Civil Law – Eviction - Introduction of Additional Document – Registered Sale Deed Admitted on Date of Judgment – Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s decision to admit a certified copy of the registered sale deed (Exhibit-6) on the date of judgment, arguing that it violated procedural requirements under Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC – The Court held that while a document can be introduced at a later stage with leave of the Court, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and without prejudice to the opposing party – Held: The introduction of the sale deed at the final stage of proceedings without adequate justification was improper and could not be sustained [Paras 26-28].

Effect of Exclusion of Registered Sale Deed – No Impact on Plaintiff’s Case – The appellant contended that the exclusion of the sale deed would invalidate the plaintiff’s claim as the landlord – The Court found that the execution of the sale deed and transfer of the suit premises to the plaintiff were undisputed in the defendant’s pleadings – Further, the defendant had acknowledged the transfer and initially paid rent to the plaintiff before defaulting – Held: The exclusion of Exhibit-6 did not affect the plaintiff’s entitlement to eviction [Paras 30-32].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Attornment Not Necessary – Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act – The appellant argued that he never attorned to the plaintiff as his landlord and continued paying rent to the original owner – The Court held that attornment is not necessary for the validity of the landlord-tenant relationship after a lawful transfer – Under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee steps into the shoes of the original landlord and acquires all rights and liabilities – Held: The plaintiff validly acquired the status of landlord, and the defendant was bound to pay rent to him [Paras 36-40].

Eviction on Grounds of Default – Lease Expired and Rent Not Paid – The defendant admitted that he had stopped paying rent since 2010, and the lease term had expired in 2011 – The Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendant was a willful defaulter under Section 11(e) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act – Held: The eviction decree was justified on grounds of default and personal necessity [Paras 42-43].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that despite the improper admission of the sale deed at the final stage, the eviction decree remained valid based on admitted facts and established legal principles. The defendant was found to be a defaulter, and the plaintiff’s right to evict was upheld under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases – Stringent Conditions Imposed – Petitioner was arrested for transporting 731.075 kg of Ganja—Trial court denied bail, citing the presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner argued prolonged judicial custody and procedural delays – High Court held: While Section 37 restricts bail in commercial quantity cases, prolonged detention without trial is a valid ground for bail – Bail granted with strict conditions to ensure attendance at trial [Paras 6-10, 13].

Delay in Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Granted Despite Stringent NDPS Bail Restrictions – Charge sheet filed on 03.05.2024, but trial had not commenced even after ten months – Petitioner in custody since 07.11.2023 – High Court relied on Achint Navinbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India to hold that prolonged incarceration without trial is a valid ground for bail, even in NDPS cases [Paras 11-12].

Bail Conditions – Ensuring Attendance of Accused – Technological Supervision – To prevent absconding, petitioner’s elder brother, a sepoy in the Indian Army, gave an affidavit guaranteeing the petitioner’s appearance – High Court imposed conditions, including real-time mobile phone tracking paired with the investigating officer’s device – Directed that notice to petitioner’s counsel be treated as notice to petitioner, ensuring his presence at trial [Paras 8, 14].

Decision – Bail granted with strict conditions – Petitioner to furnish a bond of ₹75,000 with two sureties, one from Andhra Pradesh and one being his elder brother – Passport to be surrendered – Petitioner to remain available for tracking via mobile phone – Violation of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Writ of Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention – Violation of BNSS – Habeas Corpus Allowed – The detenue was arrested on 24.02.2025 and produced before the Magistrate on 25.02.2025 – Magistrate initially returned the remand report due to failure to provide arrest intimation under Section 47(1) of BNSS – Arrest intimation allegedly sent via WhatsApp to detenue’s relative, which was held to be improper – High Court held: Section 47(1) of BNSS mandates immediate communication of reasons for arrest – Failure to comply renders further detention illegal – Detenue ordered to be released [Paras 9-10, 15-16].

Fundamental Rights – Right to be Informed of Arrest – Constitutional Mandate – Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – High Court relied on Prabhir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, and held that violation of this right results in unlawful custody – Magistrate’s remand order found to be passed without due application of mind, making the detention invalid [Paras 10-13].

Procedural Irregularities – Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements – No Rearrest Conducted – Respondents argued that detenue refused to receive arrest intimation and was later re-arrested – High Court held: No record of rearrest in remand report – Arrest remains non-compliant with legal requirements – Magistrate erred in returning the remand report for compliance instead of releasing detenue immediately [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Remand order set aside – Detenue ordered to be released forthwith from District Jail, Nellore – State permitted to continue investigation as per law [Paras 16-18].

Motor Accident Claims – Fraudulent Claims – Fabrication of Accident Story – Compensation Award Set Aside – Claimant sought compensation for the death of her husband, alleging he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that met with an accident – Investigation revealed that the deceased had actually fallen from his own motorcycle due to dizziness – High Court held: Claim was fabricated with the involvement of the vehicle owner, driver, and lawyer – Award of ₹17,49,752/- quashed – Any compensation paid to be refunded to the insurance company with 9% interest [Paras 12-21].

