Bailable Offences – Right to Bail – Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Magistrate and ADJ dismissed bail pleas despite offences being bailable – Held: In bailable offences bail is a matter of right, not discretion – Denial violated Article 21 – Orders mechanical and casual [Paras 1-2, 5, 13].

Personal Liberty – Constitutional Safeguard – Article 21 – Right to life and liberty includes right to live with dignity – Courts must protect liberty from arbitrary police and judicial action – Reliance placed on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Detention in bailable offences unjustified [Paras 3-4].

Power of Arrest – Abuse and Misuse – Section 35 BNSS – Arrest must be based on necessity, not routine – Arrest in bailable cases unjustified – Police officers and Magistrates must apply judicial mind – Reliance on Moti Ram v. State of MP (1978) 4 SCC 47 – Arrest power is not absolute; must be exercised sparingly [Paras 6-11].

Judicial Responsibility – Casual Approach – Magistrate, ADJ, IO, and prosecution all failed to discharge duties – Petitioners illegally detained for 43 days – Court expressed regret and directed DGP to seek explanation from IO – Registrar to bring matter before Guardian Judge [Paras 12-17].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners released – Court regretted violation of rights and directed corrective action [Paras 15-18].

PIL - Constitutional Validity – Section 193(9) BNSS and Default Bail under Section 187(3) – Provision Upheld – Challenge rejected to Section 193(9) BNSS, 2023 as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 – Held: Provision allows further investigation post charge-sheet with court permission; safeguards including 90-day limit and judicial oversight provided – No violation of right to default bail or personal liberty found [Paras 11-16].

Right to Personal Liberty – Article 21 and Detention – No Infringement – Power of further investigation under BNSS not unfettered – Requires court permission and limited by 90-day timeline, extendable only by court – Hence, does not defeat the statutory safeguard of default bail under Section 187(3) [Paras 13-16].

Interpretation of Statutes – Presumption of Constitutionality – Possibility of Misuse Not a Ground – Mere apprehension of potential abuse of lawful provision not sufficient to declare it unconstitutional – Courts must interpret law, not legislate – Appropriate remedy lies with Legislature in case of misuse – Challenge dismissed [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No merit found in challenge to Sections 193(9) and 187(3) of BNSS, 2023 – Court upheld constitutionality of impugned provisions and dismissed PIL [Paras 21-22].

Family Law - Marriage – Validity of Hindu Marriage – Section 7 of the HMA – Appeal dismissed – Husband sought declaration that marriage was void on ground that Saptapadi was not performed – Held: Section 7(1) allows solemnisation of marriage as per customary rites of either party, without mandating Saptapadi in all cases – Sub-section (2) applies only if Saptapadi forms part of customary rites – Thus, absence of Saptapadi does not by itself invalidate marriage [Paras 8-9].

Burden of Proof – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Appellant failed to discharge burden – Husband, despite alleging non-performance, did not examine priest, relatives, or witnesses – Mere non-production of marriage album by wife does not shift burden – Presumption of validity of marriage operates in law – Hence, plea of invalidity rejected [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Presumption of Marriage and Legitimacy – Evidence Act, Sections 50 and 114 – Strong presumption arises when parties cohabit as husband and wife and child is born – Such presumption cannot be lightly rebutted – Reliance placed on Ningu Vithu Bamane v. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane, 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 30, affirming presumption of marriage and legitimacy of children – Appellant failed to adduce strong and conclusive evidence to rebut presumption [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Family Court’s dismissal of husband’s suit upheld – Appeal dismissed – Presumption of valid marriage stands, and no ground to declare marriage void [Paras 14].

Commercial Suit – Maintainability – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Decree Upheld – The appellant challenged the commercial nature of the dispute on ground that the rental amount was below threshold and not commercial – Held: The tenancy pertained to a commercial shop and dispute arose from lease of immovable property used in trade or commerce – Suit maintainable as a commercial dispute [Paras 14–16].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Attornment by Tenant – Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act – Relationship Established – Appellant argued absence of attornment with new owner – Held: Attornment not necessary – Transferee steps into shoes of original lessor by operation of law – Registered sale deed sufficient to establish ownership and right to seek eviction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in Gopi @ Govardhannath v. Ballabh Vyas, (2022) 19 SCC 204 [Paras 18–22].

