Criminal Law – Rape - Acquittal Appeal – Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Appellate Court Reiterated Limited Scope to Interfere – The appellate court while re-appreciating the evidence must interfere only when the judgment is perverse or leads to miscarriage of justice – Court found that trial court's judgment was not perverse and based on sound appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-14].

Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Victim Turned Hostile – Allegation of Kidnapping and Sexual Assault Not Established – Victim (PW1) denied the allegations during trial – No independent corroboration from parents or medical evidence – Court held that the prosecution failed to prove offence under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Acquittal upheld [Paras 16-32].

Medical Evidence – No Signs of Recent Sexual Assault – Medical Officer (PW10) opined that there were no signs suggestive of recent sexual assault – Prosecution failed to corroborate charges medically – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 30-33].

Statement Under Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Court reiterated that Section 164 CrPC statement can be used only for contradiction or corroboration – Cannot solely form basis for conviction in absence of substantive evidence – Victim did not support the prosecution case – Appeal dismissed [Para 31].

Final Decision – No Error Found in Trial Court’s Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt Rightly Given – Appeal dismissed and acquittal confirmed [Paras 34-35].

Review Petition – Jurisdictional Error – Review Allowed – Petitioners sought review of common order dismissing writ petitions challenging the criminal proceedings under UAPA – This Court noticed that as per Section 21(2) of NIA Act, all such matters ought to be heard by a Division Bench and not by a Single Judge – Held: Since jurisdictional error goes to the root of the matter, review is maintainable and review petitions allowed [Paras 5-8].

Scope of Review – Error Apparent on Record – Jurisdictional Error Constitutes Sufficient Ground – Referring to Kamalesh Verma vs. Mayawati, 2013 (8) SCC 320, the Court held that review lies when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reasons – Held: Jurisdictional mistake satisfies this condition, warranting restoration of writ petitions [Para 6].

NIA Act – Section 21(2) – Mandatory Requirement of Division Bench – Review Bench relied on Mastiguda Aboobacker vs. NIA, 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159 and other precedents holding that under Section 21(2) of the NIA Act, all appeals and analogous proceedings arising under NIA Act have to be heard by a Division Bench – Held: Present cases being UAPA matters squarely fall within Section 21(2) mandate [Paras 7-8].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Not Excluded by NIA Act – Following Kerala Full Bench view, the Court reiterated that Section 482 CrPC continues to be available for NIA cases subject to routing through a Division Bench – The inherent power is not ousted by the NIA Act but must be exercised cautiously [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Review Allowed – Writ petitions restored to file and directed to be placed before Division Bench – Petitioners granted liberty to approach Division Bench for appropriate relief [Para 8].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Serious Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 376 IPC and U.P. Conversion Act – Quashing Denied – Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between accused and victim – The Court reiterated that offences involving serious crimes like rape and unlawful religious conversion cannot be quashed merely because of a compromise – Such offences have a societal impact and are not just private disputes – Held: Quashing refused, proceedings to continue [Paras 15, 19, 31-38, 47-57]. 
 
Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Limitations – Only to be Invoked in Exceptional Circumstances – The Court explained that while the High Court has wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such powers must be exercised sparingly and not in cases involving heinous crimes – Compromises in such cases may be obtained by coercion or may undermine public confidence in justice delivery [Paras 17-20, 34-38, 47]. 
 
Religious Conversion and Consent – U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020 – Conversion Without Free Will is Illegal – The Court highlighted that conversion for the purpose of marriage without genuine change of faith is illegal – Any such conversion prompted by coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means will not be protected by law – Held: Allegations under the U.P. Conversion Act are grave and proceedings cannot be quashed on compromise [Paras 49-56]. 
 
Compromise in Rape Cases – No Legal Sanctity – Cannot Override Public Interest – The Court firmly held that rape is an offence against society and not just an individual – Compromise or settlement between the accused and victim in rape cases cannot be a basis for quashing proceedings – Such offences must be adjudicated irrespective of any private settlement [Paras 38-45, 57]. 
 
Decision – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed – The Court dismissed the application refusing to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings on the basis of compromise, considering the seriousness of allegations involving rape and unlawful conversion [Para 57]. 
 

Regular Bail – SC/ST Act – Conspiracy and Assault Allegations – Bail Granted – Appellant accused of hatching conspiracy to assault complainant over financial dispute – Co-accused allegedly attacked complainant using weapons, causing grievous injuries – Court held that while injuries were serious, they were not lifethreatening – SC/ST allegations not directly attributable to appellant – Custody since 13.12.2024 and trial likely to take time – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1–6]. 
 
