Bail under NDPS Act – Recovery Marginally Exceeding Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted – The petitioner was found with 55 kg poppy husk and 500 grams opium – The Court observed that the recovery was marginally over the commercial quantity limit – Petitioner was in custody for 1 year and 5 days – Only 2 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take a long time – Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration and pending trial [Paras 3-4].

Clean Antecedents – No Previous Conviction or Criminal History – The petitioner had no past criminal record and was not involved in any other case – The Court considered clean antecedents as a significant factor favoring bail – Bail cannot be mechanically denied solely due to seriousness of offence without considering individual circumstances [Paras 3-4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Delay in Trial Considered – The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Hussainara Khatoon, Dataram Singh, and Baljinder Singh alias Rock cases to hold that bail is the rule and detention an exception – Bail is justified where there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of trial [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – No opinion expressed on merits of the case [Para 5].
 

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Office of Advocate in Commercial Premises – Decree Upheld - Held: An Advocate's office in a commercial building attracts Section 12(1)(f) for eviction on ground of bona fide need for non-residential use – Office run from second floor of residential building with access difficulties for litigants not reasonably suitable – Landlord entitled to evict for establishing proper office [Paras 13-19].

Alternative Accommodation – Suitability Question of Fact – Court Cannot Impose Standard on Landlord - Held: It is not for the tenant or Court to dictate suitability of existing space – Landlord is best judge of his bona fide requirement – The office on second floor was unsuitable due to accessibility issues for old and infirm litigants [Paras 17-20].

Profession v. Business – Office of Advocate Covered Under Non-Residential Use - Although profession is not commerce, Advocate's office situated in commercial building is treated as non-residential use within meaning of Section 12(1)(f) – Distinction between residential office and office in commercial area recognized [Paras 11-14].

Pleadings – Material Facts Sufficient – Specific Pleadings Regarding Non-Availability of Suitable Accommodation Found - Petitioner had clearly pleaded lack of suitable alternative accommodation and inability to run office properly – Contentions regarding lack of formal plea rejected [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Approach – Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord’s Needs – Well Settled Principle - Held: Courts cannot insist how landlord should utilize property or where he should run office – It is open to landlord to choose suitable accommodation for professional purposes [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Eviction Decree Under Section 12(1)(f) Affirmed - Appellant directed to vacate premises as per eviction decree confirmed by Appellate and Trial Courts [Paras 22-23].
 

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Validity of Agreement and Compliance by Vendees – Agreements Upheld – Both agreements to sell dated 28.04.1984 and 10.06.1985 found to be valid and unrevoked – Plaintiffs proved payment of earnest money and continued possession – Held: Trial court rightly found that plaintiffs fulfilled their contractual obligations while the vendor failed to obtain income tax clearance and complete partition formalities [Paras 7, 48-52]. 
 
Readiness and Willingness – Deposition by Power of Attorney – Admissible – Plaintiffs' attorney, who was also a close family member (husband/father), was held competent to depose – Court held that Section 120 of the Evidence Act allows a spouse to testify for another, and his involvement in the transaction from inception was well documented – Held: No adverse inference can be drawn against plaintiffs for non-appearance when their attorney was adequately involved and competent [Paras 29-47]. 
 
Limitation – No Fixed Date for Sale Execution – Cause of Action Dependent on Vendor’s Acts – Since execution of sale deed was conditional upon vendor obtaining clearance certificate and completing partition entries, limitation would begin only upon refusal or non-compliance – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 53-55]. 
 
Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 CPC – No Bar to Present Suit – Prior Suits Not Decided on Merits – Two previous suits dismissed for being premature or nonmaintainable—third suit withdrawn—Held: Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 does not bar subsequent suit under Order VII Rule 13 – Suit for specific performance maintainable [Paras 13-28]. 
 
Possession – Plaintiffs Shown to be in Physical Possession – Dispute Over Malkana Possession Baseless – Agreement dated 28.04.1984 confirmed possession with plaintiffs, which continued post-partition – Held: Possession never legally transferred to defendant No.2, who is not a bona fide purchaser and acted with notice of earlier agreement – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 56-61]. 
 
