Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Forged Certificates – Parity with Co-Accused – Bail Granted till Police Report – The applicants were accused of submitting forged documents for pharmacist registration – Held: Since co-accused similarly placed had been granted anticipatory bail and no distinguishing factor emerged, applicants are entitled to same protection – Bail granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 5, 8–10].

Prolonged Investigation – Applicants Cooperating – No Custodial Interrogation Needed – Investigation pending for over 3 years and applicants had cooperated – Held: Arrest not warranted in absence of necessity for custodial interrogation; protection from arrest justified [Paras 6, 9].

Judicial Discretion – Limited Protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court Guidelines Followed – Court relied on Nathu Singh v. State of U.P., 2021(6) SCC 64 – Held: Interim protection till filing of charge sheet permissible under settled law [Para 9].

Judgment – Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions – Application disposed of – Court directed that in case of arrest before filing of charge sheet, applicants be released on bail on furnishing bonds and sureties – Conditions imposed regarding cooperation, non-inducement of witnesses, and travel restrictions [Paras 10–11].

Regularization of Special Assistant Public Prosecutors – No Vested Right to Permanent Appointment – The petitioners, engaged under Section 25(3) of CrPC, sought regularization on the ground that they performed the same functions as A.P.Ps. under Section 25(1) – The Court held that their appointments were contractual and not against sanctioned posts – Held: Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the appointment follows statutory rules and is against a permanent vacancy [Paras 20-23].

Parity in Pay Scale – No Equal Pay for Equal Work Between Contractual and Regular Employees – The petitioners argued that they should receive the same pay and benefits as regular A.P.Ps. since their duties were identical – The Court rejected this claim, emphasizing that employment under Section 25(3) CrPC was temporary and lacked service conditions akin to regular government employees – Held: Mere similarity in work does not entitle contractual employees to equal pay with regular employees [Paras 22-23].

Government Policy – Appointment of Special A.P.Ps. is Temporary and Contingent on Exigencies – The government, in response to the Supreme Court’s directives in S.B. Shahane v. State of Maharashtra, created temporary posts of Spl. A.P.Ps. to meet workload demands – The Court ruled that temporary engagements cannot evolve into a permanent cadre unless expressly provided by law – Held: The Government has the discretion to determine recruitment policies, and ad hoc appointments cannot seek tenure benefits [Paras 19, 25-26].

Judicial Precedents – No Automatic Regularization Without Statutory Backing – The Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which held that irregular appointments cannot be regularized without adherence to statutory procedures – Held: Petitioners’ claim for permanent absorption is untenable in the absence of a recruitment process through MPSC [Para 26].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed. Petitioners were not entitled to regularization or parity in service benefits. The government’s recruitment policies and service classification were upheld.
 

Framing of Charge under Section 324 IPC – Justified under Section 216 CrPC – The appellant Ram Kailash Singh was charged under Section 324 IPC on the day of judgment. The Court held that Section 216 CrPC permits such alteration if no prejudice is caused – Held: Since full cross-examination had occurred and no objection was raised, framing of charge immediately prior to judgment was legally permissible and caused no prejudice [Paras 19-22].

Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Injury to Eye Witness Corroborated by Medical Evidence – Injured victim PW13 deposed that he was assaulted by Ram Kailash Singh with a rod, sustaining head and facial injuries – Testimony corroborated by PW20 (doctor) who treated him and found cut injuries requiring stitches – Held: Ocular and medical evidence established the offence under Section 324 IPC beyond doubt [Paras 26-28, 33-35].

Unlawful Assembly and Common Object – Conviction under Sections 307/149 IPC Sustainable – Although no charge under Sections 307/149 IPC was framed, the Court held that conviction was valid under Section 222(3) CrPC as an attempt to commit an offence is included within the substantive offence – Held: Accused formed unlawful assembly, hurled bombs at the victim Dukhiram intending to cause death – Conviction under Section 307/149 IPC upheld [Paras 40-44, 52-55].

Absence of Convincing Link to Section 302 IPC – Conversion to Attempt to Murder – Victim Dukhiram died two days after the bomb attack. Though injuries were serious and homicidal, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the death was directly due to the bombing – Held: Trial court rightly convicted the accused under Section 307/149 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 60-62].

Direct Participation of Musafir Rai – Eyewitnesses Credible and Consistent – Multiple witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) consistently named Musafir Rai as one of the attackers who hurled bombs at the victim – Their testimonies were corroborated by medical and forensic evidence (PW20, PW21) and confirmed by chemical reports (Exhibit 7) – Held: Conviction of Musafir Rai is based on credible and consistent evidence [Paras 47-55].

Explosive Material Evidence – Scientific Corroboration through Forensic Reports – Seizure of bomb remnants and chemical examination confirmed use of arsenic and potassium chlorate, substances banned under the Explosives Act – Held: Forensic evidence strongly supported prosecution’s case of bomb use in the attack [Paras 53-55].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Conviction of Ram Kailash Singh under Sections 324, 148, and 307/149 IPC and of Musafir Rai under Sections 148 and 307/149 IPC upheld. Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks or face arrest.