Habitual Offender – Prior Criminal Cases – Not Absolute Bar to Bail – Appellant involved in multiple prior cases, some resulting in acquittals and one in conviction – Court held that pendency or history alone cannot justify continued incarceration – No material to suggest risk of absconding or influencing witnesses – Bail allowed subject to conduct undertaking [Paras 3–6]. 
 
Conditions of Bail – Non-Interference with Witnesses – Appellant directed not to approach, intimidate or influence complainant or other witnesses – Trial Court empowered to cancel bail on breach of conditions – Bail granted on furnishing surety and personal bond to satisfaction of Trial Court [Paras 7–8]. 
 
Decision: Appeal allowed – Order rejecting bail set aside – Appellant enlarged on bail subject to conditions – Observations confined to bail consideration and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 6–8]. 
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Common Intention – Eyewitness Testimony – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction Converted – Appellants accused of beating deceased with belcha and kassi during worksite quarrel – Sole eyewitness PW-17 testified to quarrel and dragging of body, but did not witness actual assault – Trial court convicted both under Section 302/34 IPC – Held: Incident arose out of sudden altercation, no premeditation – In absence of direct evidence of fatal blow, case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 13, 18, 33–42]. 
 
Section 145 Evidence Act – Hostile Witness – Partial Credibility – PW-17 declared hostile and cross-examined – Although he retracted some police statements, core testimony on dragging body and shutter closure remained consistent – Court held such testimony admissible and reliable under Section 145 – Presence of accused and circumstantial evidence unerringly pointed to guilt [Paras 34–36]. 
 
Culpable Homicide – Sudden Provocation – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability Considered – Deceased initiated quarrel by abusing A-2, which escalated into fatal fight – Court relied on precedents including Pulicherla Nagaraju and Dauvaram Nirmalkar to hold that appellants acted without premeditation in a fit of anger – Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 37–42]. 
 
Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Period Already Undergone – Appellants from lower socio-economic background – No prior criminal record – Having undergone nearly 10 years of incarceration – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – No fine imposed [Para 42]. 
 
Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302/34 to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellants sentenced to imprisonment for period already undergone – No fine imposed [Paras 42–43]. 
 

Civil Law – Specific Performance - Film Assignment Agreement – Breach by Premature Release – Injunction Granted – Plaintiff held exclusive Hindi and North Indian language rights for the film ‘Veera Deera Sooran’ – Defendant planned Tamil theatrical release on 27.03.2025 without delivering materials as agreed – Court held: delivery of Theatrical Release Materials and CBFC Certificate 14 days before release was essence of contract – Failure amounted to breach – Defendant restrained from release for 4 weeks, subject to plaintiff depositing Rs. 7 crores within 24 hours [Paras 5–20, 23–26, 33].  

Specific Performance – Adequate Remedy – Section 14 of Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff had paid Rs. 44 crores and was ready to pay balance Rs. 7 crores – Court held that monetary compensation was not an adequate substitute – Plaintiff’s inability to monetise digital rights due to premature release would cause irreparable harm – Specific performance justified under Section 14 and Article 18 of Agreement [Paras 22–27].

 Balance of Convenience – Digital Rights Monetisation Linked to Theatrical Timing – Plaintiff argued that releasing film before digital rights deal would weaken negotiations – Court found merit – Four-week injunction held reasonable to protect plaintiff's investments and secure fair value for assigned rights – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed for non-disclosure of material email [Paras 19–21, 26–27, 32–33].  

Simultaneous Theatrical Release – Right of Plaintiff – Article 2.14 of Agreement Contemplated Simultaneous Release – Plaintiff denied opportunity to dub and release film in assigned Hindi/North Indian territories due to defendant’s delay – Court held unilateral action of defendant violates agreement – Court Commissioner appointed to supervise delivery of materials within one week [Paras 12, 15–17, 30].  

