Section 21(c), 23(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, 54 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Bail – Section 37 – Rejection – Applicant alleged to be part of international drug trafficking syndicate – Co-accused arrested with 1970 grams of cocaine – Though confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible, prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including WhatsApp chats, forensic analysis, call logs (117 calls), and bank transactions – Applicant linked to operations via logistical support, communication with foreign national ‘Mr. Morris’, and financial trail through wife’s bank account – Held: Prima facie material establishes Applicant’s role in smuggling network – Reasonable grounds to believe Applicant is not guilty not made out – Long incarceration alone not a ground for bail in commercial quantity offences – Section 37 bar not overcome [Paras 8–12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence to deny relief under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Observations to not affect merits at trial [Paras 13–14].

Family Law – DNA Testing – Rejection of Application – Petitioner sought direction for DNA test of minor child in maintenance proceedings to disprove paternity – Application filed in 2025, 12 years after divorce and 3 years after filing of maintenance case – No evidence of non-access during marriage – No prima facie case made out – Held: Presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam not rebutted – Unexplained delay and lack of evidence fatal to claim – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 25–29, 32–34, 38–39]

Right to Privacy – Invasion through Scientific Tests – DNA testing, though a scientific tool, cannot be ordered casually – Infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution – Must be balanced against dignity and identity of the child – Held: DNA test cannot be permitted as a tool to establish infidelity or harass the wife – Child’s right to identity prevails – No infringement of privacy justified in absence of strong case [Paras 18–22, 31, 36–37]

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Application for DNA test filed belatedly to delay proceedings and defame the respondent – Held: Conduct of petitioner reflects mala fide intent – Court cannot allow scientific evidence to be misused for harassment – DNA testing cannot be used as shortcut to escape maintenance liability or humiliate former spouse [Paras 33, 34, 38]

Scientific Evidence – Limits and Admissibility – DNA evidence cannot override statutory presumption without strong rebuttal – Courts must be cautious of psychological and social consequences – Voluntary consent and judicial scrutiny are essential – Held: Trial Court correctly declined request for DNA test after examining constitutional and legal safeguards [Paras 16–17, 30, 35]

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Trial Court’s order upheld – No merit in petition seeking DNA test – Connected miscellaneous petition also dismissed.

Criminal Law – POCSO – Acquittal – Conviction of appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act based solely on testimony of victim – High Court finds victim admitted to being tutored by her mother and others – Multiple contradictions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. – Independent witnesses (PW4, PW5, PW9) did not support prosecution case – Medical report showing injury on appellant never produced despite victim claiming to have bitten him – Held: Conviction on uncorroborated, doubtful testimony unsafe [Paras 9–10, 14, 33–34, 45–47, 56–60].

Evidence – Contradictory Testimonies – PW2 (grandfather), PW6 (grandmother), and PW8 (mother) gave inconsistent accounts of who first received the victim’s disclosure – PW2 and PW3 (Panchayat member) gave irreconcilable timelines regarding events after the incident – Held: Contradictions in foundational facts cast doubt on prosecution’s credibility [Paras 35–36, 41–44, 48–53].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR – FIR lodged after more than 24 hours – No explanation provided – Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate – Combined with attempts at local settlement, suggests afterthought – Held: Unexplained delay undermines spontaneity of FIR and weakens prosecution case [Paras 12–13, 36–39, 63–64].

Evidence Act – Adverse Inference – Prosecution withheld medical report of appellant despite victim alleging physical struggle – Held: Withholding best available evidence invites adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act – Prosecution case further weakened [Paras 58–60].

Child Witness – Coaching – Victim admitted she was coached by her mother and relatives before giving deposition – Tutored testimony found unreliable and unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration – Held: Conviction cannot rest on coached statement [Paras 9–10, 33–34].