Minor Minerals – Power of State under Section 15 MMDR Act – Auction-Based Grant of Lease Permissible – Challenge Rejected – Petitioners argued the auction model exceeded powers under Section 15 and retrospectively invalidated pending applications – Court held: State has full authority under Section 15 to regulate minor minerals, including auction methodology – Auction model is within legislative competence and not ultra vires [Paras 13–15].

Pending Applications – No Vested Right – Rejection Not Retrospective – Applications Without Letter of Intent Rightly Ineligible – Petitioners lacked any statutory or accrued right to grant of lease – Applications are subject to prevailing law at time of disposal – Held: Rule 9 validly saves only those cases where Letter of Intent had been issued – No retrospectivity [Paras 17–25].

Granite and Marble Rules – No Override of State Rules – GCD and MDC Rules Deal with Mining Conduct, Not Lease Grant – Petitioners argued conflict with central rules – Court held: No overlap exists; State Rules continue to govern lease grant process for granite/marble [Paras 26–27].

Equality – Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Not Excluded – Rule 2(h) of 2022 Auction Rules Defines Them as Eligible – Alleged discrimination under Article 14 rejected – No irrational exclusion found [Para 28].

Security Deposit – Three-Year Dead Rent – Policy Matter – Not Arbitrary – Court refused to interfere with the increase in security deposit, holding it falls within State’s discretion unless proven excessive or unconstitutional – No such proof offered [Paras 29–30].

Alleged Misuse of Rules – Not Ground for Invalidating Legislation – Petitioners failed to produce any specific instances of abuse – Mere potential misuse is not sufficient to strike down a statutory rule [Para 31].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – G.O.Ms.No.13 and G.O.Ms.No.14 upheld as constitutionally valid – Auction-based lease system held permissible under Section 15 of the MMDR Act – Pending applications without Letter of Intent rightly rendered ineligible – Court finds no arbitrariness or unconstitutionality – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed [Para 32].

Criminal Trial – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Conviction Modified - Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC without being confronted with incriminating evidence relatable to Section 302 charge – Statement under Section 313 CrPC confined only to dowry death allegations under Section 304-B IPC – Held: Serious prejudice caused to accused by failure to comply with Section 313 CrPC resulting in violation of right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, conviction maintained under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 44-52].

Dowry Death – Hostile Witnesses – Use of Partial Testimony – Conviction Supported - Evidence of P.W.-1 (father) though partly hostile, accepted to the extent it corroborated prosecution case regarding demand of dowry – FIR narration supported by hostile witness’ statement during examination-in-chief – Held: Conviction under Section 304-B IPC sustainable despite witnesses turning hostile, as their admissible portions corroborated the prosecution case [Paras 27-33].

Presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Failure of Defence – Conviction Confirmed - Appellant failed to rebut presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act regarding unnatural death inside matrimonial home – Defence offered no explanation or evidence – Prosecution established homicidal death by throttling – Held: Prosecution successfully discharged initial burden leading to appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 23-25].

Fair Trial – Section 313 CrPC – Fundamental Right - The Court reaffirmed that under Section 313 CrPC, accused must be confronted specifically with adverse evidence regarding each charge to enable fair defence – Non-compliance amounts to violation of natural justice and Article 21 – Held: Appellate court modified conviction appropriately to ensure fair trial principles are upheld [Paras 34-52].

Decision – Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC Confirmed - Sentence Modified - Appellant’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC quashed – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC affirmed with sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine maintained – Appellant to be released after serving modified sentence if not wanted in other cases [Paras 52-55].

Criminal Law – Rape – Appeal against conviction – Delay in FIR and Unexplained Silence – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecutrix reported repeated sexual assault months after the alleged incidents, only after pregnancy was discovered – No complaint made earlier despite residing with family – Held: Unexplained delay in filing complaint and absence of disclosure affects prosecution's credibility [Paras 27–29, 36–37].

Consent and Relationship – Affection and Voluntary Visits Undermine Coercion – Prosecutrix admitted to continued visits and developing feelings for appellant – First mention of threats came during deposition, absent in FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement – Held: Improvements in testimony and lack of contemporaneous fear suggest possibility of consensual relationship [Paras 13–15, 31–34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Paternity Established but Not Rape – DNA proved appellant was father of child but did not establish non-consensual intercourse – No signs of force or injury found – Held: Proof of intercourse without proving lack of consent insufficient for conviction under Section 376 IPC [Paras 35, 38].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – No Allegation in Initial Statements – Threats alleged for first time at trial – Held: Uncorroborated improved statements lacking contemporaneous evidence not sufficient for conviction – Section 506 charge unsustainable [Paras 40–43].