Appeal Against Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – High Court reiterated limits on second appellate jurisdiction – Held: No perversity or misreading of evidence in judgments of lower courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 62-63]. 
 

Criminal Law – FEMA Act - Compounding of Offence – Maintainability after Adjudication – Compounding Application Rejected – Petitioner sought compounding of offence under FEMA after conclusion of adjudication and imposition of penalty – Held: Once adjudication concludes, application for compounding is impermissible – The intent of compounding is to avoid adjudication, not override it post-facto – No provision under the Act or Rules allows compounding after adjudication – Petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 11 rejected [Paras 5-6, 10-13, 23-25, 3335]. 
 
Jurisdiction of RBI – Limitation on Power to Compound – No Power to Undo Adjudication – RBI lacks jurisdiction to entertain compounding after final adjudication order – Accepting such an interpretation would create uncertainty and indefinite proceedings – The RBI’s Master Directions, Compounding Rules, and Circulars clearly limit compounding to preadjudication stages – No contrary precedent cited by petitioner – The Court upholds RBI’s rejection of application [Paras 21, 30-34]. 
 
Legislative Intent – Adjudication and Compounding are Mutually Exclusive – Remedy Exhausted – Allowing compounding post-adjudication would render the adjudication nugatory and leave penalty provisions toothless – Such a scenario not contemplated by FEMA – The Court emphasized that compounding must precede or coincide with the adjudication, not follow its conclusion [Paras 31-35]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Compounding Application Rejected Validly – The Court found no reason to interfere with the RBI’s decision – Writ petition dismissed – Interim relief vacated – No costs awarded [Paras 36-39]. 
 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 42 – Mandatory Procedural Requirement – Non-Compliance Vitiates Trial – Although the prosecution claimed a chance recovery of contraband, the circumstances and memos on record indicated prior information—Held: Since there was no compliance with Section 42 i.e., no record of information or intimation to superior officers, the prosecution’s case was vitiated [Paras 12-22]. 
 
NDPS Act – Section 50 Compliance – Right to be Searched before 
Magistrate/Gazetted Officer – Violation Held Fatal – Despite the accused being given an option to be searched by the police, there was no clear communication of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer—Held: Noncompliance of mandatory requirements under Section 50 renders the search and recovery illegal and inadmissible [Paras 23-27]. 
 
Interpretation of NDPS Provisions – Burden on Prosecution – Prosecution Failed to Establish Due Compliance – The prosecution failed to demonstrate strict compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act—Total non-compliance held to be impermissible as per settled law [Paras 1921, 26-27]. 
 
Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Findings Not Perverse – The acquittal by the learned Special Judge was held reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence—Held: No ground to interfere with the order of acquittal—Appeal dismissed [Paras 28-29]. 
 

NDPS Act – Anticipatory Bail – Section 37 Rigours – Bail Denied - The petitioner was implicated in a case involving trans-border drug smuggling through drones and was named in a co-accused's disclosure statement – Investigation revealed communication through encrypted WhatsApp calls and exchange of coordinates for drone deliveries of heroin – Held: The petitioner failed to meet the twin conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act; custodial interrogation required to unearth deeper drug nexus – Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 3, 7-10].

Drug Trafficking – Cross-Border Smuggling via Drones – Prima Facie Involvement – Petitioner’s Location and Communication Corroborated - The petitioner was found to be in contact with main accused and present at key locations identified for heroin drops via drones from Pakistan – WhatsApp call logs and mobile location data supported prosecution’s claim – Petitioner admitted to association but denied involvement; court held his role requires custodial inquiry [Paras 3, 7].