False Evidence – Perjury in Motor Accident Claims – Criminal Prosecution Ordered – Special Investigation Team (SIT) found that claimant, vehicle owner, and driver colluded to create a false accident story – High Court relied on Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that perjury in judicial proceedings undermines the justice system – Directed prosecution under Sections 193, 196, 199, 209 IPC (corresponding to Sections 229, 233, 236, 246 of BNSS, 2023) [Paras 27-32].

Fraudulent Pleadings – Violation of CPC and BNSS – Action Against Lawyer – High Court noted that false pleadings and affidavits were filed to support the claim – Lawyer representing the claimant played a role in manufacturing the fraudulent case – Court directed disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer and prosecution for aiding perjury [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation award set aside – Claimant, vehicle owner, driver, and lawyer to face criminal prosecution – Case referred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, for cognizance – SIT report and evidence to be submitted for further action [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest without FIR or Grounds of Arrest – Detention Declared Illegal – The detenu was picked up without any FIR or communication of reasons for arrest – FIR was registered hours later, only after a Warrant Officer’s intervention – Held: Arrest violated Articles 21 and 22 and Section 47 of BNSS – Detention declared void ab initio [Paras 1–6, 16–17].

BNSS Compliance – Section 35 and 47 – No Notice or Written Grounds of Arrest – Procedural Safeguards Violated – No notice under Section 35(3) issued – Grounds of arrest not communicated forthwith – Arrest held contrary to statutory and constitutional safeguards – Mere post-facto FIR registration cannot cure illegality [Paras 4, 17].

Judicial Interpretation – Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar – Written Communication of Grounds Mandatory – Court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 – Held: Failure to inform arrestee of arrest grounds in writing vitiates custody – Procedural compliance essential to protect liberty under Articles 21 & 22 [Paras 14–15].

Custodial Dignity – Routine Arrest Without Justification Not Permissible – Citing Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and D.K. Basu, Court reiterated that power to arrest must be exercised with caution and justification – Custodial action impacts reputation and liberty and must conform to due process [Paras 7, 10–11].

Role of Warrant Officer – Ministerial Capacity Only – Overstepping Jurisdiction Deprecated – Court clarified that a Warrant Officer cannot adjudicate legality of arrest – Findings in Warrant Officer’s report regarding legality were beyond mandate and disapproved by the Court [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Detention declared illegal – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Arrest and remand declared void due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards [Paras 21–22].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Transferee Pendente Lite – Not Maintainable – Petitioner purchased suit property during pendency of litigation – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Executing court should have dismissed the application under Rule 97 CPC at the threshold in view of bar under Rule 102 CPC – Revisional court erred in dismissing the application outright rather than remanding the matter for preliminary determination of res judicata [Paras 22–30, 35–36].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Transferee During Suit – Rights Subordinate to Decree – Petitioner’s purchase in 2001 was during pendency of Original Suits No. 33/1991 and 151/1991 – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that such transfers do not affect rights under decree – Transferee bound by outcome of litigation irrespective of notice – Held: Petitioner cannot resist execution of decree passed in 2003 [Paras 18–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Revisional Court Cannot Assume Role of Executing Court – Revisional court should have remanded matter instead of rejecting the execution application – Observed: Supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Revisional court exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating on merits where trial court had not decided the matter finally [Paras 31–34].

Execution Delay – Directions for Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Mandate for Timely Execution – Relying on Periyammal (2025) and Rahul S. Shah (2021), Court reminded executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months – Expressed concern over 10-year pendency of application filed in 2014 – Direction issued to dispose matter within one month [Paras 30, 36–37].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded to Executing Court – High Court set aside both revisional and trial court orders – Directed executing court to decide application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC afresh in light of law on lis pendens and Order XXI Rule 102 CPC within one month [Para 37].

Criminal Law - Framing of Charges – Abetment of Suicide – Ingredients Not Made Out – Charges Quashed – The petitioner, a constable, was accused of abetting his wife's suicide by poisoning – Court found no specific evidence of dowry demand or cruelty – Multiple statements revealed only ordinary domestic discord, not instigation or cruelty sufficient to frame charges under Sections 498A or 306 IPC – Framing of charge held unsustainable [Paras 7–11].

Mens Rea and Proximity – Essential for Section 306 IPC – Not Established – Relying on Apex Court rulings (S.S. Chheena, Mariano Anto Bruno, Jayedeepsinh Chavda), Court held that direct or proximate acts of incitement are mandatory for abetment – Quarrel over wife’s undisclosed financial transactions not sufficient to show intention to provoke suicide [Paras 8–9].