Decision: Appeal – Standard of Proof – Conviction Not Sustainable – Cumulative inconsistencies, unexplained delay, and absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence raised serious doubts – Held: Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges [Paras 44–48].
 

Land Acquisition – Non-Award of Solatium and Interest – Compensation Deficient – Petition Allowed - Petitioners sought extension of statutory benefits under the 1894 Act (solatium, additional compensation, and interest) for land acquired in 2010–2012 under the National Highways Act – The Court held that failure to grant such benefits violates Article 14 of the Constitution – Relied on SC judgments in Tarsem Singh and Golden Iron & Steel Forgings – Directed authorities to extend benefits to petitioners on parity with others similarly situated [Paras 2–17, 25–28].

Statutory Arbitration – Lack of Consensual Clause – Remedy Held Ineffective – Section 3G(5) Invalidated – Petition Allowed - The Court held that arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act lacks legal sanctity due to absence of a consensual arbitration clause – Described statutory arbitration as unilaterally imposed and incompatible with established arbitration principles – Such structure cannot override landowners’ rights to fair adjudication under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 18, 29–30].

Section 3J NH Act – Declared Unconstitutional – Solatium and Interest Restored – Petition Allowed - Following Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh, the Court declared Section 3J (which excluded 1894 Act benefits) unconstitutional – Affirmed retrospective and prospective applicability of solatium and interest for acquisitions between 1997 and 2015 – Held: Arbitrary exclusion violated Article 14 – Ordered computation and disbursal of dues by NHAI [Paras 26–27].

Constitutional Rights – Article 300A – Compensation Must Be Just and Fair – Petition Allowed - The Court emphasized that deprivation of land must be compensated by just, fair, and equitable amounts – Differentiated methods in the 1894 Act, 2013 Act, and NH Act created irrational classifications among similarly situated landowners – Directed harmonization in compensation calculation [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Benefits to Be Paid Within Timeframe - The Court allowed both writ petitions – Directed NHAI to compute and pay solatium and interest as per the 1894 Act – Constitutionality of Sections 3G and 3J struck down to the extent they deny statutory benefits – NHAI directed to comply with directions from Tarsem Singh judgment [Paras 28–30].

Service Law – Public Recruitment – Technical Defect in Caste Certificate – Candidature Wrongly Rejected – Petitioner’s Scheduled Caste certificate was found valid but rejected for lacking registration number and date – The certificate had been issued before the cut-off date and the petitioner qualified through all stages – Held: A technical defect in a valid caste certificate beyond the candidate’s control cannot justify rejection – Such irregularities are procedural and not substantive [Paras 6-9].

Substantial Justice vs. Procedural Rigidity – Rule of Law with Equity – Court stressed that when procedural lapses and substantial rights conflict, justice must prevail – Reiterated that the role of courts is to ensure fairness, not let technicalities frustrate rightful claims – Held: Possession of eligibility is material, not mere technical form of proof [Paras 9-10].

Scope of Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Power under Article 226 – The High Court held that in writ jurisdiction, the Court has the duty to intervene where rejection is arbitrary or unjustified – Reiterated that procedural norms must not override the objectives of equity and justice [Para 7].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Rejection of petitioner’s candidature by HPSC quashed – Direction issued to consider her result and appointment on merits subject to final selection process – Delay in document rectification due to technical reasons held insufficient to deny legitimate consideration [Final Relief Paragraph].

Family Law – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Mental and Physical Harassment – Divorce Upheld – Respondent-husband alleged harassment, multiple false criminal cases, physical violence, and forcible ouster of parents by appellant-wife – Family Court found repeated acts of cruelty including 45 FIRs, threats, assaults, and financial control – Divorce decree affirmed – Appellant’s plea of filing restitution petition not sufficient to negate cruelty – Repeated litigation used as tool for harassment not a bona fide exercise of legal rights [Paras 1-25].

Mental Cruelty – Standard for Assessment – Persistent harassment, humiliation, emotional abuse, and threats constitute mental cruelty – Mere filing of restitution of conjugal rights petition by wife did not absolve cruelty proved by overwhelming evidence – Supreme Court precedents in K. Srinivas Rao, Samar Ghosh, and V. Bhagat applied to hold that cumulative acts crossed the threshold of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 9-18].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long-standing Estrangement – Divorce Justified – Marriage had irretrievably broken down – Continuous acts of violence, harassment, and financial manipulation destroyed marital peace – Court held that forced continuation of marriage would cause injustice – Irretrievable breakdown considered a relevant circumstance though not a statutory ground [Paras 17-20].

Permanent Alimony – Quantum – Permanent alimony of ₹63,00,000/- granted considering husband's financial capacity, wife’s needs, and prolonged litigation – Challenge to adequacy rejected – Court found amount just and equitable [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Divorce confirmed – Permanent alimony maintained – High Court upheld Family Court’s judgment granting divorce and dismissing restitution of conjugal rights [Paras 24-26].