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.

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test Sought by Father – Request Denied – Maintenance Proceedings – Presumption of Legitimacy Upheld – Petitioner-husband challenged trial court’s refusal to order DNA testing of minor child during pendency of wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC – Held: No prima facie material produced by petitioner to rebut presumption under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Mere denial of paternity not sufficient – Long delay of over 12 years from divorce and 3 years after maintenance petition remains unexplained – Legal presumption of legitimacy applies [Paras 6, 25–28, 32, 34–35].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Test – Not a Routine Measure – Right to Privacy and Dignity Considered – DNA testing involves serious privacy implications – Court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on suspicion or as a shortcut to prove adultery – Child’s right to identity and dignity must be prioritised – DNA test not the only method to prove infidelity or lack of paternity – Courts must balance scientific tools with constitutional rights [Paras 18–22, 35–36].

Delay – Unexplained Silence of Petitioner – Conduct Impugns Credibility of Claim – Divorce was granted in 2012 and maintenance petition filed in 2021 – DNA test application filed only in 2025 – Court found no reasonable or acceptable explanation for delay – Silence for over a decade suggests ulterior motive to humiliate the respondent and delay maintenance proceedings [Paras 25, 34, 38].

Legal Presumption – Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Conclusive Proof of Paternity During Marriage – No Proof of Non-Access – Child born during valid marriage attracts statutory presumption of legitimacy – Husband failed to prove non-access during the relevant period – Law discourages unwarranted inquiries into paternity where marriage subsisted [Paras 26–28].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Right to Privacy – Courts Cautioned Against Intrusive Tests Without Justification – Referring to Supreme Court precedents (Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Aparna Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia), court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be directed unless strong prima facie case is made – Intrusive procedures like DNA testing impinge upon Article 20(3) and 21 – Such tests cannot be permitted to settle personal scores or as a weapon in matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–23, 29–31, 35–37].

Abuse of Process – DNA Petition Found Frivolous – Filed to Harass and Delay – Court found DNA application to be filed only to prolong proceedings and malign character of wife – Held: No legal justification shown to interfere with trial court order – Revision petition dismissed with observations on misuse of legal process [Paras 32, 38].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – No prima facie case made for DNA testing – No interference warranted with trial court’s well-reasoned order dated 12.06.2025 – No costs awarded – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Paras 38–40].

Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Hindu Marriage – Void Marriage – Second Marriage during subsistence of first – Conversion and Re-conversion – Compromise and Quashing of FIR – Woman, originally Muslim, married Hindu petitioner by Hindu rites while first marriage subsisted – Later divorce decree obtained – Held: Marriage void ab initio under Section 11 HMA as contravening Section 5(i); absence of common religion and existence of prior spouse invalidate the marriage – Compromise deed and quashing of FIR upheld – Recall application rejected; subsequent Family Court judgment cannot revive extinguished proceedings [Paras 11–19].

Marriage – Validity – Conversion – Hindu Marriage Act – Petitioner (Hindu) married respondent (formerly Muslim, converted to Islam, later allegedly reconverted to Hinduism) through Hindu rites on 28.06.2020 while her divorce from first husband (Dr. Zafar Sayeed) was pending – Decree of divorce granted only on 19.01.2021 – Held: Under Section 5(i) read with Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, a valid Hindu marriage requires that both parties be Hindus and neither have a living spouse – Marriage solemnized in contravention is void ipso jure, i.e., non-existent in law from inception [Paras 11–13].

Void Marriage – Legal Effect – A void marriage confers no marital status or mutual rights and obligations – It is to be ignored as non-existent; declaration of nullity is not mandatory but advisable for record and legal clarity – Reliance placed on Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530; M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 351 [Paras 13–14].

Recall of Order – Compromise Decree – Subsequent Developments – Compromise deed dated 17.02.2024 verified and recorded; FIR under Sections 392, 354, 506 IPC quashed by order dated 09.01.2025 – Subsequent dismissal of petitioner’s Section 11 HMA petition by Family Court (06.05.2025) does not justify recall of High Court order – Judicial pronouncement by competent court is an independent event and cannot undo a compromise-based quashing order [Paras 6–9, 17–18].

Declaration of Marital Status – Judicial Responsibility – Determination of marital status affects the social and legal identity of parties; such declaration can only be made by a competent court in proper proceedings under Section 11 HMA – Courts must ensure full and effective adjudication of marital status [Para 15].

