Criminal Law – Seizure of Vehicle – Prohibition Offence – Interim Custody – Vehicle seized under FIR for carrying liquor in violation of Gujarat Prohibition Act – No confiscation proceedings initiated under amended Section 98(2) of Prohibition Act despite seizure exceeding 20 litres – Vehicle lying idle in police custody – Held: In absence of confiscation action and to prevent deterioration of vehicle, release of vehicle ordered with stringent conditions – Power under Article 226 rightly exercised [Paras 1–8].

Confiscation – Non-Initiation of Proceedings – Despite mandatory nature of amended Section 98(2), no steps taken by prosecution for confiscation or approaching Magistrate – Held: Delay defeats purpose – Following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, vehicle must be released to registered owner with safeguards – Mere pendency of FIR does not justify continued seizure indefinitely [Paras 7–8].

Article 226 – Powers of High Court – High Court has wide jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to direct release of property when delay or inaction by authorities causes prejudice – Held: No bar under Section 98 in current facts where no action for confiscation was taken – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Para 8].

Direction for Release – Vehicle to be released to registered owner (Ahir Enterprise) through Power of Attorney holder on furnishing solvent surety and undertakings – Future confiscation proceedings not barred – Magistrate can still initiate action under Section 98(2) if warranted – Police to photograph vehicle and prepare panchanama before release [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Vehicle Ashok Leyland Ltd UM4220/66 H CC (Goods Carrier) bearing registration No. GJ-16-AV-9994 to be released to petitioner on strict conditions – Rule made absolute – Direct service permitted [Paras 9–13].

NDPS Act – Section 21 – Conviction – Appeal – Appellant convicted for possession of commercial quantity of heroin (nearly 6 kg) recovered from bag on motorcycle – Search conducted after informing appellant of right under Section 50 NDPS Act – Recovery in presence of DSP and consent recorded – Samples drawn on spot and sealed – Produced before Magistrate next day – Seals found intact – Held: Recovery not from person but from bag – Hence, Section 50 not applicable – Compliance with Section 52A satisfied – Conviction upheld [Paras 6-12].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Heroin recovered from bag carried on motorcycle – Not personal search – Held: As per SC rulings (Pawan Kumar, Ranjan Chadha, Prabhu), Section 50 applies only to personal search – Voluntary consent given and recovery witnessed by DSP – No violation found [Paras 8-9].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Drawing of Samples – Appellant contended that samples not drawn before Magistrate – Held: Samples taken at spot in accordance with Standing Orders – Inventory, samples, and case property presented before Magistrate next day – Seals intact – No prejudice shown – Procedural compliance deemed sufficient – Recent SC judgment in NCB v. Kashif relied on [Paras 10-11].

Independent Witness – Non-joinder – Contention of no public witness during recovery – Held: Ruqa shows attempt was made to join public witnesses but none were available – Prosecution version corroborated by consistent testimony of officials – Not fatal to case [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 21 NDPS Act confirmed – No infirmity found in trial court’s findings [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Reversed – Appellant-husband convicted for abetting suicide of wife based on alleged cruelty and dowry demands – No specific instances of mental or physical cruelty proved – Alleged demand for sewing machine not supported by reliable evidence – Panch witness turned hostile – Held: Mere allegations of unhappiness and weeping insufficient to prove abetment – No evidence of instigation or active role in suicide – Missing report lodged by Appellant himself – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside. Acquittal [Paras 14–25]

Criminal Law – Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – No Material Particulars – Parents of deceased made general and vague allegations without specific incidents or unlawful demands – No neighbours examined – No reliable proof of harassment – Held: Mere emotional distress without clear evidence of cruelty insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish ingredients of Section 498-A beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8–10, 14]

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – Effect on Prosecution Case – Panch witness to seizure of sewing machine turned hostile – No corroborative evidence to establish illegal dowry demand – Held: Seizure panchnama cannot be relied upon – Ownership of sewing machine also doubtful – Demand not proved [Paras 11, 15–16]

Criminal Procedure – Burden on Prosecution – Allegations must be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: General and omnibus allegations unsupported by proximate events or reliable testimony insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Para 25]

Precedents – Instigation and Abetment – Reiterated that instigation requires direct or active act with intention to provoke suicide – Reliance placed on M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 – Held: No act or words of instigation proved in present case – No suicide note or proximate cause – Acquittal warranted [Paras 21–24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to furnish bond under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Paras 25–26]

Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 212 Days – Dismissed – Applicant filed criminal revision with 212-day delay challenging order granting probation to private respondents – Delay attributed to mistaken advice regarding remedy under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Explanation vague, lacking particulars, and unsupported by any material – No genuine, exceptional, or unavoidable circumstances shown – Application dismissed [Paras 6–7.1]

Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Liberal Approach Not Absolute – Legal Position Reiterated – Liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” cannot be stretched to condone unexplained or negligent delay – Condonation requires cogent, credible, and satisfactory explanation – Merits of case not a ground for condonation – Reliance placed on Deepak v. Noori (CRR(F)-1844-2023) and Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024 INSC 286) [Paras 4–5]

