Bail Application – Accused Charged Under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Consideration of Offense Severity – Bail Granted - The appellant was accused of assaulting the complainant’s husband with a beer bottle, causing injuries, and making caste-based derogatory remarks. The Special Judge rejected bail, citing incomplete investigation. The High Court found that the injury suffered was a minor abrasion and that the appellant had been in custody since 11.01.2025. Held: Bail granted considering the period of custody and completion of material investigation [Paras 7-9].

Bail Conditions – Safeguarding Investigation – Compliance is Mandatory – Breach May Lead to Cancellation - While granting bail, the Court imposed conditions including execution of a personal bond, regular police station visits, and non-interference with the investigation. Any violation of bail conditions would invite immediate cancellation of bail, and the prosecution could move for such cancellation [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters – Scope of Revisional Powers – Balancing Liberty and Public Interest - The High Court emphasized that while the gravity of the offense is a crucial factor, bail should not be denied merely on accusations. Courts must balance personal liberty with the need for a fair investigation. Bail was justified as the appellant had already been in custody for a reasonable duration, and the alleged injury was minor [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to ensure non-interference in the investigation. Violation of conditions would result in cancellation of bail.
 

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Rape Survivor – Judicial Review – Right to Life – Permission Granted – A 13-year-old minor, a victim of sexual assault, was diagnosed with a pregnancy beyond the permissible 24-week limit under the MTP Act – The petitioner (father of the minor) sought permission for termination, citing the grave risk to the child’s life due to pre-existing medical conditions (Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy) – The Medical Board opined that continuing the pregnancy posed life-threatening risks – Held: The statutory mandate under the MTP Act does not override the fundamental rights under Article 21 – Where medical opinion confirms serious health risks, courts must exercise discretion to permit termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit – Petition allowed [Paras 6-10, 34-35].

Reproductive Autonomy – Constitutional Rights – Article 21 of the Constitution – Bodily Integrity Upheld – The Court held that reproductive rights and the autonomy of a woman over her own body, including termination of pregnancy, are protected under Article 21 – The right to make reproductive choices is integral to personal liberty and human dignity – The legislative framework should not be interpreted to deny a person’s right to make medical decisions affecting their life and health – Held: Denying termination in such cases would be contrary to the spirit of constitutional morality and fundamental rights [Paras 12-14, 31-32].

Medical Board’s Role – Statutory Delay – Need for Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) – The Court expressed concern over unnecessary judicial intervention in cases where medical termination of pregnancy is justified under statutory and constitutional provisions – Held: Delays in referring cases to the Medical Board cause unnecessary mental and physical distress to victims – Directed the State Government to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to streamline the process, ensuring that cases are promptly evaluated by the Medical Board without requiring court intervention unless legally necessary [Paras 22-25, 33-36].
 

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Rape Survivor Beyond 24 Weeks – Termination Allowed – Risk to Life Established – Petitioner, father of 13-year-old minor rape survivor suffering from Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy, sought termination beyond statutory limit – Medical Board concluded continuation of pregnancy posed life-threatening risks – Court held pregnancy termination legally permissible under Sections 3(2B) and 5 of MTP Act – Relief granted [Paras 1–10, 34–35].

Right to Bodily Autonomy – Constitutional Protection under Article 21 – Reproductive Choice Recognized – Court reaffirmed that reproductive autonomy is integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – Emphasized importance of decisional autonomy, dignity, and privacy, particularly in cases of rape and disability – Held: Medical termination is a fundamental right in such circumstances [Paras 12–16].

Judicial Oversight – Procedural Delay Criticized – SOP Ordered – Court observed that hospitals unnecessarily required judicial orders despite statutory clarity – Directed State to formulate and implement a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to guide medical practitioners in similar cases and avoid future delay – Six-month timeframe fixed [Paras 20–24, 33, 36].

Minor Victim – Parental Consent Sufficient – Protection of Interests – Recognized that in the case of minors, guardians have the legal and moral responsibility to make decisions in their best interests – Mental anguish and physical burden of childbirth at age 13 held unacceptable – Court found guardians acting in child's best interest [Paras 13, 18–19].

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Medical termination of pregnancy permitted and to be carried out without delay – State directed to formulate a comprehensive SOP within six months to guide hospitals and prevent undue judicial interventions in future cases – Interim orders, if any, vacated [Paras 34–37].

Anticipatory Bail - Financial Fraud – Misappropriation of Funds in Co-operative Society – Petitioners, including former and present members of the Perumbavoor Urban Co-operative Society, accused of financial fraud, loan irregularities, and document forgery—Alleged misappropriation of ₹33.33 crores by granting loans without valid documents—Held: Sufficient prima facie evidence against petitioners—Custodial interrogation required—Bail denied except for medically incapacitated accused [Paras 4-9].