Applicability of Rent Control Act – Rent Less than ₹3500 – Burden Not Discharged – Appellant Claimed Protection under DRC Act – Held: Mere assertion of low rent insufficient – Burden to prove rent on tenant – Contradictory versions given under oath – No proof from income tax, bank statements, or rent receipts – Court found monthly rent exceeded ₹3500 based on plaintiff's evidence and tenant's admissions [Paras 25–29].

Framing of Issues – Clubbing of Issues – Procedural Irregularity – Held: Clubbing of issues without distinct treatment contrary to Order XIV CPC – While not fatal to judgment, such practice is improper and should be avoided in future [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Finding no merit in contentions raised, the appeal was dismissed confirming the decree for possession, arrears, mesne profits, and injunction against tenant [Para 33].

Civil Law - Eviction Suit – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Sections 5, 8, and 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001 – Eviction Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds of default, nuisance, and reasonable requirement – Trial Court decreed eviction without considering statutory jurisdictional bar – Held: The civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as the issue of Thika tenancy was pending and later conclusively decided by the Thika Controller – Civil Court's decree is a nullity – Suit liable to be dismissed for lack of inherent jurisdiction [Paras 21–26, 45–54, 68–72].

Striking Out of Defence – Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – No Automatic Bar – Defence not struck out before final adjudication – Trial Court proceeded to decide all issues on merits – Held: In absence of prior order under Section 7(3), defence remains – Jurisdictional issues had to be decided before proceeding to trial – The failure vitiated the trial court’s decree [Paras 29–32, 42–44].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Disputed Relationship – Effect on Section 7 Compliance – Dispute raised on existence of tenancy – Held: A defendant who denies tenancy may not be required to comply with Section 7(1) or (2) as the provision applies to 'tenant', not 'defendant' – Court must decide landlord-tenant relationship before invoking Section 7(3) – View supported by binding Division Bench judgment in Synthetic Plywood Industries case – Ratio unchanged under 1997 Act [Paras 36–41].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Thika Controller's Order Considered – Appeal Allowed – During appeal, certified order of Thika Controller adjudicating defendant as Thika Tenant was produced – Held: Court can look into such evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – The order reinforces bar under 2001 Act and nullifies civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 62–67].

Applicability of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 vs. 2001 – Section 27 of 2001 Act – 2001 Act Applies – Plaintiffs claimed rights accrued under 1981 Act – Held: 1981 Act did not confer right of eviction – Such rights flow from tenancy laws like 1997 Act – Section 27 only protects existing liabilities or privileges – Since eviction suit filed in 2013, 2001 Act applies [Paras 57–61].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Civil Court Decree Set Aside – Eviction Suit Dismissed – The trial court acted without jurisdiction – Remand order of First Appellate Court also erroneous and academic – Decree and remand order set aside and eviction suit dismissed outright for want of jurisdiction [Paras 70–73].

Quashing Petition – Further investigation, Article 20(3) protection, and Section 8 PC Act – Petition dismissed – Court upholds validity of supplementary challan, rejects self-incrimination plea, and holds Section 8 PC Act applicable to private person.

Criminal Procedure – Further investigation vs. reinvestigation – Sections 173(2) & 173(8) CrPC – Quashment declined – Court reiterates distinction between “further investigation” (supplementary report continuing the primary investigation) and “reinvestigation/de novo” (which requires superior court’s specific order) – Prior judicial directions and subsequent SIT probe culminating in supplementary challan held to be valid “further investigation”; mere pendency of trial on first challan not a bar – Trial Court must consider primary and supplementary reports conjointly unless a superior court excludes any – Petition to quash on this ground rejected [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel discussed].

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Self-incrimination – No violation – Protection attaches only when a person stands as an “accused” at the time of making the statement – Materials furnished by the petitioner before he was formally arrayed as accused (status attained only upon supplementary challan dated 06.03.2025) can be used; hence Article 20(3) plea fails [State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad; Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra].

Prevention of Corruption – Section 8 PC Act – Applicability to private persons – Offence under Section 8 can be committed by a private person even without a public servant being arraigned – Petitioner cannot claim benefit of provisos: he was neither compelled to give “undue advantage” nor did he report within 7 days; lodging FIR only after the deal soured does not attract the proviso – Prima facie Section 8 made out notwithstanding IPC heads originally invoked [State (CBI) v. Jitender Kumar Singh; Sandeep Deshwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)].