Decision: Injunction granted – Defendant restrained from releasing the film Veera Deera Sooran for 4 weeks from 27.03.2025 – Plaintiff to deposit Rs. 7 crores within 24 hours – Defendant to deliver all agreed materials within 48 hours of payment – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on plaintiff – Suit registered for further proceedings [Paras 33–34, 37–44].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy – Appeal against acquittal – Deceased, an office bearer of JDU party, murdered by accused persons due to political rivalry – Prosecution alleged conspiracy and participation of 10 accused persons – Trial court acquitted all accused – High Court, upon appeal by State and de facto complainant, found that evidence of injured eye-witnesses (PW1 and PW2) was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical, scientific, and forensic evidence – Test Identification Parade properly conducted confirming identification of accused – Recovery of weapons and forensic linkage established guilt – Alleged mask-wearing by assailants not substantiated and wrongly accepted by trial court – Held: Conviction recorded for accused 1 to 5 under Sections 302/34 IPC – Accused 2 also convicted under Section 324 IPC and accused 4 under Section 326 IPC – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 upheld due to insufficient evidence [Paras 1 to 58].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Eye-Witnesses – PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries while trying to save deceased – Their ocular testimony corroborated by FIR, medical evidence, and scientific reports – Minor discrepancies immaterial – Injuries confirmed their presence at the scene – Identification of accused in Test Identification Parade and in court reliable – Trial court erred in disbelieving them based on alleged mention of masks in medical records – No suppression of FIR or manipulation found – Held: Trial court misdirected itself in rejecting consistent and corroborated evidence of injured witnesses [Paras 39 to 46].

Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence – Fingerprint Expert (PW71) established matching chance prints of accused 2, 4, and 5 from crime scene vehicle – DNA evidence (PW74, PW75) linked accused 2 and 4 to hair samples from vehicle – Recovery of knife (MO4) by accused 2 corroborated by post-mortem findings – Blood on knife matched with deceased – Recovery and identification processes legally valid – Trial court erroneously discarded crucial forensic evidence on technical grounds – Held: Forensic evidence fully corroborates ocular version and proves participation of accused beyond doubt [Paras 49 to 52].

Criminal Conspiracy – Lack of Proof – Allegation of conspiracy against accused 6 to 10 failed – PW7 and PW9's evidence unconvincing and contradictory – No independent corroboration linking accused 6 to 10 to conspiracy – Purchase of vehicle by accused 6 insufficient to prove conspiracy – Trial court's acquittal of accused 6 to 10 on this charge affirmed [Paras 33 to 36].

Charge Framing – Misapplication – Charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against accused 6 to 10 unjustified based on prosecution's own case – No evidence of common intention or participation in actual assault – High Court correctly excluded them from conviction for murder while maintaining acquittal [Para 37].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 set aside – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed – Accused 2 additionally convicted under Section 324 IPC – Accused 4 additionally convicted under Section 326 IPC – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 upheld – Directed issuance of non-bailable warrants for arrest of convicted accused and listing for sentence hearing [Para 58].

Service Law – Criminal Case Pending – Denial of Appointment – Matrimonial Dispute – Appointment Directed – Petitioner, a successful RAS candidate, was denied appointment despite being higher in merit than others who were appointed – Denial based on an FIR lodged by her estranged husband prior to his death – FIR arose from a matrimonial dispute and involved no allegations of moral turpitude – Petitioner had truthfully disclosed the pending case – Held: Mere pendency of a criminal case without suppression of facts, particularly where allegations arise out of personal discord and do not relate to integrity or public conduct, cannot be a ground for denial of appointment – Reliance placed on Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 – Employer's discretion must be exercised with objective criteria and not in arbitrary manner – Appointment ordered to be made permanent, subject to outcome of the criminal trial [Paras 1–3, 7–9, 13–21, 34–35].
Circulars and Advertisements – Illegal Condition in Advertisement – Automatic Disqualification for Undertrial – Held Unenforceable – Clause 15 of recruitment advertisement stating that undertrial candidates are ineligible was found inconsistent with law laid down by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh – Such a clause was held to be without statutory backing and contrary to principles of proportionality and fairness – Circular dated 04.12.2019 to be interpreted in consonance with Avtar Singh and not as an absolute bar [Paras 16–20, 30].*
Natural Justice – No Written Communication of Rejection – Violation – Appointment Withheld Orally Without Reasons – Respondents failed to communicate reasons for non-appointment in writing – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to rebut allegations or challenge decision – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice – Administrative decision must be transparent and non-arbitrary [Paras 7.8, 25–26].
Judicial Review – Screening Committee Findings Not on Record – Mechanical Denial of Appointment Disapproved – Respondents failed to produce any material to demonstrate application of mind by appointing authority – No independent assessment of suitability shown – Mere reference to disqualification under Chapter XVI & XVII IPC insufficient – Screening Committee’s report, if any, was not placed on record – Held: Denial of appointment not based on objective criteria, hence unsustainable [Paras 22–24].
Decision – Appointment Ordered – Subject to Outcome of Criminal Trial – Petition allowed – Respondents directed to confirm petitioner’s provisional appointment as per interim order dated 23.07.2024 – Appointment to be subject to outcome of pending trial – No impediment in granting full benefits if acquitted or discharged [Paras 34–36].
 

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].