Forgery and Loan Fraud – Illegal Loan Disbursement Without Knowledge of Applicants – Petitioners accused of sanctioning loans using forged documents without the applicants’ knowledge—Prosecution alleged that fake loan beneficiaries were created to siphon funds—Held: Serious allegations of fraud affecting depositors—Bail denied as investigation is ongoing [Paras 10-14].

Medical Grounds for Bail – Consideration of Health Conditions of Accused – Some petitioners sought bail citing serious medical conditions, including paralysis and hospitalization—Held: Bail granted to K. M. Abdul Salam and Babu John due to medical reasons, with conditions to cooperate with investigation—Other petitioners’ medical claims rejected as not severe enough to preclude custodial interrogation [Paras 15-19].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in White-Collar Crime – Prosecution contended that the accused had concealed the true nature of transactions, making custodial interrogation essential—Held: Given the complexity and scale of fraud, custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the entire conspiracy—Bail denied to key accused [Paras 20-22].

Final Decision – Bail applications of most petitioners dismissed—Bail granted only to two petitioners on medical grounds, subject to conditions—Court directs accused to surrender before the investigating officer—Emphasized need for stringent investigation into large-scale financial fraud [Paras 23-26].
 

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Disclosure of Minor Victim’s Identity – Media Responsibility – The petitioner, an editor of a news channel, was accused of revealing the identity of a minor victim and her family in a sexual offence case—Held: Publication of victim’s identity violates Section 23 of the POCSO Act—Media houses have an obligation to protect the identity of child victims—Allegations justified investigation [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Power to Direct FIR Registration – The petitioner argued that the Special Court erred in directing the police to register an FIR instead of taking cognizance itself—Held: The Special Court can either take cognizance or direct investigation if it deems necessary—No illegality in the Special Court’s decision to refer the matter to the police [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Procedure – Whether Direct Complaint Before Special Court was Maintainable – The petitioner contended that the complainant should have approached the police first under Section 154 CrPC—Held: The POCSO Act contains overriding provisions that allow direct complaints to the Special Court—Court’s direction to register FIR upheld [Paras 11-13].

Final Decision – Criminal revision petition dismissed – Investigation to proceed—Police directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within two months—Special Court to expedite trial [Paras 14-16].

Taxation Law - Tax Evasion – Undervaluation of Goods – Section 129 of the IGST/CGST Act – Goods in transit can be seized if transported in contravention of the Act or Rules – The petitioners contended that their goods were lawfully transported with valid tax invoices and without an e-way bill, as the value was below ₹50,000 – The Court held that undervaluation of goods with intent to evade tax amounts to a violation of the GST Act – Authorities are empowered to detain and seize goods under Section 129 – Held: The seizure was justified as the documents were found to be manipulated and the petitioners failed to prove the genuine movement of goods from Assam/West Bengal to Delhi [Paras 14-17, 26-28].

Burden of Proof – Requirement to Prove Genuine Movement of Goods – The petitioners failed to provide toll receipts, vehicle details, or other supporting evidence establishing that the goods originated from Assam/West Bengal – The Court emphasized that under GST law, the burden of proof lies on the dealer to demonstrate the legitimacy of the transaction – Held: Failure to establish actual movement of goods rendered the accompanying tax invoices unreliable, justifying detention and penalty [Paras 22-26].

E-Way Bill Exemption – Misuse to Evade Tax – Rule 138 of CGST Rules – The petitioners claimed that since the value of goods was below ₹50,000, an e-way bill was not required – The Court found that the deliberate undervaluation of goods to avoid generating an e-way bill was a fraudulent practice – Held: The exemption under Rule 138 cannot be misused to suppress the true value of goods and evade tax obligations [Paras 37-39].

Reliability of Driver’s Statement – Importance of Initial Interrogation – The truck driver’s statement indicated that the goods were loaded from Kanpur instead of Assam/West Bengal, contradicting the accompanying documents – The Court held that initial statements given at the time of detention carry greater evidentiary value – Held: The driver’s statement reinforced the finding that the goods were falsely documented as originating from Assam/West Bengal, supporting the tax authority’s action [Paras 29-31].

Judicial Precedents – Seizure Valid for Undervaluation – The Court relied on previous rulings that upheld seizure of goods for undervaluation when done with an intent to evade tax – It noted that misdeclaring value to avoid tax obligations constitutes a violation of GST laws – Held: The present case aligned with past judgments where tax authorities were justified in detaining goods on suspicion of tax evasion through undervaluation [Paras 42-45].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – The Court found no merit in the petitions challenging the seizure orders. Seizure and penalty upheld – The Court confirmed that the authorities were justified in seizing the goods and imposing penalties under Section 129 of the GST Act. Deliberate undervaluation amounts to tax evasion – The Court ruled that misrepresenting the value of goods to circumvent e-way bill requirements constitutes an attempt to evade tax. Failure to establish genuine movement – The petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the actual transportation of goods from Assam/West Bengal, rendering their claims untenable.

