Anticipatory Bail in Case of Child Custody Dispute - Petitioner granted anticipatory bail in FIR No.64 dated 08.08.2023 under Section 384 IPC for allegedly abducting her children and demanding money. The Court, considering the circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, directed the petitioner's release on bail if arrested, subject to bail bonds and compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 1, 12-13]

Child Abduction and Demand for Money Allegations - Petitioner accused of abducting children from husband and in-laws and demanding ₹1.25 crore for their return. Petitioner's re-marriage with ex-husband and custody disputes highlighted, with allegations of fraudulent child removal and monetary demands for their return. [Para 2, 5, 8, 10]

History of Marital Discord and Legal Actions - Petitioner's troubled marital history with Deepak Bansal, including divorce, custody battles, allegations of physical relations post-divorce, and remarriage detailed. Various legal actions, including FIRs and custody disputes, outlined. [Para 4, 6-7]

Court's Observations on Petitioner's Role and Rights - Court acknowledges petitioner's remarriage and consequent legal guardianship of children, questioning the abduction claim. Emphasizes the need for trial to address money demand allegations, noting the absence of such demands in past significant interactions. [Para 12]

Anticipatory Bail Granted - Court grants anticipatory bail, imposing conditions for petitioner's cooperation in investigation and adherence to legal requirements, ensuring her availability for investigative processes. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act and IPC – Appeal against life imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court for offenses under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Appellant convicted for sexually assaulting his daughter. [Paras 2-5]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Reliability of victim's testimony and corroborating evidence – Appellant's actions corroborated by victim's brother and other family members. Trial court's reliance on consistent and credible testimonies despite lapses in investigation. [Paras 6-24]

Medical Evidence – Absence of definitive medical proof of rape – Medical examination of the victim did not conclusively prove rape, but lack of physical evidence does not exonerate the appellant. [Paras 29-34]

Investigation Lapses – Inadequacies in the investigation process – Investigating officer's failure to record neighborhood statements and conduct forensic examination of seized clothes. However, these lapses deemed insufficient to dismiss the prosecution's case in light of victim’s credible testimony. [Paras 35-37]

Decision – Upholding of trial court's judgment by High Court – Appellant's appeal dismissed, with the High Court finding justification in the trial court's decision based on the overall evidence and circumstances. [Paras 38-39]

Delay and Laches – Discretion in Exercising Jurisdiction – Petitioner challenged various orders related to penalties imposed by respondents – High Court’s discretion in cases of delay and laches – Importance of legal sustainability and manifest illegality in delayed petitions. [Para 2-3]

Legal Precedents on Delay and Laches – Emphasis on prompt approach to court for relief under Article 226 – Inordinate delay as a ground for refusal of relief. [Para 4-5]

Doctrine of Delay and Laches in Equitable Jurisdiction – High Court’s duty in balancing rights protection with principles of equity – Impact of inordinate delay on relief in writ petitions. [Para 6]

Principles Governing Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence – Factors affecting the right to relief, including length of delay and developments during the intervening period. [Para 7]

Application in Present Case – Petition dismissed due to significant delay and lack of manifest illegality in impugned orders. [Para 8-9]

Decision – Dismissal of the petition due to delay and laches. [Para 11]

Regular Bail – Grant of Bail in NDPS Case – Petitioner Akashdeep Singh seeks regular bail in FIR No.43 for offences under Sections 22 and later Section 29 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner implicated based on co-accused's disclosure, with no recovery from petitioner – Reliance on precedents highlighting grant of bail where accused named only in co-accused’s disclosure without corroborative evidence – Petitioner, a first-time offender, in custody since 29.06.2023 with none of the 10 prosecution witnesses examined. [Para 2-3]

Legal Precedents on Bail – Discussion of various judgments emphasizing bail in cases where the accused is named only in co-accused's disclosure – Reference to cases like Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rakesh Kumar Singla vs Union of India, and others demonstrating similar instances of bail grants. [Para 3]

State's Opposition to Bail – Respondent-State's argument against bail citing serious allegations – Acknowledgement of petitioner being named only in co-accused's statement and lack of recovery from him – Admission of petitioner's status as a first-time offender and the status of the trial. [Para 4]

Judicial Reasoning for Bail Grant – Analysis of Supreme Court's stance in similar cases – Emphasis on the lack of corroborative evidence against the petitioner other than co-accused's disclosure – Recognition of delayed trial process and petitioner's continued custody. [Para 5-7]

Decision on Bail – Court's decision to grant bail, subject to conditions – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds, surety, appear at police station monthly, and deposit an FDR of Rs.1,00,000 with the trial court. [Para 9-11]

