Criminal Law – Bail – Rejection of Bail Application – Appellant, a Senior Inspector of Police, accused of conspiracy and complicity in the murder of Mansukh Hiran and related offences – Charged under IPC Sections 120B, 201, 302, and 364, as well as Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the UAPA – Prosecution alleged involvement in a conspiracy to plant explosives and subsequent murder to eliminate evidence – Special Judge denied bail – High Court upheld rejection based on prima facie evidence and the seriousness of offences – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-33].

Conspiracy – Larger Conspiracy and Role of Accused – Prosecution case outlined premeditated conspiracy involving multiple accused, including appellant – Alleged appellant facilitated the crime by posing as "Inspector Tawade," luring the deceased to meet conspirators – Statements of protected witnesses, technical evidence (CCTV, call detail records), and forensic material linked appellant to the crime – Defense contention that there was no direct evidence of appellant's role dismissed as conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence [Paras 13-19, 21-23, 28-29].

Role of Evidence – Technical and Witness Testimonies – Call detail records, CCTV footage, and statements of witnesses provided prima facie evidence of the appellant’s role in luring the deceased and aiding co-conspirators – Specific allegations included handing over the victim to hired killers, tampering with evidence, and facilitating communication using benami SIM cards – Prosecution relied on sequence of events supported by physical and digital evidence to substantiate claims – Appellant’s defense of lack of direct evidence rejected as material corroborated a larger conspiracy [Paras 17-24, 27-28].

Application of UAPA – Stringent Provisions and Prima Facie Case – Appellant charged under UAPA for conspiring to commit terrorist acts aimed at creating terror – Court noted sufficient material to establish appellant’s role in conspiracy and rejected arguments against applicability of UAPA – Principles from Supreme Court judgments on prima facie satisfaction for UAPA bail upheld – Observed that offenses fell within UAPA framework due to intent to strike terror [Paras 22, 24, 29-31].

Decision – Bail Denied – High Court dismissed appeal – Held, strong prima facie evidence and seriousness of charges justified continued custody – Observed that the appellant’s release would jeopardize the trial and risk tampering with witnesses – Court emphasized that observations were limited to bail considerations and did not prejudge the trial outcome [Paras 32-33].

Civil Law - Limitation – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Rejection of Plaint at Preliminary Stage – The appellant contended that the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff argued that knowledge of the gift deeds was first acquired in 2021. The court found that this raised a mixed question of fact and law that required evidence. – Held: Limitation cannot be decided purely as a legal question without considering evidence – Outcome: Remand order upheld, and appeal dismissed [Paras 14-16].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Particulars in Pleadings – Compliance with Order VI Rule 4 CPC – The appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to state the date of knowledge of fraud in the plaint, violating Order VI Rule 4 CPC. The court held that such omissions did not invalidate the plaint if supporting documents and claims were on record. – Held: Plaintiff can amend the plaint to clarify details, and the omission is not fatal – Outcome: Appeal dismissed; liberty to amend plaint granted [Paras 10-12].

Rejection of Plaint – Holistic Reading Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The court emphasized that a plaint must be read as a whole, along with accompanying documents, when deciding an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application. The plaintiff’s assertion of knowledge in 2021 through a municipal notice was sufficient to sustain the plaint at this stage. – Held: Question of limitation intertwined with facts; trial court to decide after evidence – Outcome: Appeal dismissed; remand appropriate [Paras 17-18].
Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the first appellate court’s decision to remand the matter to the trial court to decide all issues, including limitation, after evidence. Observations in the trial and appellate court orders were clarified as non-binding for the final determination.
 

Bail Jurisprudence – “Bail is the Rule, Jail is an Exception” – Applicability in Sexual Offence Cases – The petitioner, accused of offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, sought bail citing prolonged detention, completion of investigation, and lack of prior criminal antecedents. The court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as punishment and must align with the principle of liberty under Article 21. – Held: Bail was granted with stringent conditions – Decision: Application allowed [Paras 5-10].

Rights of Accused – Right to Liberty – Judicial Balance Between Fair Trial and Personal Freedom – The prosecution opposed bail, fearing intimidation of the survivor and evidence tampering. The court balanced these concerns with the petitioner’s liberty, noting that safeguards in bail conditions mitigate risks. – Held: Liberty and rights under Article 21 cannot be abridged without just cause – Decision: Bail allowed with conditions to protect the survivor’s interests [Paras 10-12].

