appellant played a central role in organizing and motivating co-accused, as evidenced by recovered digital records, incriminating literature, and witness statements [Paras 20-22].

Stringent Bail Provisions – Section 43-D(5) of UAPA – The statutory restrictions on granting bail under UAPA require the court to reject bail if prima facie evidence exists – Held: The appellant’s active involvement in planned terrorist acts and his leadership role in promoting ISIS ideology disqualify him from bail at this stage [Paras 16-18, 22].

Constitutional Rights vs. National Security – While prolonged incarceration may violate Article 21 of the Constitution, in this case, the trial is proceeding expeditiously, and the gravity of the charges outweighs concerns of delay – Held: The appellant’s detention is justified considering the seriousness of the charges [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The bail application was rightly rejected by the trial court, and the appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to proceed without being influenced by observations made during the bail proceedings [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Law – Dowry - Quashment of Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Established – Petition Dismissed - The petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC were dismissed as prima facie evidence supported the allegations of cruelty under Section 498A IPC and misappropriation under Section 420 IPC. The court held that these were matters to be examined during the trial. [Paras 13-14].

Legality of Marriage – Relevant for Trial – Evidence Required - The court noted that the legality of the alleged second marriage and its effect on the prosecution's case under Section 498A IPC were matters of evidence. Whether the complainant's prior marriage was legally dissolved before the second marriage is an issue to be determined during trial. [Paras 7, 14].

Joint Trial – Directed for Connected Cases - Considering the connection between the cases (Crime No. 105/2019 and Crime No. 175/2019), the court directed the trial court to conduct a joint trial for both matters for effective adjudication. [Para 15].

No Quashment for Cheating Allegations – Intent to Cheat Requires Trial Scrutiny - The allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC, involving misappropriation of gold and money, were held to be issues of fact requiring trial. The court declined to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the need for detailed examination of evidence. [Para 12].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed - Both petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioners to raise their contentions during the trial. The interim orders were vacated, and the trial court was directed to ensure compliance. [Paras 15-16].
 

Civil Law - Unstamped and Unregistered Agreement – Admissibility for Injunction – Section 35, Indian Stamp Act – Temporary Injunction Denied – The appellate court rightly set aside the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction based on an unstamped and unregistered agreement to sell – Such agreements are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, even for collateral purposes – Held: Relief cannot be granted based on an inadmissible document [Paras 8-9].

Stamp Duty – Condition Precedent for Admissibility – Section 35, Indian Stamp Act – Injunction Application Rejected – Payment of requisite stamp duty on an instrument is mandatory for its admissibility in evidence – A trial court cannot grant an injunction based on an unstamped and unregistered document – Held: Rejection of the injunction application is proper [Paras 9-11].

Principles for Grant of Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience – Not Satisfied – The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case due to the inadmissibility of the agreement to sell – Balance of convenience and irreparable injury cannot be determined without a valid document – Held: The appellate court’s order does not suffer from any illegality [Para 12].

Decision: Petition dismissed; appellate court’s decision upheld.
 

Taxation Law - GST Act - Seizure of Goods – Provisional Release Pending Adjudication – Allowed - The petitioner challenged the seizure of goods and denial of provisional release during proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act. The Court held that Section 130 does not bar interim release, and provisional release is permissible under Section 67(6) upon execution of a bond and payment of applicable penalties. [Paras 12-15].

Confiscation Proceedings – Protection of Revenue Interests – No Prejudice in Release - The Court observed that the intent of the GST Act is to secure the value of goods liable for confiscation rather than their physical possession. Provisional release pending adjudication does not prejudice revenue interests, as recovery options remain intact. [Para 14].

Interim Relief for Business Continuity – Fundamental Rights Considered - The petitioner demonstrated that continued seizure of goods without valid reasons would cause irreparable harm to business and infringe on the fundamental right to property under Article 14. The Court set aside the rejection of the provisional release request. [Paras 5, 15].

Show Cause Notice – Adjudication Proceedings to Continue - The Court declined to quash the show cause notice under Section 130, stating that such issues must be resolved during adjudication. The legality of the seizure order was left open for determination. [Paras 13, 15].

Decision – Provisional Release Ordered with Conditions - The Court directed the respondents to release the seized goods upon the petitioner depositing the penalty and fine as quantified in the show cause notice, along with executing a bond for the value of the goods. [Para 15].

Civil Law - Trust Dispute – Removal of Trustees – Absence and Misconduct – Injunction Sustained - Appellants removed as trustees for non-attendance and alleged criminal acts – Court found prima facie justification for removal based on trust deed clauses – Held: Injunction warranted to prevent further harm to trust and its educational institutions [Paras 4, 20, 30-31].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Office Shifted by Resolution – Trial Court Jurisdiction Valid - Though original trust deed located trust in Birbhum, Board resolved in 2014 to operate from Kolkata – Key meetings, including removal, held in Kolkata – Held: Trial court rightly assumed jurisdiction [Paras 13, 16-17].

Notice of Meetings – Disputed Service – Factual Issue for Trial - Appellants denied receiving notice of meetings used to justify removal – Court held this issue requires trial and cannot be conclusively decided at injunction stage [Paras 5, 18, 27].

Trust Fund Mismanagement – Prima Facie Case of Misappropriation – Public Interest Considered - Allegations of forged resolutions, hijacking official email, and misuse of bank accounts found in meeting records and FIR – Court upheld injunction to protect students’ interests and trust assets [Paras 20-22, 25, 31].

Trust Deed Clauses – Removal for Non-Attendance and Detriment – Proper Procedure Followed - Trust deed allowed removal for three consecutive absences or detrimental conduct by two-thirds majority – Court found these requirements satisfied prima facie [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Injunction Affirmed - Injunction restraining appellants from trust administration and operating bank accounts upheld – Appeal and connected application dismissed [Paras 32-34].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – Detention Order Quashed – The detaining authority failed to establish a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the alleged activities of the detenue – Subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to lack of material evidence and application of mind – Decision: Detention quashed, detenue released [Paras 13, 20, 24].

Grounds of Detention – Vagueness and Ambiguity – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – Held: Grounds of detention lacked specificity, rendering them vague and irrelevant – Non-disclosure of material relied upon by the authority violated the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Decision: Detention order set aside [Paras 19, 21-23].

Health Grounds – Preventive Detention and Medical Needs – Constitutional Safeguards Ignored – The detenue’s health condition, including a chronic medical ailment, was overlooked by the detaining authority – Failure to consider medical grounds amounted to a constitutional violation – Decision: Detention order quashed; detenue released [Paras 7, 23].

Role of Advisory Board – Duty to Conduct Independent Review – Held: The Advisory Board failed to provide an independent review of the detention order, reducing its role to a mere formality – Such actions violate constitutional protections – Decision: Detention quashed [Paras 18, 20].

Relevant Material – Non-Disclosure – Constitutional Violation – Non-supply of documents relied upon by the detaining authority invalidated the detenue’s opportunity for an effective representation – Held: Failure to supply essential material violated Article 22(5) – Decision: Detention quashed; immediate release ordered [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The detention order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was quashed on grounds of non-application of mind, vagueness in allegations, and failure to adhere to constitutional safeguards. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenue unless required in any other case.