Criminal Law – Passport Renewal – Pending Criminal Case – Permission Granted – Petitioner sought renewal of passport amid trial under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Trial Court dismissed application citing risk of non-return and trial impediment – High Court reversed, allowing renewal upon compliance with terms – Court noted petitioner’s established employment, history of foreign travel for professional obligations, and absence of evidence suggesting flight risk [Paras 4–7].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Judicial Discretion – Arbitrariness – Trial Court’s refusal to grant NOC for passport renewal deemed arbitrary – Court failed to consider petitioner’s employment and prior adherence to return obligations – Discretion re-evaluated and corrected [Paras 7–8].

Conditions for Travel – Limited Duration and Reporting Back – Permission to travel abroad granted from 13/12/2024 to 17/12/2024 for professional meeting, with a direction to furnish itinerary in advance and return to India by the end of December 2024 – Reporting to Magistrate mandated [Paras 7–8].

Precedent – Notification and Case Law – Renewal of Passport Permissible – Principles laid down in Chapala Venugopal v. Union of India and Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case applied – Pendency of criminal proceedings alone insufficient to deny renewal, subject to compliance with notification dated 25/08/1993 [Para 5].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial Court's order dated 17/10/2024 set aside – Application for passport renewal and travel permission granted with conditions – Petitioner to submit travel details to the concerned Magistrate and ensure timely return [Paras 8].

Service Law – Regularization of Service – Appointment on Casual Basis – Denial Upheld – Appellant appointed on a no-work-no-pay basis later absorbed in a regular pay scale as a temporary driver – Increment and allowances ceased in 2010 upon audit objections regarding irregular appointment – Court held: Appellant not appointed against a sanctioned post, no prior approval obtained, and appointment did not adhere to recruitment norms – Rejection of claim for regularization upheld [Paras 9–12, 24].

Article 14 – Equal Treatment – Claim of Parity with Regularized Employees Rejected – Appellant cited cases where employees appointed before 1992 were regularized – Court distinguished the present case, noting lack of sanctioned post and recruitment formalities in appellant's appointment – Precedents cited pertained to sanctioned posts or deemed approval scenarios not applicable here [Paras 14–23].

Doctrine of Precedent – Binding Nature of Umadevi (3) – Supreme Court precedent restricting regularization of casual appointments applied – Court emphasized compliance with principles laid down in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), rejecting appellant’s claim [Paras 23–24].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order rejecting regularization claim upheld – Appellant’s appointment held irregular and not entitled to benefits of regularization [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Bail Application – Expedited Consideration Sought – Interim Measures Permissible - The petitioner, a juvenile, sought a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide his bail application on the same day of surrender – Held: A juvenile should not be unnecessarily detained in an observation home pending a bail decision – As per Sections 10(2) and 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, if bail is not refused, juveniles may be placed in the custody of parents/guardians instead of being sent to observation homes – Decision: Petition allowed with a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the bail application on the same day of surrender [Paras 6-8, 10].

Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Custody Pending Bail Proceedings – Non-Mandatory Detention in Observation Home - The Juvenile Justice Act provides that juveniles may be placed under parental or guardian custody pending bail proceedings, especially when offences are not heinous – Held: Sending the juvenile to an observation home should not be automatic and must only follow a bail rejection order – Juvenile Justice Board may ascertain antecedents through probation officer reports without mandatory detention – Decision: Petition disposed of with specific directions to the Board [Paras 6-10].