Quashing of FIR/Proceedings – Scope – Presence of triable allegations under any cognizable offence (here, Section 8 PC Act and IPC heads emerging from conjoint reading of reports) defeats plea for quashment – Proper course is for Trial Court to assess all reports and frame appropriate charges; deficiency in initial sections is not decisive at 482/528 stage [Ghanshyam Sharma v. Surendra Kumar Sharma].

Decision – Petition dismissed – First order framing charges based on the first report under Section 173(2) CrPC and all consequential proceedings quashed; police directed to conduct further investigation keeping Section 8 PC Act (and any other disclosed offence) in view and submit a final report; the first report (173(2)), the supplementary report (173(8)) and the fresh final report to be considered conjointly by the Trial Court for framing of charges, if any.

Service Law – Writ - Paramilitary Discipline – Proportionality of Punishment – Section 11(1) CRPF Act – Dismissal Quashed – Petitioner, a long-serving constable, failed to report for second guard shift and did not immediately comply when roused – Misconduct held proved, but punishment of removal from service under a charge framed under Section 11(1) (minor misconduct) held shockingly disproportionate – Court applies doctrine of proportionality and holds that discipline is not synonymous with harshness – Orders of dismissal, appeal, revision and mercy rejection quashed [Paras 2-5].

Charge Framing – Duplication of Charges – Same Transaction Split into Two – Impermissible – Authorities split a single episode into “absence from duty” and “disobedience of orders,” both arising from the same factual nucleus – Such duplication unfairly magnifies the misconduct and vitiates the penalty analysis – Held: improper splitting underscores disproportionality in awarding removal [Para 4].

Judicial Review – Scope over Quantum of Punishment – Proportionality Standard – Though choice of punishment lies with disciplinary authority, courts will interfere where sentence is an “outrageous defiance of logic” – Reliance placed on Ranjit Thakur – Court reiterates that punishment must suit the offence and the offender – Removal for a single lapse here fails the proportionality test [Para 4].

Past Record – Use at Penalty Stage – Article 311(2) – Prior Adverse Material Must Be Disclosed – Past lapses already punished cannot be resurrected to aggravate penalty without putting the delinquent on notice – Following K. Manche Gowda and Bimal Kumar Pandit – Undisclosed reliance on past record taints the decision on punishment [Para 4].

Sensitive Duty (Magazine Guard) – Standard of Care vs. Human Factors – No Intoxication Proved – Context Considered – Petitioner was in barracks, earlier duty performed, stress due to mother’s serious illness noted – Absence not from station and magazine not left unguarded – These contextual factors must inform proportionality of penalty [Paras 2-4].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Impugned orders of dismissal, appellate, revisional and mercy rejection quashed – Misconduct stands, but penalty held excessive and unsustainable in law – Consequence: departmental dismissal orders annulled [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a former UD Clerk in Kerala Water Authority, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 9/2022 alleging inordinate delay and absence of prima facie material – Allegations involved misappropriation of ₹24,755 by forging cheque counterfoils and falsifying accounts – Court held that the delay was not in registration of crime but due to judicial and procedural circumstances – Further investigation revealed sufficient material – Petition dismissed and trial ordered to be completed within 4 months [Paras 1, 5, 11, 16-17].

Delay – No Ground for Quashment – Right to Speedy Trial Not Violated – Though the petitioner contended that proceedings were pending for over 27 years, the crime was originally registered in 1999 and pursued without unjustified delay – Apex Court precedent in Sirajul v. State of U.P., (2015) 9 SCC 201, discussed but held not applicable – Held: Delay not attributable to prosecution – Petitioner's Article 21 rights not violated [Paras 7, 11-13].

Prima Facie Case – Misappropriation and Forgery – Evidence Sufficient for Trial – Investigation revealed that cheques for ₹9,290 and ₹15,465 were encashed by impersonating the contractor’s signature – Counterfoils bore forged signatures – FSL reports confirmed forgery – Witnesses and records supported prosecution case – Held: A prima facie case is clearly made out against the petitioner – Trial is required [Paras 9-10, 16-17].

Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Section 13(1)(c) and (d), PC Act – Petitioner as custodian of cheques and cash book allegedly prepared false entries and misused uncrossed bearer cheques issued in contractor's name – Entries in cash book corroborated by multiple witnesses – Held: Allegations disclose commission of offences under IPC and PC Act – Petition cannot be quashed at pre-trial stage [Paras 5, 10, 17].

Petition Dismissed – Special Judge Directed to Expedite Trial – Interim stay vacated – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within four months – Copy of order to be forwarded for compliance [Paras 17-19].

Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].