Procedural Law – Effect of Dismissal of Delay Application – Consequential Dismissal of Main Petition – Since delay was not condoned, the accompanying revision petition against probation order was also dismissed without consideration on merits [Para 8]

Decision: Application for condonation of 212-day delay dismissed – Criminal revision petition dismissed as a consequence – Pending applications, if any, also disposed.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Identity of Accused Not Established – Accused acquitted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act – Prosecution failed to conduct Test Identification Parade – Witnesses identified accused for the first time in Court after long lapse of time and in absence of prior familiarity – Held: Dock identification without TIP in such circumstances is highly unreliable and cannot sustain conviction – Acquittal upheld [Paras 6, 14, 16, 19, 20, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court can interfere only if judgment of acquittal is perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Where two views are possible, appellate court must defer to trial court – Held: Trial court’s view was reasonable and based on evidence; High Court refused to substitute alternative view in absence of compelling reasons [Paras 12, 13, 25].

Witness Testimony – Identification in Court – No Prior TIP – Eyewitnesses claimed to identify accused only during trial – No prior identification during investigation – Held: Identification for the first time in Court without prior TIP is weak and inherently suspect – Particularly when visibility was poor, incident occurred at night, and accused was a stranger – Testimony held unreliable [Paras 16, 17, 19, 24].

Investigative Lapses – No Explanation How Accused Was Identified – IO failed to explain how the accused was linked to the incident – No chain of evidence or identification process disclosed – Held: Investigation lacked procedural safeguards; raises doubt about correctness of prosecution case – Acquittal justified [Paras 14, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal affirmed – No error or perversity found – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Directed to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS for appearance before the Supreme Court in case of further appeal.

Civil Law – Commercial Recovery – Dismissal of Suit – Appeal – Plaintiff textile company filed suit for recovery of ₹7,86,101/- against event organiser alleging breach of booth fabrication contract for international exhibition in Frankfurt – Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of evidence and non-joinder of necessary party – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove claim due to lack of competent and knowledgeable witness – Testimony of SPA holder devoid of personal knowledge – Defendant had transferred money to third party (Anuj Gautam) with plaintiff’s consent – Non-joinder of third-party contractor fatal to suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 3–5, 10–21, 26–34, 39–40].

Evidence Act – Proof of Transaction – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff relied on testimony of SPA holder (PW-1) with no personal knowledge of transaction – PW-1 admitted he did not visit site, had no knowledge of business dealings, and had met director of plaintiff company only once – Held: SPA witness must have personal knowledge of transaction to testify – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Sections 101 to 106 of Evidence Act – Reliance on National Small Industries and A.C. Narayanan misplaced – Those cases require witness to have both authorization and personal knowledge [Paras 13–15, 26–29, 35].

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Third Party Execution – Defendant referred work to third-party vendor (Anuj Gautam) allegedly with plaintiff’s consent – Plaintiff failed to implead said third party – Trial Court and Appellate Court held that without impleading executing party, suit for deficiency in service was not maintainable – Held: Non-joinder of necessary party fatal under Order I Rule 9 CPC – No effective adjudication possible without third party – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 7–8, 19–20, 31–34].

Admissions – Section 58 Evidence Act – Applicability – Plaintiff claimed admitted facts (receipt of money and partial refund) should be accepted without proof – Held: Admission of receipt alone insufficient – Plaintiff must still prove that balance was unjustifiably retained and not paid to third party as instructed – No legal inference of liability can be drawn from partial refund alone – No admission by defendant acknowledging liability for ₹7.86 lakhs [Paras 22, 38].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-Institution Mediation – Procedural Compliance – Plaintiff attempted pre-suit mediation under Section 12A – Defendant did not participate – Suit proceeded – Compliance with procedural requirement upheld – However, case failed on merits [Para 6].

Approbate and Reprobate – Allegation of Inconsistent Conduct – Plaintiff argued defendant could not deny liability after issuing recovery notice to third party – Held: No inconsistent conduct shown – Defendant's consistent stand was that it acted only as intermediary – Recovery notice to third party not inconsistent with denial of liability towards plaintiff – Reliance on Karunesh Kumar and Dhanjeet Singh misplaced – No application to facts of commercial recovery [Paras 25, 36–37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Suit rightly dismissed by Trial Court – Plaintiff failed to prove claim or join necessary party – Pending application also dismissed as infructuous – No costs awarded [Paras 40–41].

