Anticipatory Bail – Scope and Limitations – Severity of Offense and Risk of Public Disorder – Applicants sought anticipatory bail, arguing limited involvement in an alleged assault with general allegations and no prior criminal history – Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is extraordinary relief meant for false or frivolous cases, not a shield for avoiding lawful proceedings in serious crimes – Held: Given the gravity of offense and presence of gunshot injuries among victims, anticipatory bail denied to prevent potential disruption to law and order [Paras 5-11, 18-20].

Criminal Law – Constructive Liability – Applicability of Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC – Despite claims of minor participation, the presence of multiple accused and the assault’s planned nature invoked Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, establishing shared intent – Court held that group assault in a planned midnight attack warranted joint liability under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, ruling out anticipatory bail [Paras 14-17].

Right to Liberty vs. Public Safety – Criteria for Anticipatory Bail – Court referenced recent Supreme Court guidelines, underscoring the need to balance personal liberty with community safety in anticipatory bail decisions – Held: Absence of extraordinary circumstances or evidence of harassment weakens claim for anticipatory bail, especially in violent incidents with collective assault and firearm usage [Paras 21-25].

Decision: The anticipatory bail application is dismissed. The Court held that the applicants failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying relief, and anticipatory bail would adversely affect public safety and rights of the complainant [Paras 26-29].

Bail - Money Laundering – Scholarship Scam – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Denied - The applicant, Rajdeep Singh, sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, asserting innocence and challenging his continued detention in a case of alleged involvement in misappropriating scholarship funds – The Enforcement Directorate (ED) contended that Singh and accomplices established shell companies, diverted funds using fabricated documents, and violated the Post Matric Scheme meant for economically disadvantaged students – The Court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing, citing the need for custodial interrogation to unearth additional evidence and secure witness statements – Held: Bail denied as the applicant failed to meet the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA, warranting custody to facilitate investigation [Paras 2-12, 15, 17].

Procedural Compliance – Section 19 PMLA – Validity of Arrest – No Relief on Grounds of Arrest Procedure - The applicant alleged non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 19 PMLA, asserting non-receipt of ‘reasons to believe’ prior to arrest – The Court noted that the applicant had not formally challenged his arrest and found the Enforcement Directorate had complied with procedural mandates, dismissing this argument as a basis for bail [Para 18].

Delay in Trial – Supreme Court Rulings on Bail Due to Delay – Not Applicable - The applicant referenced Supreme Court rulings on bail based on trial delays – The Court found no undue delay, noting procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were being followed, with no excessive delay in framing charges – Held: Delay argument inapplicable given current case status [Paras 19-21].

Decision: The application for bail is dismissed, as the applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions required under Section 45 of the PMLA. Observations made do not reflect a view on the merits of the case and are limited to the present bail application.
 

Civil Writ -  Temporary Appointments – Procedural Compliance Under MMR Rules – Review applicants argued that their placement in the selection panel, and nomination by the District Registrar, conferred priority for appointment – Held: Appointment of MMR requires adherence to Rule 3(b) of the 1929 Rules, which empowers the IGR to override the District Registrar’s nominee and recommend another candidate, as was done for the writ petitioner, satisfying legal requirements for temporary MMR appointments [Paras 8-12].

Review Grounds – Discovery of New Facts or Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Review applicants claimed new procedural developments warranted review of the court's order favoring the writ petitioner – Held: The facts and materials presented by applicants were available or could not change the outcome; review dismissed on lack of new evidence or apparent error [Paras 15-18].

Nomination Authority – Discretion of Inspector General of Registration (IGR) – Court found that the IGR validly exercised discretion to disapprove the District Registrar’s choice and select the writ petitioner, Mijanur, under Rule 3(b) without requiring further justification; the appointment process was lawfully complied with [Paras 10-12].

Contempt Application – Compliance Verification – Alleged non-compliance with court directions in the original order challenged in contempt proceedings, but court held that procedural due process was duly followed under Rule 3(b); contempt application dismissed, affirming Mijanur’s lawful nomination and appointment [Para 13].