Presumption under Section 37 – Commercial Quantity – Burden on Accused to Prove Innocence – The Court reiterated settled legal principles that Section 37 places a reverse burden on the accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity – Bail can only be granted if court believes the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend – Petitioner failed to meet either criterion [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – No Case Made Out Under Section 438 CrPC - The Court found no reasonable ground to believe the petitioner was innocent – Citing prior rulings, it declined to interfere in the ongoing investigation – Interim protection withdrawn; petition dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Prima Facie Allegations – Petition to Quash FIR Dismissed – The petitioner company had awarded a subcontract under a major irrigation project to a contractor who further sublet to the complainant – Despite knowledge and involvement, petitioners denied privity of contract – Held: Documents show suppression of facts and knowledge of work done by complainant – Prima facie case made out under Sections 406 and 420 IPC [Paras 3-28].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petition Liable to be Dismissed – Petitioners falsely claimed ignorance of sub-contract and execution of work – Letter and bank guarantees demonstrated active involvement – Held: Suppression of facts disqualifies petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC – Petition dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 20-28].

Criminal Trespass and Intimidation – Allegations Specific and Supported – Offence Under Sections 447 and 506 IPC – Held: Specific incident of trespass, abuse and use of machinery to damage site attributed to petitioner’s staff – Allegations sufficient for investigation and possible charges [Paras 34-35].

Civil Dispute vs Criminal Liability – Coexistence Permissible – Criminal Intent Alleged – Petitioners argued matter was civil in nature – Held: Civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings where fraud, deception or criminal conspiracy alleged – FIR not liable to be quashed at threshold [Paras 17-19, 36-38].

Investigation Not to Be Scuttled – FIR Discloses Cognizable Offence – High Court Should Not Interfere – Held: Applying principles from Neeharika Infrastructure, Tulsi Ram and Somjeet Mallick, investigation should be allowed to proceed where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences – Interim relief was improperly obtained via suppression – Petition dismissed [Paras 37-42].

Matrimonial Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Interest on Maintenance – Mandatory under Precedent – Review Allowed - The applicants sought review of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 on the ground that the Court failed to apply the binding precedent of Prakash vs. Vithabai, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1487, which mandates award of interest on arrears of maintenance – The Court held that failure to apply the said binding precedent amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record – The bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under Section 125 CrPC as per Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172 – Review allowed and interest @9% per annum awarded on maintenance from 07.06.2024 till realization [Paras 5-28].

Review – Error Apparent on Record – Non-consideration of Binding Precedent – The Court held that overlooking binding judgments, including Prakash (supra), amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and warrants review, particularly in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC which are quasi-civil in nature [Paras 17-24].

Maintainability – Review in Maintenance Proceedings – Embargo under Section 362 CrPC Relaxed – The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC does not bar review in Section 125 CrPC proceedings owing to their social welfare character – Reference made to Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) and Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 [Paras 15-24].

Decision – Review Allowed – Interest Granted – The Court reviewed the judgment dated 29.11.2024 and directed Respondent No.1 to pay interest @9% per annum on the maintenance amount awarded from 07.06.2024 till the date of realization – Rest of the judgment remained unaltered [Paras 27-28].

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion – Quantifiable Data – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioners challenged reservation policy dated 07.10.2023 alleging non-compliance with requirements under Article 16(4A) – Held: Haryana Government had undertaken a detailed cadre-wise and group-wise study demonstrating inadequacy of SC representation – State complied with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court guidelines in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh – Reservation upheld [Paras 10.1-10.5, 12].

Delegation of Power – Promotion Criteria – No Unlawful Delegation Found – Allegation that power under Article 16(4A) was delegated to Departmental Promotion Committees – Rejected – Held: Instructions merely implemented a State policy already backed by quantified data; decision-making authority not abdicated [Paras 6, 10.5].

Creamy Layer Exclusion – Not Applicable to SCs in Promotion – Petitioners argued for application of creamy layer exclusion to SC candidates – Rejected – Held: As per binding precedents including Jarnail Singh and B.K. Pavitra, creamy layer concept not applicable to SCs in the context of promotional reservations [Paras 4.2, 6].

Administrative Efficiency – Article 335 Compliance – Promotion Conditional on Eligibility – Petitioners contended that promotion policy violates Article 335 – Held: Instructions mandated only eligible SC candidates for promotion and maintained performance-based probation – Efficiency of administration safeguarded [Paras 7, 11].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Instructions Upheld – Court held that the State of Haryana fulfilled constitutional preconditions for granting reservation in promotions – No constitutional infirmity found – Petitions dismissed, validating the 07.10.2023 instructions [Paras 10-13].