Dowry Allegations – Vague and Omnibus – Not Prima Facie – Statements from family and neighbours failed to mention specific dowry demands or acts of cruelty – Omnibus and sentimental allegations made post-incident found insufficient to proceed to trial – PM report also revealed no signs of injury [Paras 3, 7, 10].

Judicial Role at Charge Stage – Must Apply Mind – Cannot Act as Post Office – Citing Prafulla Kumar Samal, Court reiterated duty to scrutinize whether a prima facie case exists before framing charges – In absence of sufficient ground, continuation of trial would amount to abuse of process [Paras 5, 10].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Charges framed under Sections 498A and 306 IPC quashed – Petitioner discharged – Held: No sufficient ground or prima facie case found to proceed to trial – Further proceedings would amount to judicial futility [Para 12].
 

Service Law – Recruitment to Academic Post – Relevant vs. Concerned Subject – Selection Not Interfered – Petitioner challenged appointment of selected candidate having Ph.D. in Botany for the post requiring Ph.D. in Horticulture – Court held: Selection Committee of subject experts considered Ph.D. thesis relevant (on African Marigold) and recommended appointment – No mala fides or procedural irregularity found – Held: Botany and Horticulture have academic interrelation and decision of experts not amenable to judicial review in absence of illegality [Paras 3.3–4.3, 6].

Judicial Review – Scope in Academic Selections – Deference to Expert Bodies – Reiterated – Citing precedents, Court emphasized that High Court should refrain from interfering with academic opinions unless selection is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of law – Held: Selection was per rules, committee duly constituted, and rationale documented – No scope for interference under Article 226 [Paras 4.6–4.12, 6].

Relevant Subject Interpretation – Discretion of Selection Committee – Upheld – Court accepted OUAT's explanation that “relevant subject” is not confined to nomenclature but includes content of Ph.D. thesis – As per UGC’s 2015 clarification, decision on relevance lies with experts – Held: Ph.D. in Botany with horticultural focus (flower cultivation) considered valid [Paras 4.1–4.4, 6.1].

Participation in Selection – Estoppel Not Absolute – Petitioner Entitled to Raise Legal Grounds – Court rejected technical bar against petitioner for participating in selection and later challenging it – Held: If grounds raise legal issue of eligibility interpretation, challenge is maintainable [Para 5.3].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Selection and appointment of Opposite Party No. 3 upheld – Court found no procedural illegality or irrationality in treating Botany Ph.D. (with horticultural thesis) as relevant qualification – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Whether the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) Should be Tried as an Adult – Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision to not try CCL-SAH as an adult – JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and found that CCL-SAH lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences – Reports relied upon by JJB, including the Preliminary Assessment Report and Social Investigation Report, indicated cognitive immaturity and poor impulse control – Held: JJB’s determination was legally sound and in compliance with Section 15 of the JJ Act – No interference warranted [Paras 31-37].

Age Determination – Reliability of School Records – Whether the Age of CCL-SAH was Correctly Determined – Petitioner questioned the age determination process, citing multiple birth dates in different documents – JJB relied on school records, establishing CCL-SAH’s date of birth as 8th July, 2005, making him a juvenile at the time of the offence – Held: School records are primary evidence for age determination under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 – Petitioner failed to prove any legal infirmity or forgery in school records – Challenge to age determination rejected [Paras 24-30].

Bail under Juvenile Justice Act – Section 12 – Whether Grant of Bail was Justified – JJB granted bail to CCL-SAH, which was upheld by the ASJ – Petitioner argued that the heinous nature of the offence and CCL-SAH’s active role warranted denial of bail – Held: Bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act is mandatory unless the prosecution proves (i) risk of association with criminals, (ii) exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or (iii) that release would defeat the ends of justice – Mere gravity of the offence is not a valid ground for denial of bail – Prosecution failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions – Grant of bail upheld [Paras 38-51].

Right to be Heard – Principles of Natural Justice – Whether Complainant Had a Right to be Heard in Bail Proceedings – Petitioner claimed that the JJB and ASJ violated principles of natural justice by not allowing him to present arguments – Held: JJ Act proceedings are child-centric and not adversarial – No statutory mandate requiring complainant’s hearing at the bail stage – Granting bail is not an order prejudicial to the complainant – Reliance placed on Rajasthan High Court ruling in X v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4209 affirming that complainants have no automatic right to be heard in bail matters under the JJ Act [Paras 52-62].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Whether the ASJ’s Order Suffered from Legal Infirmity – Petitioner sought interference under Section 102 of the JJ Act, arguing that the ASJ mechanically upheld JJB’s findings – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities, not reappreciation of evidence – ASJ’s order was well-reasoned and legally sustainable – No jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice found – Petition dismissed [Paras 63-69].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the ASJ’s order affirming the JJB’s decisions on age determination, preliminary assessment, and bail – No legal infirmity or procedural irregularity found – JJB to proceed uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations [Paras 70-72].