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.

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 – 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].

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].

Medical Negligence – Failed Sterilization – No Presumption of Liability – Plaintiff underwent sterilization in January 1987 but gave birth to a severely deformed child in December 1987 – Plaintiffs claimed ₹2,40,000 as compensation alleging negligent sterilization – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held there was no evidence of negligence – High Court affirmed findings, holding failure alone does not establish negligence [Paras 1–5, 8–10, 15].

Proof of Negligence – Bolam Test – Burden on Plaintiff – Relying on Shiv Ram v. State of Punjab and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Court held that mere birth of a child post-sterilization does not prove negligence – Failure rate of 2–4 per 1000 cases acknowledged in medical literature – Plaintiff must plead and prove specific negligence, which was absent here [Paras 11–12].

Medical Termination – No Claim if Pregnancy Continued by Choice – Court held that once pregnancy occurs despite sterilization, the option of termination is available under the MTP Act – If a couple voluntarily continues pregnancy, the child cannot later be termed “unwanted” to claim compensation [Para 12.3].

Distinction in Precedents – Decisions Contrary to Shiv Ram Not Applicable – Judgments such as Smt. Shobha v. GNCT Delhi and Tmt. Dhanam v. State of Tamil Nadu held not binding, as they either pre-date or do not consider Shiv Ram – Consistent line of authority affirms no liability without proven negligence [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings upheld – No evidence of negligence – No entitlement to compensation in absence of breach of duty by surgeon [Para 16].

Civil Law - Next Friend – Representation of Deity – Application under Section 151 CPC by Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 seeking removal of next friend of Plaintiff No. 1, a deity (Shri Krishna Lala Virajman) – Allegations of misconduct, conflicting interests, parallel suits and misuse of position by current next friend – Held: Under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC, removal of next friend can be permitted only if adverse interest or failure of duty is established – Filing of separate suits or impleadment applications, even if undesirable, does not by itself prove adverse interest or misconduct – Application for deletion rejected as no sufficient cause made out [Paras 17–18].

Civil Procedure – Next Friend – Legal Framework – Order 32 of CPC governs representation of minors and deities through next friends – Deity being perpetual minor must be represented consistently – Substitution of next friend is a drastic action and permissible only on limited grounds – Plaintiffs failed to prove that existing next friend’s acts were against the deity’s interest or connected to adverse party [Paras 15–17].

Religious Endowments – Multiple Suits – Filing of parallel suits concerning same religious property – Not per se illegal, but judicial discipline discourages multiplicity – Existence of parallel proceedings not adequate ground to disturb validly instituted representation of a deity – Continuity of representation necessary to protect proprietary and spiritual interests of juristic deity [Paras 17–18].

Misconduct – False Statements – Allegations against next friend of misrepresentation, false affidavits, and manipulation of proceedings – Court finds such allegations insufficient and unsupported by conclusive evidence – Judicial caution exercised in interfering with existing representation of deity [Paras 6–7, 18].

Decision:

Application under Section 151 CPC dismissed – No sufficient cause made out for removal of current next friend – Suit to proceed with current array of parties.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Conditional Deposit for Appeal – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act challenged in appeal – Appellate Court directed deposit of 30% compensation amount as condition for hearing – Petitioners alleged they were not granted opportunity to oppose application under Section 148 and cited exceptional circumstances including lack of legal debt – Held: No procedural irregularity shown – Petitioners were heard – No exceptional circumstance proved to justify waiver of statutory deposit – Conditional direction under Section 148 valid – Norm is to require deposit, waiver is exception requiring recorded reasons [Paras 1, 6–12]

Criminal Procedure – Section 91 CrPC – Rejection of Defence Application – Petitioners’ application under Section 91 CrPC for production of Del Credere agency agreement was rejected by Trial Court as not necessary – Held: Trial Court's discretion valid – Petitioners had opportunity to raise all defences at trial – No miscarriage of justice shown [Paras 2, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Section 148 NI Act – Harmonisation of Supreme Court Rulings – Appellate Court rightly relied on Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi – Petitioners failed to establish any exceptional ground under later rulings in Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises to warrant waiver of deposit – Held: No conflict in authorities – Later judgments reiterate principle that reasons must be recorded for waiver – Not automatic [Paras 10–12]