Juvenile Justice Board Procedure – Probation Officer Reports – Permissible Interim Custody - The Court clarified that while the Board may obtain probation officer reports for assessing antecedents, such procedural steps should not result in unwarranted detention – Instead, interim custody with parents or guardians is permissible under Rule 9 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules – Decision: Juvenile to be placed under parental custody if bail is not refused on the same day [Paras 7-9].
Decision: The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of surrender. The Board is further instructed to avoid sending the juvenile to an observation home unless bail is specifically rejected, and interim custody with parents/guardians is not feasible. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
 

Regular Bail – Delay in Lodging FIR – Custody Duration Considered – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought bail in a case registered four years ago, contending a 10-day delay in lodging the FIR and insufficient evidence linking him to grievous injuries under Section 308 IPC – The petitioner has already undergone seven months and 16 days in custody, and the investigation is complete – No prior criminal record was presented, showing that he is not a habitual offender – The court granted bail, emphasizing the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 3-5].

Presumption of Innocence – Overcrowding in Prisons – Article 21 Considerations – Bail Allowed – Emphasizing the constitutional mandate under Article 21 and the Supreme Court’s guidance in cases like Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the court reiterated that prolonged incarceration of undertrials violates their right to a speedy trial – Held: The petitioner cannot be detained indefinitely, and bail was granted with appropriate conditions [Paras 4-6].

Right to Speedy Trial – Trial Delays Cited – Bail Upheld – With a significant number of pending prosecution witnesses and no immediate likelihood of trial completion, the court held that prolonged custody without conviction is unwarranted – Petition for bail was allowed to prevent undue hardship to the petitioner [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Bail Granted - Petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The court clarified that this order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case [Para 5].
 

Civil Law – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – Denial – Appellants (husband and wife) challenged the dismissal of their application for leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC filed by the respondent for recovery of ₹7,77,500/- with interest – Trial Court denied leave to defend on the grounds that appellants admitted availing the loan, executing a loan agreement, and issuing a repayment cheque that was dishonored – Appellants’ claim of repayment through monthly cash installments was unsupported by receipts or evidence – Held: Defense was frivolous and vexatious – Leave to defend rightly denied [Paras 1–9].

Order XXXVII CPC – Scope of Leave to Defend – Legal Principles – Court reiterated principles for granting leave to defend as laid down in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 – Substantial defense entitles unconditional leave; frivolous or vexatious defenses justify refusal; plausible but improbable defenses may lead to conditional leave – Appellants’ defense was found to be neither substantial nor plausible, warranting rejection of leave to defend [Paras 5–7].

Plea of Repayment – Lack of Evidence – Appellants claimed repayment through monthly cash installments but failed to produce receipts, bank records, or evidence – Annexure A12, purportedly supporting repayment, was an unauthenticated copy of a WhatsApp screenshot with unrelated entries – Trial Court rightly concluded that appellants’ repayment claim was unsubstantiated and contrary to their defense [Paras 7–9].

Cheque as Security – Inconsistency in Defense – Appellants contended that the repayment cheque was blank and issued as security, yet failed to explain why it was not reclaimed after alleged repayment – Court found this plea implausible, noting appellants were literate businesspersons capable of understanding the implications of signing a cheque [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court upheld – Application for leave to defend was frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit [Paras 10].

Civil Law – Accident Claim - Negligence in Driving – Proof of Rash and Negligent Driving – Compensation Awarded – The appellant argued that the accident occurred due to a blue cow crossing the road, which was beyond the driver’s control. However, the Court held that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at high speed during nighttime, as corroborated by an eyewitness and the conductor’s admission of high speed. The appellant failed to produce the driver as a witness. Consequently, the tribunal’s finding of negligent driving was upheld. [Paras 12-13]

Dependency of Father – Legal Principles and Evidence – Compensation Upheld – The appellant contended that the father of the deceased could not be considered a dependent without proof. The Court, relying on the evidence presented, found that the claimant-father had no independent income and was residing with the deceased along with his wife. The Court held that the father was dependent on the deceased, and the dependency was not effectively challenged during cross-examination. The finding of dependency was upheld. [Paras 14-16]

Multiplier Application – Error Corrected – Multiplier of 16 Applied – The tribunal applied a multiplier of 17 for the deceased, aged 33 years. The Court, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, held that the correct multiplier for the age group of 31-35 years was 16. Accordingly, the multiplier was reduced to 16, and the award was modified. [Paras 18-19]