Final Decision – Review applications dismissed – The court affirmed the original order as legally sound and dismissed the review applications, directing issuance of the temporary MMR license to Mijanur per prior court directions [Conclusion].
 

Service Law – Disability Pension – Entitlement to Service Element – Petitioner, invalided due to disability acquired during military service, was granted only the disability element of pension – Citing Regulation 183, which includes both service and disability elements in disability pensions, petitioner argued entitlement to the service element for life – Held: As per the Pension Regulations, the petitioner is also entitled to the service element from the date of discharge [Paras 2-5, 10].

Rounding-Off of Disability Pension – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Petitioner contended that his disability should be rounded off from 40% to 50% for life starting from 01.01.1996, per the ruling in Ram Avtar and subsequent judgments – Initially granted this benefit from 01.01.2016 only – Held: Entitlement to 50% disability pension for life from 01.01.1996, with arrears payable accordingly, in line with precedents [Paras 6-9].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The Armed Forces Tribunal order is modified to grant the petitioner both the service element of his disability pension from 30.07.1978 for life and rounding off of the disability element to 50% for life from 01.01.1996.
 

Civil Law - Ex Parte Decree – Setting Aside due to Substituted Service – Opposite parties argued that summons were not personally served, and the substituted service was insufficient – Held: Substituted service is a valid form of notice; however, it may be set aside if circumstances reveal reasonable grounds for lack of knowledge of the suit, as in the current case due to internal issues within the organization [Paras 10.1-10.4].

Condonation of Delay – Application of Limitation Act in Ex Parte Decree – Petitioner contested the delay in the opposite party’s application to set aside the ex parte decree – Held: Delay condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; delay was justified due to procedural lapses and absence of intentional negligence [Paras 10.4-10.6].

Substituted Service – Legal Standard under Order V, Rule 20 of CPC – Court examined the substituted service procedure in cases of non-response due to unavailable defendants – Held: Courts must exercise discretion and provide relief liberally where summons were unlikely to reach the defendant in a fair and transparent manner, especially where records show an absence of actual knowledge [Para 10.7].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Ex parte decree set aside, and delay condoned to ensure substantial justice between the parties; trial court order upheld [Conclusion].
 

Juvenile Records – Non-Disqualification – Section 24 of Juvenile Justice Act – Appellant, a juvenile at the time of proceedings under Section 109 CrPC, was disqualified for suppression of involvement in security proceedings – Held: As per Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, no disqualification can attach to a juvenile for any offense – Rule 14(b) of TNPSS Rules cannot override statutory protections under the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 4–6].

Security Proceedings under Section 109 CrPC – Not Criminal Cases – Proceedings under Section 109 CrPC aim to prevent offenses and do not constitute criminal charges – Omissions regarding such proceedings cannot disqualify applicants under Rule 14(b) – Held: The appellant's non-disclosure of these proceedings is not a ground for rejection [Para 5].

Juvenile Protection – Retrospective Prejudice Impermissible – Authorities acted contrary to law by holding juvenile records against the appellant – Maintaining such records and invoking them in adulthood violate legal principles protecting juveniles from prejudicial consequences [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Writ petition restored and selection order reinstated – Respondents directed to appoint appellant as Police Constable Grade II, with seniority on par with 2019 batch recruits – Monetary benefits limited to the date of actual appointment [Para 6].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Victim – Section 3, MTP Act, 1971 – The minor victim sought termination of a 24-week and 5-day pregnancy resulting from rape – Expert medical reports indicated risks to her physical and mental health if the pregnancy continued – Court permitted termination, citing risks of grave injury to her well-being under Explanation-2 of Section 3(2), MTP Act – Held: Right to bodily integrity and reproductive choice allows the victim to terminate the pregnancy [Paras 6-7, 12, 19].

Victim’s Consent – Right to Dignity and Liberty – Article 21, Constitution of India – The victim’s consent, backed by her guardian's, was given primacy – Court upheld her right to reproductive autonomy and personal liberty – Held: Denying the termination would infringe her dignity and liberty [Paras 11-13, 17-18].