Presumption – Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttable presumption – Court held presumption under Section 29 arises only after foundational facts are established – Contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution’s evidence meant presumption could not operate – Held: Prosecution failed to meet threshold to invoke presumption [Paras 24–27, 29–31].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Violation – Appellant’s examination conducted in vague, compound questions – No opportunity to respond distinctly to each incriminating circumstance – Held: Violates right under Section 313 – Prejudiced defence – Conviction vitiated [Paras 65–67].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to execute bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. for six months [Paras 68–72].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Jurisdiction – Plaintiff sought declaration and injunction over multiple properties claimed as residential, commercial, and industrial – Trial Court rejected suit stating the land was agricultural and civil court lacked jurisdiction – Held: Even if some properties are agricultural, rejection of entire plaint unjustified where other reliefs are triable by civil court – Civil court has jurisdiction over non-agricultural and commercial property – Rejection of entire plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC unsustainable [Paras 28–30]

Partial Relief – Mixed Property Nature – Revenue Jurisdiction – Plaintiff pleaded multiple properties including ancestral house, banquet halls, industrial premises, etc., within city limits and used for non-agricultural purposes – Trial court failed to consider that plaintiff can seek relief for properties outside revenue jurisdiction – Held: Trial court erred in rejecting plaint without framing issues or allowing evidence – Suit not wholly barred under Section 206 of U.P. Revenue Code [Paras 28–30]

Pleading Stage – Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 – Triable Issues – Reliefs not time-barred on face of record – Disputed facts such as usage, possession, nature of land require trial – Held: At Order 7 Rule 11 stage, only averments in plaint to be considered – If any relief survives, plaint must proceed to trial – Improper for court to evaluate merits or accept defendants' contentions at preliminary stage [Paras 25–27]

Appeal – Appellate Interference – Grave Procedural Error – Trial court rejected entire suit prematurely without adjudicating nature of properties and without proper application of law – Held: Impugned order perverse and liable to be set aside – Suit restored for trial on merits – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Paras 30–33]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 03.12.2022 set aside – Defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed – O.S. No. 782 of 2021 restored to its original number – Trial court to decide suit on merits within six months – District Judge, Ghaziabad to monitor progress biweekly.

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Maintenance and Alternative Accommodation – Quantum Justified – Petitioner/husband challenged concurrent orders granting ₹2,500 per month as maintenance and ₹500 as rent for alternate accommodation to the wife under Sections 18 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act – Trial Court found wife to be unemployed and dependent – Maintenance deducted from husband’s army salary until retirement, later discontinued – Husband failed to disclose his pension or produce evidence of wife’s alleged independent income – Held: Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are reasoned, justified, and supported by material on record – Maintenance amount reasonable considering husband’s earning capacity and wife’s needs [Paras 6, 11–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC do not extend to reappreciation of evidence unless perversity or illegality is demonstrated – No such infirmity found in concurrent findings of lower Courts – Held: No grounds to interfere in well-reasoned orders passed below [Paras 9–10, 19].

Presumption of Capacity to Earn – Retired Army Personnel – Appellant-husband, aged 38 and ex-army personnel, presumed to be physically fit and employable – Argument of low pension unsupported by documents – Courts below rightly drew adverse inference for non-production of income details – Held: Capable of maintaining wife; statutory obligation continues despite retirement [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Judgment dated 10.04.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2011 and order dated 21.09.2011 in D.V.C. No. 16 of 2010 upheld – Interim orders vacated and pending applications disposed.