Right to Privacy – Posthumous Personality Rights – Not Heritable – Petitioner, daughter of Late Shah Bano Begum, sought injunction against the film ‘Haq’ claiming it dramatizes and distorts the private life of her late mother without consent – Alleged violation of right to privacy and dignity – Held: As per K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and Deepa Jayakumar (2021), right to privacy extinguishes upon death – Personality and privacy rights are not inheritable – No cause of action survives for legal heirs to claim violation of deceased’s privacy – Petition dismissed [Paras 8–10]

Freedom of Expression – Fictional and Dramatized Works – Use of Public Record – Film inspired by Supreme Court’s judgment in Shah Bano case and adaptation of published book – Contains disclaimer clarifying fictional nature and non-association with real individuals – Held: Once information enters public domain and court records, right to privacy ceases – Creative and artistic liberty protected under Article 19(1)(a) – Film does not claim to be a biopic – Use of dramatization permissible – No legal basis to restrain its release [Paras 11–13]

Certification of Film – Judicial Review – CBFC Certificate Grants Prima Facie Validity – Alternative Remedy Not Exhausted – Petitioner did not challenge certification through available remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act – Held: High Court not to interfere unless certification is challenged for procedural irregularity, which was not done – Absence of challenge to certificate fatal to relief sought – Writ petition dismissed for not availing alternate statutory remedy [Paras 14–15]

Delay and Laches – Knowledge of Film Production Since February 2024 – Petition Filed Just Before Release – Film teaser released in September 2025 – Certification granted in October 2025 – Petition filed on 01.11.2025 despite wide publicity – Held: Petitioner not vigilant – Delay defeats equitable relief – Writ petition suffers from laches [Para 16]

New Grounds Raised in Oral Argument – Not Pleaded – Not Permissible – Petitioner sought to raise community-based objections during hearing which were not part of pleadings – Held: Factual contentions not pleaded cannot be raised during argument – Court declined to consider unpleaded grounds [Para 7]

Precedents – Petitioner’s Reliance Misplaced – Cases cited concerned living persons or different contexts (e.g. defamation, copyright, decency) – Held: Inapplicable to case involving dramatized depiction of deceased person and lack of legal injury to petitioner herself – Respondents’ reliance on Babuji Rawji Shah (2023), Viacom 18 Media (2018), and R. Rajagopal (1994) upheld [Para 17]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No violation of legal or constitutional rights shown – Film’s release upheld – No interference with CBFC certification justified. [Para 18]

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Section 43D(5) – Bail – Prima Facie True Test - Appellant, alleged active member of terror syndicate led by Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu, charged under UAPA, IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act for orchestrating the 18.12.2020 Tetariyakhad Colliery attack involving indiscriminate firing, arson of four trucks, and injuries to civilians – Recovery of country-made pistol from appellant – FSL report confirmed shells from the crime scene were fired from the appellant’s weapon – Protected witnesses identified the appellant as one of the armed attackers – Court reiterated that under Section 43D(5) UAPA, bail must be denied where accusations are prima facie true – National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 applied [Paras 33–37, 45–57, 69–73].

Bail – UAPA Offences – Delay in Trial – Applicability of Article 21 – Appellant in custody since 07.02.2021 – Trial commenced and witnesses under examination – Court held mere delay not ground for bail in serious terrorist offences; distinguished Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, as trial had progressed and constitutional violation not established – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 109) followed [Paras 64–65, 68].

Bail – Principle of Parity – Distinction Between Co-accused – Co-accused Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav granted bail based on long custody and minimal role – Present appellant identified as principal conspirator who directed co-accused Ajay Turi to write threatening pamphlets and participated in arson and firing – Court held parity cannot be mechanically applied; role-specific analysis required – Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Tarun Kumar v. Asst. Director, ED (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486) relied upon – Held: parity not available [Paras 66–73].

Bail – Restrictive Scope under UAPA – “Bail the Exception, Jail the Rule” – Court reaffirmed that conventional bail principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” does not apply under UAPA – Once prima facie satisfaction of involvement exists, bail must be rejected as a rule – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Watali (supra) reaffirmed [Paras 38–44, 53–57].

Result – Appellant failed to show change in circumstances or new grounds – Material on record shows active participation in terrorist act and recovery of incriminating weapons – Trial ongoing – Bail rejected – Appeal dismissed [Paras 63–75].

Co-operative Societies – Recovery Certificate – Section 101, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners denied disbursement of loan and alleged fabrication of loan documents by the Bank – Deputy Registrar issued recovery certificate under Section 101 without deliberating on specific defences raised by petitioners – Held: Registrar is statutorily bound to consider the defence and render a reasoned judgment as mandated under Rules 86-A to 86-F of 1961 Rules – Failure to record reasons amounts to violation of principles of natural justice – Order unsustainable [Paras 11–16].

Alternate Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of remedy under Section 154(2)(A) of the Act not an absolute bar when impugned order is passed in breach of statutory procedure and natural justice – Writ maintainable [Para 9].

Scope of Inquiry under Section 101 – Registrar’s jurisdiction limited to verification of correctness of arrears – If bona fide dispute as to loan disbursement or fraud is raised, Registrar must refuse to issue certificate and direct parties to remedy under Section 91 – Registrar cannot decide disputed questions of fact in summary recovery proceedings [Paras 10–12].

Reasoned Orders – Quasi-Judicial Duty – Requirement of recording reasons inherent in Section 101 read with Rule 86-F – “Rubber-stamp” or mechanical orders vitiate decision-making process – Reiterated principles in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 applied [Para 15].

Decision: Writ Petitions partly allowed – Order dated 24.09.2024 of Deputy Registrar set aside – Matter remanded for de novo inquiry and fresh decision in accordance with Rules 86-A to 86-F within four weeks – Parties directed to appear on 17.11.2025 [Para 16].