Role of Medical Boards – Guidelines Issued – The Court provided specific guidelines for medical boards assessing pregnancy terminations, emphasizing the evaluation of physical and emotional well-being and consideration of risks involved – Held: Medical boards should provide holistic and detailed opinions on the impact of continuing or terminating a pregnancy [Para 27].

Social and Psychological Considerations – Presumption of Mental Health Injury in Rape Cases – As per Section 3(2), Explanation-2 of the MTP Act, anguish caused by rape-induced pregnancy constitutes a grave mental health injury – Held: Victim, aged 16, would face significant trauma and social stigma if pregnancy continued [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The Court permitted the termination of pregnancy. Termination to be carried out by an expert medical team at GG Hospital, Jamnagar. All risks to the victim to be explained to her and her family. Presence of necessary specialists (Pediatrician, Radiologist) and post-operative care ensured. DNA tissue from the fetus to be preserved for forensic analysis. All expenses, including medical care, to be borne by the State. Victim to remain hospitalized until deemed fit for discharge.

Taxation Law - Jurisdiction under Section 263 – Erroneous Order and Prejudice to Revenue – Valid Invocation by PCIT - The Revenue’s appeal under Section 263 contested an ITAT ruling that quashed an order by the PCIT, who had revised an AO’s decision accepting the land sale as tax-exempt based on agricultural classification – The court emphasized that an order is erroneous under Section 263 if passed without required inquiries; here, the AO failed to independently verify the land’s distance from municipal limits, relying solely on an ambiguous Tehsildar certificate – Held: The PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO’s inquiry was absent and the order prejudiced revenue [Paras 24-30, 36].

Certificate by Tehsildar – Insufficiency without Verification – Section 263 Application Supported - The assessee’s reliance on a Tehsildar’s certificate claiming the land as beyond municipal limits lacked corroboration, as the certificate omitted precise distance – The court concluded that the AO’s reliance without further inquiry did not meet the inquiry standards for capital gains exemption – The PCIT’s revision was upheld, highlighting that tax officers must confirm claims with thorough inquiry in line with Section 263 standards [Para 32-36].

Absence of Sufficient Inquiry versus Inadequate Inquiry – Revisional Power of PCIT - The court distinguished between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, underscoring that an order with no inquiry is revisable under Section 263 – Here, the AO’s lack of assessment rendered the order erroneous, satisfying the twin conditions for PCIT’s jurisdiction under Section 263 [Para 40].

Decision – Order Reinstated – The court set aside the ITAT’s order, reinstating the PCIT’s direction to re-assess the case with proper inquiry, underscoring adherence to inquiry standards for capital gains exemption claims.

Execution Proceedings – Auction Sale – Upset Price Fixation – Material Irregularity - The appellant, judgment-debtor, contested the fixation of the upset price at Rs. 29,00,000 for his property valued at a much higher amount, contending that this drastic reduction without reason caused substantial injury – The execution court initially set a higher upset price of Rs. 93,75,000, which was reduced due to non-bidding, but without a detailed assessment of the property’s actual value – Held: Reducing the upset price significantly without justifiable reasoning is a material irregularity that impacts the judgment-debtor's interests and fairness of the sale, rendering the sale void [Paras 3-5].

Execution Court’s Discretion – Assessment of Property Value – Absence of Advocate Commissioner’s Report Consideration - The court criticized the execution court’s decision to lower the upset price without considering the Advocate Commissioner’s valuation report, which assessed a higher market value – Court emphasized that property sales in execution must fairly reflect market value to prevent unjust financial loss to the judgment-debtor – Order setting aside the execution sale upheld due to lack of market value appraisal [Para 4].

Procedural Justice – Setting Aside Execution Order – Order 21 Rule 90 CPC - The substantial reduction of upset price without rationale led to procedural injustice by causing potential financial loss to the appellant – Under Order 21 Rule 90, CPC, material irregularities affecting judgment-debtor’s rights to fair value justify setting aside the auction sale – Direction issued for fresh sale proceedings with proper upset price determination [Para 6].

Final Decision - Appeal allowed, execution court’s order reducing upset price is set aside – New direction for execution court to conduct sale afresh, ensuring reasonable upset price determination within six months.