Civil Writ - SARFAESI – Classification of MSME Account as NPA – RBI Guidelines – Petitioners, an MSME unit, challenged classification of loan as NPA without following RBI circulars dated 29.05.2015, 21.07.2016 and 17.03.2016 – Alleged denial of mandatory restructuring process under RBI framework – Held: No evidence that petitioners raised the issue of MSME protection before issuance of Section 13(2) notice or in reply – Prima facie, contention of lessee operations by third party supported by bank – Ext.P10 framework not mandatorily applicable absent revival potential – Writ jurisdiction not invoked in such disputed facts [Paras 7–9, 11]

Banking Law – Interest Hike – Usurious Charges – Petitioners alleged arbitrary hike of interest from 10% to 18.15% and imposition of penal interest for SMA classifications – Contended that interest manipulation violated Central Bank of India v. Ravindra ratio – Held: Issue requires adjudication on evidence – Not fit for determination under Article 226 at threshold stage [Paras 2.1, 4.3]

Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – DRT Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that writ is maintainable as challenge pertains to jurisdictional illegality in NPA classification – Held: Since bank has already acted under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act, and no prima facie illegality shown in NPA classification or denial of MSME framework, petitioner relegated to DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act – Writ dismissed with liberty [Paras 10–11]

CERSAI – Challenge to Mortgage Registration – Petitioners alleged absence of valid CERSAI registration under Section 26D SARFAESI Act – Bank produced documents showing registration of security interest – Held: No cause to interfere in writ jurisdiction on this ground [Para 2.4]

Disputed Facts – Lease to Third Party – Petitioners denied leasing operations to third party; bank relied on site visit photos and claimed unit was non-operational – Held: Disputed factual matrix regarding actual operations and eligibility under MSME revival framework not suitable for resolution under Article 226 – Left open for appropriate forum [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners at liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – No opinion expressed on merits.

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law

Criminal Writ - Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Continued Detention of Juvenile – Petitioner detained since 2017 in murder case – Claimed before Trial Court that he was a juvenile on date of offence (DOB: 13.12.2002) – Scholar register and Principal’s statement showed age as 14 years 3 months 19 days at time of offence – Trial Court failed to determine age as per Section 9(2) of JJ Act and instead referred matter to Juvenile Justice Board – Board declared petitioner juvenile vide order dated 15.05.2025 – Held: Board had no jurisdiction under Section 9(2) where claim raised before court – Order of Board is a nullity

Illegal Detention – Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – While initial detention may have been legal, subsequent detention becomes illegal after claim of juvenility is raised – Detention in jail violates Section 10(1) of JJ Act which prohibits lodging juvenile in jail – Present detention not supported by valid judicial order under JJ Act – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable despite judicial custody – Detention of juvenile in jail illegal and unconstitutional

Interpretation of JJ Act – Powers under Section 9 – Jurisdictional Error – When juvenility claim is made before a court under Section 9(2), only the court can determine age – Board can act only when person is produced before it under Section 10 or forwarded under Section 9(1) – Referral by Trial Court to Board without age determination is mechanical and without jurisdiction – Order of Board unenforceable

Relief – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Detenue lodged in Naini Central Jail since 2017 despite Board’s order and no other pending case – Continued detention beyond three years violates Section 18 of JJ Act – Held: Habeas corpus writ issued – Detenue to be released immediately – Trial Court directed to determine age per Section 9(2) and take further action as per JJ Act

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Habeas corpus issued – Detenue to be released from jail – Trial Court to determine age of detenue and, if found juvenile, proceed under JJ Act – If not juvenile, continue trial in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 152 BNS – Social Media Post – Allegation of 'Pakistan Zindabad' post by applicant under a foreign national’s post – No material to show active promotion of secession or armed rebellion – Held: Section 152 BNS requires intentional incitement of secession or subversive activity – Mere expression of sentiment, even if offensive, does not fulfill statutory requirements – Bail justified in absence of prima facie intent to endanger sovereignty or unity [Paras 5-8].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Standards of Reasonable Interpretation – Apex Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held that speech must be judged on reasonable person standard – Court emphasizes liberty under Article 19(1)(a) and cautions against overbroad criminalization of speech on social media – Police must act within constitutional limits [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – No Criminal History – Long Trial Delay – Applicant in custody since May 2025 with no prior convictions – Court applies principle of presumption of innocence and right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Cites Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and highlights prison overcrowding – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial participation – Breach of conditions to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 10-12].