Anticipatory Bail – Misappropriation of PSPCL Material - Petition for anticipatory bail in offence under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC - alleged misappropriation of materials from PSPCL - Bail denied due to substantial prima facie evidence and need for custodial interrogation. [Paras 1-11]

Investigation and Inquiry Report - Affidavit by Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inquiry Report indicating significant misappropriation by the petitioner, with a loss of over Rs. 1.15 crores to PSPCL - Trial Court Proceedings: Observations made herein are specific to the anticipatory bail decision and shall not influence the trial court’s adjudication based on the evidence presented. Bail Dismissed. [Para 8,9,11,12]

Employment Law – Voluntary Resignation – Petitioner's resignation accepted by the bank – Claim of coercion and ill health in resignation – Discrepancy in documents presented by petitioner and respondent – Petitioner's claim dismissed on grounds of incorrect documentation and delay in approaching the court. [Paras 8-9, 10, 15]

Medical Leave – Claim of suffering from Schizophrenia – Disputed claim, not corroborated by evidence – No coercion established from the bank's side – Petitioner's voluntary application for retirement not supported by evidence of mental health issues. [Paras 3, 15]

Delay and Laches – Petitioner approaching court after six years – Lack of plausible explanation for delay – Application of principles related to delay and laches in writ jurisdiction – Petition dismissed due to inordinate delay and absence of adequate explanation. [Paras 10-14]

Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 – Application of Section 47 – Disputed applicability in petitioner's case – Court's discretion in cases of delay and alleged infringement of rights under the Act – Petitioner's claim not upheld due to lack of evidence and procedural issues. [Paras 3, 4, 15]

Decision – Dismissal of petition on grounds of incorrect documentation, delay, and lack of substantiated claims – Petitioner's resignation upheld – No merit found in petitioner's claims against respondent bank. [Para 16]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Quashing of Complaint – Accused petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint Case No. 4061/2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Alleged dishonored cheque issued by petitioner’s brother – Petitioner’s contention that she is not the drawer of the cheque – Legal notice served, but payment not made – Whether petitioner can be impleaded as an accused under Section 138 of the Act – Examination of Section 138 and relevant case law – Court’s opinion that the petitioner, not being the drawer of the cheque, cannot be held criminally liable – Prosecution can only continue against the drawer of the cheque – Quashing of complaint case as it pertains to the petitioner. [Para 1-14]

Public Interest Litigation – Efficient handling of Income Tax Appeals – Petition by All India Federation of Tax Practitioners for expeditious disposal of appeals by Commissioners (Appeals) and enhancement of their number and resources – Directions sought to adhere to time limits set by Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act and for chronological disposal of appeals. [Para 1]

Income Tax Act – Delay in appeal disposals by Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) – Impact on assessees and tax practitioners – Request for a policy to address backlog and ensure timely resolutions in line with statutory provisions. [Para 2]

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) – Affidavit outlining measures for expeditious disposal of appeals – Adoption of a practical approach to manage pending appeals and compliance with action plans – Introduction of Faceless Appeals and proposal for additional Commissioner posts. [Para 4-5]

Administrative Efficiency – CBDT's steps to address the pendency of appeals – Sanctioning of additional posts for Commissioners (Appeals) and introduction of joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioners (Appeals) for lower threshold appeals – Consideration of increase in sanctioned strength to meet Central Action Plan objectives. [Para 8-10]

Litigation Management – CBDT's roadmap for appeal disposal and Union of India's role in augmenting administrative capacity – Implementation of measures to reduce appeal backlog and attention to assessees' interests as stakeholders. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Disposal of PIL based on adequate measures by CBDT and Union of India to streamline and expedite appeal processes under the Income Tax Act – No further adjudication required. [Para 13]

Medical Negligence – Complaint against cardiologist for alleged negligence in treatment – Dismissal of the complaint by Delhi Medical Council and affirmation by High Court – Disciplinary Committee found prescription lacking but no negligence in treatment – High Court defers to the expertise of the medical panel. [Para 1, 2, 6-8]

Medical Expertise – High Court’s limitation in adjudicating matters of medical expertise – Professional can only be held liable for negligence if lacking requisite skill professed – Treatment in line with acceptable medical practice not negligence, even if alternatives exist. [Para 7]

Judicial Review – High Court's scope in judicial review of expert bodies' decisions – Interference only if the decision is perverse or unconscionable – The decision of Delhi Medical Council not found to be perverse or unconscionable by the High Court. [Para 7, 8]

Delhi Medical Council's Decision – Advice for greater care in future prescriptions to cardiologist – No substantial negligence found in the treatment provided – High Court upholds Delhi Medical Council’s findings and dismisses the Writ Petition. [Para 6, 8]