Bail Conditions – Stringency to Prevent Misuse – The court imposed specific bail conditions, including non-contact with the survivor, restriction on entering her locality, surrender of passport, and compliance with trial court directives. – Held: Conditions must prevent misuse of bail while ensuring trial fairness – Decision: Petitioner to adhere strictly to bail conditions, failing which cancellation is permitted [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions, ensuring balance between the petitioner’s liberty and protection of the survivor. Observations made in this order were clarified as limited to the bail stage, not affecting trial merits.

Preventive Detention – Grounds of Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Upheld – The petitioner challenged the preventive detention order on grounds of non-application of mind by the detaining authority, reliance on vague allegations, and procedural lapses. The court observed that the detention was based on substantive evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in drug-related cases, with confirmation by the Advisory Board. – Held: Procedural compliance and substantive grounds validated the detention order, which was deemed necessary for public safety – Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the detention order upheld [Paras 8-10].

Right to Representation – Article 22(4) of the Constitution – Timely Consideration – Compliance Found – The petitioner alleged that the government failed to consider his representation and communicate the decision. The court found that the representation was duly considered and rejected, with proper communication made to the petitioner through relevant channels. – Held: No violation of Article 22(4) was established, and the claim lacked merit – Decision: The petition was dismissed on this ground as well [Paras 11-13].

Illicit Drug Trafficking – Public Interest Justification for Detention – Considering the petitioner’s repeated involvement in the illicit narcotics trade, which posed a severe threat to public order, preventive detention was deemed necessary under the PITNDPS Act. – Held: Detention is justified in the interest of curbing the menace of narcotics in society – Decision: The detention order was upheld as justified and lawful [Paras 14-15].
 

Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability of Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Held: Testimonies of chance witnesses were inconsistent, delayed, and contradictory, raising doubts about their presence at the scene – No credible explanation was provided for delayed reporting to the police despite proximity of the police station – Witnesses’ accounts were inconsistent with medical and ballistic evidence – Conviction overturned [Paras 30-50].

Interested Witness – Scrutiny of Motive and Testimony – Political Rivalry – Held: Evidence from relatives of the deceased, including the informant (P.W. 7), was scrutinized due to potential political motive – Inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence rendered the testimonies unreliable – Accused benefited from reasonable doubt [Paras 51-65].

Forensic Evidence – Post-mortem and Ballistics – Charred Wounds and Trajectory Analysis – Held: Post-mortem indicated gunshot wounds from a higher elevation, inconsistent with eyewitness testimony – Forensic anomalies corroborated doubts about the prosecution’s version of events [Paras 66-75].

Delay in FIR – Impact on Prosecution Case – The delay in lodging the FIR, despite immediate police access at the scene, undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case and supported the defense’s contention of deliberation and fabrication [Paras 76-85].

Decision: The appeals were allowed. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants of all charges, directing their immediate release unless required in other cases.
 

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Uniform Market Value – Land acquired for the construction of a railway line, utilized for a single public purpose – Reference Court enhanced compensation uniformly at ₹25,000 per kanal, irrespective of land classification – Held: Enhancement justified as classification had no relevance due to uniform use of land – Based on the principle in Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 447, where no development deductions were permitted for land acquired for public purposes [Paras 8-9].

Market Value – Evidence and Comparable Sale Instances – Court relied on sale deeds of similar land located in the vicinity to determine fair compensation – Witness testimonies established the proximity of the acquired land to schools, factories, and residential areas, warranting higher compensation – Held: Enhanced compensation reflects the true market value of the acquired land [Paras 11-12].

Precedent – Similar Case Outcome – Binding Nature – Co-ordinate Bench judgment in General Manager, Northern Railway v. Rajneesh Kumar & Others (RFA No. 378 of 2012) affirmed the enhancement of compensation in identical circumstances for land acquired for the Nangal–Talwara Railway Line – Held: Consistency in judicial decisions mandates no interference with the Reference Court’s award [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation of ₹25,000 per kanal – Appeal by Northern Railway dismissed as devoid of merit, with no error found in the award [Paras 10, 14].
 

