Criminal Law – Murder – Reliability of Evidence – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Trial Court convicted appellants relying exclusively on P.W.4 and P.W.5, while disbelieving presence of P.W.6 – High Court held that contradictions, omissions, prior enmity, and delayed complaint raised possibility of false implication, making sole reliance on two injured witnesses unsafe for conviction – Serious doubt arising from prosecution’s own discredited eyewitness P.W.6 [Paras 56–57].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions & Omissions – Eye-witness accounts of P.W.4 & P.W.5 inconsistent with each other and with medical/postmortem evidence; their version about presence of P.W.6 contradicted prosecution case itself – Trial Court’s partial reliance held erroneous – Evidence not of sterling quality to sustain conviction for murder [Paras 46–55].

Medical & Forensic Evidence – Weapons Not Proved – Prosecution failed to prove recovery of weapons (choppers, knife, pistol) – Ballistic report negative – No forensic link connecting accused to firearm injury suffered by deceased; absence of scientific corroboration weakened prosecution case [Paras 30–33].

Delay & Possibility of False Implication – FIR recorded after considerable time gap though police reached hospital immediately; presence of longstanding personal enmity acknowledged – High Court observed that delay coupled with animosity creates strong suspicion of embellishment and naming of rivals after deliberation [Paras 52–55].

Benefit of Doubt – Cross-Case Background – Existence of cross-FIR regarding father of accused having died in related incident suggested possibility of retaliatory accusations – Cumulative deficiencies warranted giving benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 51–55].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under judgment dated 10.11.2020 set aside – Appellants acquitted – All appellants in custody directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Each appellant to execute P.R. bond of ₹25,000 under Section 481 BNSS (corresponding to Section 437A CrPC) before release [Paras 58–59].

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Law – Robbery – Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Reversed – Appellant convicted for robbery and stabbing under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to concurrent imprisonment of 3 years and 7 years – Complainant identified appellant at police station, but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: Dock identification in absence of prior TIP, where accused is a stranger, is weak and unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Identification – TIP Not Conducted – Fatal Flaw – Accused was a stranger to the complainant – Identification first made at police station – No judicial TIP held – Supreme Court precedents reaffirmed that TIP is crucial investigative tool in such cases – Dock identification alone cannot form basis of conviction without prior TIP – Held: TIP omission vitiates prosecution case [Paras 15–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvement and Contradictions – Complainant made material improvements in Court testimony including number of knives, request for matchbox, and additional items allegedly robbed (power bank, headphone) – MLC did not mention all injuries as per final testimony – CCTV footage failed to capture incident – Held: Inconsistent narrative weakens prosecution case [Paras 9, 17].

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistent Prosecution Case – Power bank recovered from appellant marked as robbed item despite no mention in original complaint or initial witness accounts – Mobile phone recovered from co-accused – Questionable chain of custody and post-arrest introduction of evidence – Held: Serious doubt cast on credibility of recovery [Paras 11, 14].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Serious gaps in prosecution case including absence of independent eye-witnesses, contradictory testimonies, and flawed identification – Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Service Law – Appointment based on Unrecognized Qualification – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Held: Where appointment is secured on the basis of a certificate from an institute not recognized by the State Government, contrary to the specific eligibility criteria in the advertisement and appointment letter, the appointment is void ab initio. The principle that fraud vitiates every solemn act applies. The petitioner cannot claim equity or estoppel merely because they served for several years before the defect was detected. [Paras 10-12, 15]

Service Law – Distinction between 'Fake' and 'Unrecognized' – Held: The contention that there is a difference between a 'fake' degree and an 'unrecognized' degree does not aid the petitioner where the requirement was a certificate from a "recognized" institute. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law, and students must verify recognition. Ignorance is not a valid defense to legitimize a wrongful appointment. [Paras 8, 15]

Service Law – Disciplinary Procedure – Applicability – Held: Where employment is obtained by fraud or on the basis of forged/fabricated certificates, the protection of disciplinary procedure under Regulation 7 (holding an inquiry) is not available to escape accountability. The service becomes void ab initio. [Para 11]

Service Law – Laches by Employer – Held: While the respondent-Nigam displayed laxity by identifying the fault 6 years post-recruitment, this delay does not condone the petitioner's ineligibility. However, the Court directed the Nigam to formulate guidelines for verifying credentials within 6 months of recruitment to prevent such recurrence. [Paras 16, 19]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed. Petitioners who acquired requisite qualification subsequently can apply for fresh appointment.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Dismissal of Husband’s Petition – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant/Husband filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Divorce Act – Alleged that wife refused to care for his parents, expressed dissatisfaction over financial issues, and deserted him – Family Court dismissed the petition – Held: Grounds of cruelty and desertion not established by the appellant [Paras 1–2, 4–9]

Desertion – Wife’s Departure for Delivery Not Voluntary Desertion – Wife returned from Dubai to parental home due to pregnancy-related complications – Appellant admitted this in cross-examination – Court held that such return for delivery is a common familial practice and cannot be construed as desertion – Filing for divorce before even the child’s birth showed absence of genuine effort to resolve issues – Divorce on ground of desertion rightly rejected [Paras 3–6, 8]

Cruelty – Allegations Found Baseless – Appellant failed to produce credible evidence of cruelty – Claims that wife quarrelled over financial matters and neglected his parents were not substantiated – Court found these to be routine marital disagreements – Trial court preferred testimony of wife over that of husband after observing demeanour – No perversity found in lower court's findings [Paras 4, 7–9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with Family Court’s decision – Divorce rightly denied as appellant failed to prove cruelty or desertion – [Para 9].

