Criminal Procedure – Second Bail Petition – No New Developments – Petitioner filed second bail petition under Section 439 CrPC after withdrawing the first petition – No new developments or changes in circumstances since the first petition – Second petition deemed a review of the earlier judgment, not permissible in criminal law – Bail denied [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law – Previous Cases and Criminal Disposition – Petitioner involved in six cases, four under the NDPS Act, besides one conviction – Petitioner’s criminal disposition and interest of society considered – Bail denied to prevent societal risk [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Second bail petition dismissed – No change in circumstances since withdrawal of first petition – Judicial precedent cited disallowing review in criminal bail matters [Paras 11-12].

Motor Vehicle Act – Compensation – Deduction for Financial Assistance – Deceased, employed as Khalasi in Delhi Development Authority (DDA), died in a road accident – Tribunal awarded compensation but deducted Rs.26,67,168/- for financial assistance under Haryana 2006 Rules – Held, deceased was a DDA employee, not covered by Haryana Rules – Deduction erroneous, not applicable – Compensation re-assessed without deduction – Tribunal's observation corrected [Paras 1-23].

Judicial Conduct – Bona Fide Error – No Disciplinary Action – Tribunal's error deemed bona fide, arising from incorrect assumption about deceased's employment – Legal system acknowledges judges’ fallibility – Appeals and revisions provided to correct such errors – No action warranted against judicial officer absent misconduct or extraneous influences – Emphasis on judicial sensitization to prevent recurrence [Paras 23-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Deduction of Rs.26,67,168/- from compensation reversed – Total compensation re-assessed to Rs.36,26,069/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Directions issued for judicial sensitization through Chandigarh Judicial Academy [Paras 25-28].

NDPS Act – Default Bail – Incomplete Challan – Petitioner sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC as the challan was presented without the report of the chemical examiner – Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta held that such a challan is incomplete, entitling the accused to default bail – However, two Single Benches declared this judgment per incuriam – Matter referred to a larger bench due to conflicting judgments [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discipline – Stare Decisis – Per Incuriam – Doctrine of stare decisis ensures uniformity and certainty in law – Smaller Bench cannot declare a larger Bench's judgment per incuriam – Reference made to Division Bench for validity of Single Bench judgments – Petitioner granted bail pending resolution due to unsettled law causing confusion [Paras 5-12].

Decision: Petitioner granted bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to satisfaction of trial court – Matter referred to Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Division Bench for urgent consideration [Paras 11-12].

Default Bail – Indefeasible Right – Reasonable Opportunity – Petitioner applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to incomplete challan without FSL report – Bail granted but bonds furnished after court hours – Held, default bail is an indefeasible right, not defeated by late submission of bonds if reasonable opportunity to fulfill conditions is given – No requirement in CrPC for immediate readiness with bail bonds – Court must allow time to fulfill conditions based on case facts – Order rejecting bonds for lateness set aside, petitioner granted another opportunity [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Reasoning – Interpretation of Bail Provisions – FSL report filed on day of bail order does not negate right to default bail if initial challan was incomplete – Courts must not demand immediate bail bond fulfillment – Justice requires reasonable opportunity for accused to comply, avoiding miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner granted another opportunity to furnish bail bonds and sureties to trial court’s satisfaction [Para 13].

Eviction – Bonafide Need – Burden of Proof – Landlord sought eviction for settling son and daughter-in-law, claiming no other business space – Held, landlord’s averments of no other space sufficient, tenants must disprove – No need for landlord to prove non-existence of premises if such situation never existed – Landlord’s silence on rear residential portion of the building does not impact maintainability of eviction petitions – Orders of eviction upheld [Paras 1-37].

Eviction – Suppression of Facts – Fourth Shop – Landlord admitted fourth shop with separate electricity meter used as a store – No suppression as site plan disclosed it – Landlord did not benefit by withholding information – Plea of suppression by tenants rejected [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Revisions dismissed – Orders of eviction by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Stay applications also dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Juvenile Justice – Bail to Juvenile – Statutory Mandate – Petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Bail to juveniles is a rule, denial is an exception – Court must release a juvenile unless one of the three exceptions in Section 12(1) applies: association with known criminals, exposure to moral danger, or defeating the ends of justice – Gravity of the offense not a consideration for bail – Petitioner granted bail, as none of the exceptions applied [Paras 1-13].

Legal Principles – Non-obstante Clause – Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act – Section 12 overrides provisions of the CrPC – Prior dismissal of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC does not affect the bail application under Section 12 – Juvenile’s prolonged detention not justified, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned orders denying bail set aside – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail – Conditions imposed for the legal guardian to monitor the juvenile [Paras 11-12].

Contracts Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act – Employer-Employee Relationship – Reinstatement – Labour Court found that claimants, shown as employees of Contractors, were actually employees of the petitioner company – Registration under the 1970 Act did not specify the nature of work performed by the claimants – Held, Labour Court correctly held claimants as employees of the company, reinstating them with all benefits – Petitioners failed to prove claimants were employed by Contractors [Paras 1-27].

Burden of Proof – Continuity of Service – Documentary Evidence – Petitioner claimed workers were employed by Contractors but failed to produce documentary evidence – Labour Court assessed evidence correctly, finding continuous work with the company – No appointment letters from Contractors, and petitioner destroyed older records – Labour Court’s findings upheld [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Labour Court’s award reinstating claimants with full back-wages and continuity of service upheld – Petitioner’s applications rendered infructuous [Paras 27-29].

Covid-19 Pandemic – Holding of Exams – Adherence to Guidelines – Petitioner challenged the University’s decision to hold BDS first-year exams, alleging violation of Covid-19 guidelines – University successfully conducted previous exams with due precautions – Supreme Court in Maghi Devi case upheld conduct of exams with no highlighted deficiencies – Petitioner, residing near exam center, cannot represent other students – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Examination Conduct – Precautionary Measures and Legal Compliance – University adhered to guidelines, no complaints from students – Petitioner did not demonstrate any specific violations – Practical exams to be conducted on non-living subjects with precautions – University's conduct of exams upheld as compliant with Covid-19 guidelines [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – University's notifications for exams upheld – University’s adherence to Covid-19 guidelines affirmed [Para 10].

Bail – Chit Funds Scheme – Financial Fraud – Petitioner, a director and promoter of M/s HDPL, involved in unauthorized chit fund scheme, collected substantial money from the public with false assurances – Petitioner’s role direct and active in the scheme – Large sums collected not yet recovered – Petitioner declared Proclaimed Offender in related cases – Bail denied due to flight risk and criminal antecedents [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Law – Financial Crime – Proclaimed Offender – Petitioner involved in similar financial fraud cases – Convicted under Section 174-A IPC for absconding – History of evading court proceedings – Prosecution’s apprehension of petitioner being a flight risk valid – Bail petition dismissed [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Bail petition dismissed – Petitioner to remain in custody – Observations not to affect merits of the case during trial [Para 13].