Future Prospects – 50% Enhancement Applied – Tribunal's Omission Corrected – The Court found that the tribunal failed to award 50% enhancement towards future prospects for the deceased, who was in a permanent job and below 40 years of age, as mandated by Pranay Sethi. The Court applied the enhancement, increasing the compensation. [Paras 24-25]

Interest on Future Prospects – Entitlement Recognized – The Court held that interest is payable on the entire compensation, including the component of future prospects, as the future prospects form an integral part of the compensation. This decision was supported by precedents from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts. The interest rate was enhanced from 7% to 9% per annum. [Paras 27-38]

Just Compensation – Duty of Tribunal and Courts – Enhanced – Emphasizing that the Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare legislation, the Court reiterated that tribunals and courts have a duty to award “just compensation” irrespective of the specific claims made by the parties. Accordingly, the award was revised to Rs.50,35,456/- with 9% interest. [Paras 20-23]

NDPS - Bail – Prolonged Custody – Concession Allowed – The petitioner, a first-time offender, was in custody since 05.09.2021 with only 09 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Held: Delay in trial and prolonged custody warranted relaxation of Section 37 NDPS Act conditions in light of Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted [Paras 9-10].
Judicial Precedents – Applicability to Bail Cases – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act Diluted – Relying on precedents set in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5769/2022, and Hasanujjaman & Others v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 3221/2023, the Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and extended bail to the petitioner [Paras 6-8].
Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – The petitioner directed to provide monthly reporting at the police station, deposit an FDR of ₹1,00,000 with the Trial Court, and comply with trial requirements to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of bail [Paras 11-12].
Decision – Petition allowed – Bail granted to Balwinder Singh subject to conditions, emphasizing adherence to trial obligations and accountability [Paras 10-13].
 

Statutory Bail – Delay in Filing Final Report – Section 167(2) CrPC – Bail Granted – Petitioners were in custody for over 177 days, and the prosecution failed to file the final report within the stipulated 60 days as required under Section 167(2) CrPC. Despite the existence of criminal antecedents, the Court held that the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail. The contraband seized was of intermediary quantity, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. Bail was granted with stringent conditions. Paras5−7

Principle of “Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception” – Constitutional Right under Article 21 – Refusal of Bail Exceptional – The Court reiterated that the principle of "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" must be followed even in cases involving stringent statutory provisions. Denial of bail without sufficient justification would constitute a violation of the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also emphasized that courts must ensure that deserving cases for bail are not denied arbitrarily. Paras8−10

Conditional Bail – Safeguards Against Misuse – Stringent Conditions Imposed – To prevent misuse of the bail, the Court imposed stringent conditions, including the execution of bonds, appearance before the investigating officer when required, prohibition on leaving the country, and cooperation with the investigation. The jurisdictional court was given the authority to cancel bail if conditions were violated. Paras7,10
 

Administrative Law – Adherence to Guidelines – Population Categorization – HPCL's Rejection of Offer Land – Petitioner challenged rejection of land offered for retail outlet dealership under HPCL, citing reliance on outdated Census 2011 data for categorizing the area as a rural stretch – HPCL relied on NHAI guidelines mandating Census 2011 as the reference for population assessment – Held: NHAI guidelines are binding, and local panchayat certification of population is not an authoritative substitute for Census data [Paras 14–16].

Land Evaluation – Compliance with Brochure and NHAI Guidelines – Petitioner argued that the offered land satisfies urban stretch requirements, considering the current population – Court upheld HPCL's reliance on specified norms in the selection brochure and NHAI guidelines, rejecting deviation based on local certificates – Brochure norms upheld as binding [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Rejection of offer land by HPCL upheld as compliant with NHAI guidelines and selection brochure – No interference warranted with the impugned memo dated 22/04/2022 [Paras 17–18].