NDPS Act – Regular bail – Section 37 – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 710 kg poppy husk from vehicle – Petitioners Gurjeet Singh @ Bhura Fauji and Satguru Singh apprehended at spot – Co-accused Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated through disclosure statements – Challan filed and trial underway – Only 2 out of 34 witnesses examined and 15 given up – Held – Alleged quantity being commercial – and in view of nature and seriousness of offence – petitioners must satisfy twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act – On material on record no reasonable ground made out to believe petitioners are not guilty – or that they are not likely to commit offence while on bail – Rigours of Section 37 not satisfied – Bail declined [Paras 3–6, 8–9, 9.3].

NDPS Act – Long incarceration – Article 21 – Regular bail on ground of custody length – Petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru in custody since 10.06.2024 – about 1½ years – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar in custody since March 2025 – about 8 months – Held – In view of recent Supreme Court decisions stressing gravity of organised drug trafficking and strict application of Section 37 NDPS Act – mere period of custody of 1½ years in case carrying punishment of 10–20 years cannot be termed unreasonably long – Long incarceration by itself not sufficient to dilute Section 37 requirements – especially where serious allegations and commercial quantity are involved [Paras 5–6, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure statements as sole basis for implication of some accused – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated only on basis of disclosure of co-accused – Argument that such implication is weak and that mandatory provisions not complied with – Held – At bail stage – in prosecution involving commercial quantity – Court not to conduct mini-trial – When overall material including recovery of huge commercial quantity and allegations of organised activity exist – disclosure-based implication alone does not enable satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 – No case made out for regular bail [Paras 4–6, 8–9].

Drugs Menace – Policy concern – Public health crisis – Supreme Court guidance – Court places reliance on UOI v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade SLP (Crl.) No. 9792/2025 and UOI v. Vigin K. Varghese SLP (Crl.) No. 7768/2025 – noting Supreme Court’s emphasis that drug abuse is a pervasive global and national menace – destructive of youth and social fabric – and that Courts must be slow in granting bail in serious NDPS cases involving commercial quantity – unless statutory conditions are clearly met – Held – These principles weigh heavily against relaxation of Section 37 rigours in present case [Para 8(i)–(ii)].

Section 37 NDPS – Interpretation – High Court’s own precedent – Court reiterates principles laid down in Jaswinder Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab CRM-M-33729-2025 = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4537 – that (i) twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative and in addition to ordinary bail tests – (ii) long incarceration may relax rigours only where delay is not attributable to accused and custody is truly excessive – and (iii) Court must sift material to form prima facie view but not enter into full-scale appreciation of evidence – Held – Applying these postulates to facts – petitioners fail to cross Section 37 threshold [Para 8(iii)].

Medical grounds for bail – NDPS – Petitioner Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh – old fracture and chronic osteomyelitis – Medical board report indicates right tibia fracture operated 27 years back – implant in situ – fracture united – superficial chronic ulcer requiring regular dressing and antibiotics – ankle fixed in plantar flexion – walking with limp – no surgery required – Held – Condition neither serious nor life-threatening – treatment possible in jail – Medical ground insufficient to override rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Regular bail refused [Paras 5.1, 9.1–9.2].

Section 37 NDPS – Antecedents – Relevance – Custody certificates show petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru involved in other FIRs while Lali and Jagtar have no other FIRs – Held – Antecedents are relevant component of “likely to commit any offence while on bail” limb – prior involvement of some petitioners reinforces refusal of bail – For others with clean record – seriousness of role and commercial quantity still prevents satisfaction of first limb (reasonable grounds of non-guilt) – hence no bail to any petitioner [Paras 6, 9, 9.3].

Decision: Bail petitions dismissed – Petitions under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail in FIR No. 83 dated 10.06.2024 under Sections 15, 25 and 29 NDPS Act relating to recovery of 710 kg poppy husk rejected – Court holds that petitioners have failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – long custody and medical condition of one petitioner not sufficient to dilute statutory rigours in a commercial quantity case – Trial to proceed uninfluenced by any observations in order [Paras 9, 9.3, 10–11].