Scope under Article 226 – High Court, while hearing criminal writs, cannot adjudicate disputed factual issues relating to personal law status – Appropriate remedies lie before matrimonial courts [Para 12, 16].

Decision: Application for Recall dated 27.05.2025 dismissed – No ground to interfere with earlier order dated 09.01.2025 quashing FIR based on compromise – Parties at liberty to pursue remedies against Family Court order dated 06.05.2025 [Paras 17–19].

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Banking Law - SARFAESI – Possession of Secured Asset – Tahsildar’s Competence – ARC filed writ petition challenging Ext. P10 order passed by the Tahsildar on the complaint that property unconnected with loan transaction was taken possession of under SARFAESI proceedings – Held: Tahsildar has no authority to interfere in matters already adjudicated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Such action amounts to overstepping jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

SARFAESI – Review and Non-Impleadment – Ext. P10 order passed based on earlier writ direction where ARC was not impleaded – That writ judgment was reviewed and recalled (RP 1196/2019), and writ dismissed for suppression of material facts – Held: Ext. P10 is rendered non-operational to the extent it conflicts with judicial orders under SARFAESI and cannot survive post recall [Paras 8–10, 16]

Property Identification Dispute – Civil Suit Pending – Dispute between parties as to whether correct property was taken into possession under mortgage enforcement – Held: Dispute of identification is a civil matter pending before Civil Court in O.S. No. 1090/2019 – Trial court to independently adjudicate the dispute without being influenced by findings under SARFAESI [Paras 17–18]

Limited Quashment – Only that portion of Tahsildar’s order (Ext. P10) dealing with SARFAESI delivery proceedings set aside – Held: Tahsildar still empowered to act on allegations against Village Officer’s conduct under appropriate administrative powers, with notice to parties [Para 18]

Decision: Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Ext. P10 quashed only to the extent it interferes with orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Remaining issues left open for civil and administrative proceedings

Land Acquisition – Due Process – Sections 3A, 3D & 3G(3) of National Highways Act – Gazette Notification issued in 2022 under Section 3A did not include all petitioners’ properties – Declaration under Section 3D dated 03.07.2024 and subsequent compensation proceedings initiated – Petitioners allege interference with possession without due acquisition – Held: Respondents directed to follow due process before acquisition – Acquisition without compliance violates Article 300-A [Paras 2–2.2, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property – Seven essential rights recognised by Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 form core of Article 300-A – Includes rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, fair compensation, expeditious process, public purpose and conclusion – Held: Absence of these renders law vulnerable to challenge – These principles now part of administrative law jurisprudence [Paras 5–7]

Property Law – Completion of Acquisition – Mere compensation not sufficient – Possession of property is essential for valid acquisition – Court reiterates that unless physical possession is taken, acquisition remains incomplete [Para 8]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to follow due process of law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declaration – Victim named appellants Dilip Dey and Manoj Singh as shooters in statement recorded by police officer in presence of doctor and relatives – Statement corroborated by brothers of deceased (PWs 5 and 7) – Medical officer (PW9) confirmed victim was conscious – Objection to lack of medical certificate of mental fitness rejected – Court held dying declaration reliable and consistent with medical evidence [Paras 3, 6, 42–45, 49–53]

Criminal Law – Firearm Recovery – Weapon recovered on basis of disclosure by Manoj Singh under Section 27 Evidence Act – Seizure corroborated by police witnesses (PWs 20, 25) – Forensic expert (PW22) confirmed bullet retrieved from victim matched the recovered firearm – Held: Recovery legal and directly links appellant to the crime [Paras 34–36, 57–58]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – PW16 (friend of deceased) turned hostile but admitted being present, taking victim to hospital, and confirming victim’s consciousness – Statement of hostile witness corroborated by medical and family witnesses – Held: Partial reliability sufficient for corroboration of prosecution version [Paras 16, 28–30, 47–48]

Criminal Procedure – FIR based on Dying Declaration – Statement of victim formed basis of FIR – Recorded by police in presence of attending doctor and family members – FIR and injuries consistent with post-mortem report – Held: FIR valid, dying declaration admissible under Section 32 Evidence Act [Paras 49–51]

Forensic Evidence – Ballistics – Recovered firearm found to be in working condition – Expert confirmed bullet removed from body fired through same weapon – Court accepted ballistic report as conclusive link to accused [Paras 36, 57–58]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act affirmed – Sentence to run concurrently – Detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 59–61]