Relief – Modification of Impugned Order – Court upheld requirement of deposit but granted extended time of 60 days for compliance – Directed Appellate Court to proceed with appeal on merits if deposit made – No interference otherwise warranted [Paras 15–17]

Decision:

Revisional application dismissed – Order requiring 30% deposit upheld – Time to deposit extended by 60 days – Appeal to proceed on merits if condition met.

NDPS Act – Conviction under Sections 17(c)/21(c) – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellants convicted for possession of commercial quantity of Morphine and Opium – Trial Court imposed 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs. 2 lakhs fine – High Court finds total compliance of Sections 42(1), 42(2), 50, and 52A NDPS Act – No evidence of manipulation or procedural illegality – However, no specific evidence of aggravating factors under Section 32B – High Court modifies sentence to 12 years imprisonment while maintaining fine [Paras 74–103]

Search and Seizure – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Information received by PW-3 reduced to writing and forwarded to PW-2 (Superintendent) – PW-2 forwarded it to Zonal Director (PW-6) – Office order issued constituting team for seizure – Held: Provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) duly complied with – Defence failed to rebut prosecution evidence on this aspect [Paras 74–76]

Independent Witnesses – Search and Seizure in presence of independent witnesses – Two locals joined during operation, but not examined at trial due to non-traceability – High Court holds compliance with Section 100 CrPC established – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal where prosecution evidence is otherwise credible [Para 77]

Body Search – Compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act – Notice served to all four accused before search – Written consent obtained – Accused declined to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Recovery made from bags held by accused, not from their person – Held: Full compliance with Section 50 established – Even otherwise, not mandatory when recovery not from body [Paras 78–81]

Recovery and Evidence Handling – Contraband weighed and sampled on spot – Samples sealed with NCB seal – Deposited in godown and produced in Court – Godown receipts issued and compliance reports filed – FSL report confirms Opium and Morphine with high morphine content – Defence claim of discrepancy in description (powder vs pasty) held immaterial – No tampering or substitution possible as packets opened in Court were sealed [Paras 82–84, 88–89]

Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Panchnama/inventory prepared but not certified by Magistrate – Held: Certification under Section 52A(2) not mandatory unless disposal is sought – Contraband produced in Court during trial in sealed condition – Substantial compliance with Section 52A established – No prejudice to defence [Para 85]

Alteration of Charges – Trial initially proceeded under Section 21(c)/29 NDPS Act – Charge under Section 17(c) added at judgment stage – Court finds accused were aware of both Opium and Morphine recovery – Cross-examined prosecution witnesses accordingly – No prejudice caused – Addition of charge valid under Section 216 CrPC [Para 90]

Recording under Section 313 CrPC – Initial answers to some questions not recorded – Court re-recorded statements with same questions and answers – Accused availed right to adduce defence evidence (DW-1 and DW-2) – Held: No prejudice caused by re-recording [Para 91]

Defence Witnesses – DW-1 and DW-2 examined to disprove arrest of Sohrab Khan from the scene – Court finds contradictions in timing of hotel checkout – DW-1 failed to corroborate presence credibly – DW-2’s hotel documents found incomplete and unconvincing – Defence evidence rejected [Para 92–93]

Sentencing – Maximum punishment of 20 years imposed by Trial Court – Appellants had no prior convictions – No factors under Section 32B NDPS Act present – High Court reduces sentence to 12 years RI while retaining fine – Held: Courts may consider “such factors as it may deem fit” including quantity recovered, but lack of aggravating factors justifies reduction [Paras 94–103]

Decision: Conviction under Sections 17(c)/21(c) NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced from 20 years to 12 years Rigorous Imprisonment – Fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- maintained – Default sentence of 1 year RI affirmed – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Para 104]