Taxation Law – Deemed Dealer under MVAT Act – Whether Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund is Liable – The Appellant, a trust set up by the Central Government to recover non-performing assets of IDBI, challenged its classification as a deemed dealer under the MVAT Act – The Tribunal upheld the determination order, ruling that the Appellant falls within the definition of a "dealer" under Section 2(8) – Held: The Explanation to Section 2(8) deems certain entities as dealers, overriding the requirement of carrying on business – As the Appellant was constituted by the Central Government for recovery and sale of stressed assets, it falls within the category of a deemed dealer – Tax liability confirmed [Paras 19-28].

Article 285 – Immunity of Union Property from State Taxation – Whether Applicable – The Appellant argued that it was exempt from taxation under Article 285 as it was acting as an instrumentality of the Central Government – Held: While Article 285 prohibits taxation of Union property, the trust itself, though government-created, engages in commercial transactions, making it subject to state taxation – Exemption not applicable [Paras 11-13].

Prospective Effect of Determination Order – Discretionary Power under Section 56(2) – The Appellant contended that it was under a bona fide impression that it was not liable for tax and had not collected tax from purchasers – Sought relief through prospective effect to avoid hardship – Held: Section 56(2) allows for prospective application of orders, but in this case, the Tribunal found no justification for relief – The Appellant, being a financial institution dealing in sales, was expected to be aware of tax liabilities – Denial of prospective effect upheld [Paras 16-18].

Nature of Transactions – Sale of Movable vs. Immovable Property – The Appellant claimed that it only sold immovable properties and thus should not be liable under MVAT – The Tribunal ruled that whether an asset is movable or immovable is to be determined at the field level – Held: Movable property sold in the course of stressed asset recovery is subject to VAT – The Appellant’s sale transactions included movable goods, making them taxable under MVAT [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Appeals dismissed – The Tribunal’s orders upholding the tax liability and denying prospective effect confirmed – The Appellant held liable for VAT on transactions of movable property sales [Paras 29-32].

BSF Service – Compulsory Retirement – Valid Exercise of Power – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a constable in BSF, was compulsorily retired under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules for unsuitability due to repeated acts of indiscipline – The Court held that Rule 26 allows retirement on unsuitability if the competent authority is satisfied after issuing a show-cause notice – The Court found that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity, and the decision was based on his overall conduct, including six punishments during service and failure to reform despite warnings – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 7-20]. 
 
Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Subjective Satisfaction of Competent Authority – Not Interfered – The Court reiterated that where rules permit action based on the satisfaction of the authority, such satisfaction is conclusive unless perverse, arbitrary, or mala fide – The Court found no perversity or arbitrariness in the formation of opinion by the respondents – Rule 26 and procedural safeguards were duly followed [Paras 15-20]. 
 
Double Jeopardy – Inapplicability – Retirement on Unsuitability Is Not Punishment – The petitioner contended that retirement after prior punishments amounted to double jeopardy – The Court held that retirement under Rule 26 is an administrative action based on cumulative unsuitability and not a second punishment – Principle of double jeopardy does not apply [Para 14]. 
 
Alternative Remedy – Availability Not a Bar after Delay – Writ Maintainable – Although Rule 28-A provides for an internal remedy, the Court decided to hear the petition on merits given the passage of 18 years – Premature rejection on technical grounds avoided [Para 9]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court held that the petitioner was rightly retired after considering past conduct, repeated indiscipline, and disregard of warnings – No merit found in the challenge – Writ petition dismissed [Para 20]. 
 

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings – Whether Time-Barred Claims Can Be Introduced – The petitioner challenged the trial court’s decision permitting amendment of the plaint, arguing that time-barred claims were being introduced—Held: The amendment did not ex facie introduce a time-barred claim—At best, the issue of limitation was arguable and could be decided at trial—No jurisdictional error in allowing amendment [Paras 7(ix)-7(x)].

Impleadment of New Defendants – Effect on Nature of Suit – The amendment sought to include additional partners as defendants—Petitioner contended that the newly added persons were not actual partners—Held: The impleadment of new parties did not change the nature of the suit—Validity of their involvement to be determined at trial—Amendment upheld [Paras 7(viii)-7(x)].

Mandatory Mediation Under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Whether Applicable – The petitioner argued that allowing the amendment bypassed the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act—Held: The suit was not before a Commercial Court—Section 12-A not applicable—Petitioner has remedies under law if it wishes to contest commercial jurisdiction separately [Para 7(xi)].

Final Decision – Revision petition dismissed – Amendment order upheld—Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s decision [Para 7(xiii)].