Contract Law – Tender Process – Discharge of Tender – Eligibility Criteria – Petition under Article 226 challenging discharge of tender by respondent authority – Petitioner alleged fulfillment of eligibility criteria under clause 4.1.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), requiring five years' experience of owning and operating at least five functioning retail outlets of allopathic medicines – Respondent contended that petitioner failed to meet criteria as no single outlet had been continuously operational for five years – Held: Respondent's interpretation of eligibility clause upheld – Authority, as the author of tender, is best positioned to interpret terms – No mala fides or arbitrariness found in decision to discharge tender – Petition dismissed [Paras 6.1–6.5, 6.15–6.16].

Contract Law – "Letter of Intent" (LoI) – Binding Nature – Petitioner claimed LoI dated 05.08.2024 constituted a binding contract – Court held LoI issued under clause 31 of the NIT only indicated pre-acceptance of tender, not notification of award under clause 32 – No performance security furnished nor formal agreement executed as required – Communication from the Chief Medical Officer via personal email found irregular and non-binding – Held: No concluded contract existed – Respondent acted within rights to discharge tender [Paras 6.6–6.13].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Tender Decisions – Respondent authority discharged tender upon finding no bidder met eligibility criteria – Authority received multiple complaints and scrutinized documents before rejecting bids – Discretion to cancel tender vested in clause 30 of NIT – Court deferred to authority's decision in absence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural irregularity – Held: Interpretation of tender terms by employer found reasonable and in line with the purpose of ensuring uninterrupted supply of medicines [Paras 6.3–6.5, 6.14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Discharge of tender upheld – No costs.
 

Chamber Allotment – Transparency and Fairness – Lack of Public Notification – Allotment Sustained - Appellant sought re-allotment of Chamber No. 103 on medical grounds, alleging that the allotment process lacked transparency – Court observed that while the chamber’s vacancy was not publicly notified, the allotment was based on seniority, and the appellant’s claim could not supersede that of senior advocates – Held: Allotment to respondents sustained; guidelines must ensure transparency in future [Paras 12–18].

Allotment on Medical Grounds – Validity of Claim – Appellant’s Request Denied - The appellant argued for allotment on medical grounds relating to her and her husband’s health conditions – Court noted that the guidelines did not provide for preferential allotment on such grounds unless the applicant’s health was directly affected – Held: Request for medical grounds not justified under the current guidelines [Paras 19–23].

Legal Right to Specific Allotment – Non-Existence – Appeal Dismissed - The Court reiterated that the appellant did not have a legal right to claim a specific chamber – Held: Chambers must be allotted per established guidelines, and the appellant’s refusal of an alternative chamber on the second floor undermined her request – Appeal dismissed with suggestions for future humanitarian consideration [Paras 24–28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with the judgment of the Single Judge – Future consideration of appellant’s application on humanitarian grounds suggested if a first-floor chamber becomes vacant [Paras 29–33].
 

Arbitration Law – Review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Grounds for Review – Application Dismissed - The appellant sought a review of the judgment dismissing its appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging errors on the face of the record, including the enforceability of exorbitant interest rates and misinterpretation of the sanction letters – The court reaffirmed that review is permissible only on limited grounds such as an error apparent on the record – Held: The issues raised were addressed and rejected in the original proceedings; review dismissed [Paras 1–5, 27–35].

Commercial Contract – Interest at 36% per Annum – Validity and Enforceability – Rate Not Unconscionable - The court examined the claim of excessive interest rates under commercial sanction letters – Held: Exorbitant rates in commercial contracts reflect market risks and do not contravene public policy when the parties are sophisticated entities with equal bargaining power – The interest clause was upheld as valid under the terms agreed by the parties [Paras 15–25, 40–50].

Public Policy – Scope in Arbitration – Not Violated by Enforceable Interest Rates - The appellant claimed the arbitral award contravened public policy due to excessive interest – The court reiterated the limited scope of public policy under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that contravention of public policy requires a breach of fundamental principles of Indian law – Held: The interest clause in the sanction letters did not breach fundamental legal principles; award upheld [Paras 51–58].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on the face of the record – Original judgment upheld – No costs awarded [Paras 59–65].