Criminal Law – Assault – Section 325 IPC – Section 324 IPC – Appellant Lalit Mahto assaulted the victim on the head with a spade causing grievous injury – Appellant Titu Mahto hit the victim on his back with the blunt side of the spade causing simple injury – Conviction under Sections 325 and 324 IPC respectively held proper – Trial court rightly acquitted appellants of Section 302 IPC as prosecution failed to connect death with the injuries due to non-examination of post-mortem doctor and Investigating Officer [Paras 13–19]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Conviction – Scope of Interference – Appellants challenged conviction relying on sole eyewitness being interested witness – Court held that testimony of PW-1, nephew of deceased, was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Absence of other eyewitnesses or I.O. not fatal – Conviction sustained [Paras 9, 15, 18–19]

Evidence Act – Testimony of Interested Witness – Sole eyewitness was nephew of deceased – Court found testimony reliable and natural – No material elicited in cross-examination to discredit witness – Held: Relationship alone not sufficient ground to discard credible testimony [Para 15]

Sentencing – Modification – Leniency for Aged Accused – Appellant Lalit Mahto aged over 80 years, ailing, and faced trial for over 25 years – Court modified sentence under Section 325 IPC to period already undergone (5 months) – Appellant Titu Mahto’s sentence under Section 324 IPC (1 year RI) upheld – Directed to surrender within 45 days [Para 20–22]

Decision: Conviction of both appellants under Sections 325 and 324 IPC respectively affirmed – Sentence of appellant Lalit Mahto modified to period already undergone – Sentence of appellant Titu Mahto upheld – Appeal partly allowed.

Civil Law - Surplus Area Declaration – Mandatory Notice to Tenants – Rule 6 of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956 – Held: It is mandatory for the Collector to serve notice upon tenants in cultivating possession before declaring land as surplus. Where revenue records (Jamabandis 1950-1981) consistently showed plaintiffs as tenants, an order passed declaring land surplus without notice to them is in complete violation of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. Such an order is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law. [Paras 16, 19-20].

Vesting of Land in State – Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Validity of Foundation Order – Held: Vesting of surplus land in the State postulates a valid surplus declaration. If the foundational order (1961 surplus order) is void for want of notice, no vesting takes place under Section 12(3). The State cannot acquire title based on a nullity, and consequently, cannot allot such land to third parties. [Paras 17-18, 21].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 26 of Haryana Ceiling Act – Exception for Void Orders – Held: The bar on Civil Court jurisdiction applies only to orders passed within jurisdiction by prescribed authorities. It does not apply where the foundational order is a nullity or void ab initio. The Civil Court retains jurisdiction to examine and set aside orders passed without complying with mandatory statutory procedures (specifically notice under Rule 6). [Paras 22-23].

Limitation – Suit for Possession based on Title – Article 65 Limitation Act – Held: A suit seeking recovery of possession based on title is governed by Article 65 (12 years limitation), not Article 58. Limitation does not run in favor of a party who takes possession under a void and non-est order. [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Concurrent findings of Courts below affirmed. [Para 28].

Service Law – Age Relaxation – Recruitment to Post of Fireman and Fireman Driver – Petitioners challenged fixation of upper age limit at 25 years in Advertisement dated 29.08.2023 – Petitioners contended that the posts were lying vacant since 2015 and no recruitment held due to COVID-19 – Court noted that age limit was fixed under 2021 Rules framed under Section 26(2) of the Odisha Fire Service Act – However, Rule 30 vested State Government with power to relax rules in public interest – Held: Petitioners’ claim for age relaxation justified considering precedents and comparable cases – Directed State to relax upper age limit by 3 years for 7 qualified petitioners as a one-time special case [Paras 5.5, 7.6, 7.7]

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers – Rule 30 of 2021 Rules – Power of State to relax age limit provisions – Court held that Rule 30 expressly authorized the Government to relax any rule for reasons to be recorded – Non-exercise of such discretion in appropriate circumstances would be arbitrary – State directed to consider age relaxation in spirit of earlier decision in Nagen Bhoi v. State of Odisha [Paras 5, 5.4, 5.5, 7.4, 7.6]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 and 16 – Equal Treatment – Petitioners sought parity with similarly situated candidates in other recruitments like Constables and ASIs where 3 to 4 years age relaxation was granted – Court found State had extended similar concessions in Nagen Bhoi case and Writ Appeal No. 3321 of 2024 – Held: Denial of similar relaxation would violate equality principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 – One-time age relaxation justified [Paras 4.10 to 4.14, 7.4 to 7.6]

Public Employment – Interim Participation in Selection – Petitioners allowed to participate in selection process under interim orders – Seven petitioners found qualified – Court clarified interim participation does not confer equity – However, upon subsequent relaxation, qualified candidates to be considered for appointment subject to eligibility within relaxed age criteria – State directed to complete appointment process within 2 months [Paras 4.1 to 4.4, 7.7]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed in part – State directed to grant three years age relaxation as a one-time special measure to seven qualified petitioners – State to take steps for their appointment against existing vacancies if they fall within relaxed age limit – Exercise to be completed within two months – Order not to be treated as precedent.