Regular Bail – Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 399 and 402 IPC, NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The petitioners were arrested on allegations of being part of a gang involved in criminal activities – The prosecution alleged that a co-accused fired at a police officer, but no injury was sustained – No contraband was recovered from the petitioners – The petitioners had no prior criminal history – The investigation was complete, and charges were framed, but trial proceedings were slow, with only one out of twenty-one prosecution witnesses examined – Held: Continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, and the trial’s early conclusion was unlikely – Bail granted subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate [Paras 5-6].

PIL - Right to Health – Fundamental Right – State’s Obligation – The court reaffirmed the right to health as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: Providing adequate medical facilities, staffing, and infrastructure is a constitutional obligation of the state – Directed the State of Karnataka to address the acute shortage of medical personnel and upgrade infrastructure in Primary Health Centres (PHCs) across rural and urban areas – Decision: State authorities directed to implement specific measures and submit progress reports every six months [Paras 6, 7, 10.1].

Healthcare Infrastructure – Vacancies in Medical Personnel – Need for Immediate Recruitment – Highlighted the significant vacancies in posts for medical officers, technicians, pharmacists, nursing officers, and Group-D employees – Held: The State must complete recruitment processes promptly and monitor staffing requirements regularly to ensure uninterrupted healthcare delivery – Decision: Recruitment of all vacant posts to be expedited with a defined timeline and ongoing monitoring [Paras 4.3, 10.2].

Suo Motu Cognizance – Media Report – Judicial Intervention in Public Interest – The court initiated the petition based on a media report highlighting healthcare deficiencies, including shortages in staff and infrastructure – Held: Judicial intervention necessary to ensure the state meets its constitutional duty to safeguard public health – Decision: Petition disposed of with directions to form monitoring committees for sustained implementation of healthcare measures [Paras 1, 2, 10(i)-(vi)].

Healthcare Strategy – Formation of Committees – Monitoring and Coordination – Directed the formation of committees at the state and district levels to oversee the implementation of health initiatives, monitor staffing levels, and propose infrastructural upgrades every six months – Decision: State-level and district-level committees to be formed, with detailed action plans and regular reviews [Paras 10(i)-(iv)].

Budget Allocation – Purpose-Driven Expenditure – Emphasized the need for adequate budgeting and effective utilization of funds for healthcare – Held: Budget allocations must be focused on addressing healthcare infrastructure gaps and operational needs – Decision: Respondents to ensure proper financial planning and efficient spending under healthcare schemes [Paras 5, 10.7].

Judicial Oversight – Compliance Monitoring – Required the State to file periodic affidavits detailing recruitment progress, infrastructural developments, and strategy implementation – Held: Continuous monitoring essential to ensure effective compliance – Decision: Affidavits to be filed every six months, with updates to be placed before the court [Paras 10.5-10.6].
 

Motor Accident Claim – Medical Expenses – Unreasonable Denial by Claims Tribunal – Enhancement Ordered – The Claims Tribunal had awarded only Rs.30,000/- as compensation for medical expenses despite the claimant submitting medical bills totaling Rs.1,08,385/- (Ex. A.9) – The Tribunal’s reduction was based on the assumption that treatment at a Government Hospital involved minimal expenditure, without adequate inquiry or evidence to support such an assumption – Held: Claimant is entitled to Rs.1,08,385/- for actual medical expenses, and the award is enhanced by Rs.79,000/- (rounded off) under this head [Paras 12-13].

Permanent Disability – Compensation for Loss of Amenities – Enhanced – The claimant suffered 20% permanent disability, including shortening of his left leg, which the Tribunal held did not affect his earning capacity as a restaurant supervisor – However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- for disability – Held: Considering the claimant's young age (32 years) and lifelong impact of the disability, an additional Rs.15,000/- is granted for loss of amenities [Paras 14-15].

Compensation Enhancement – Interest and Liability – Total compensation enhanced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,84,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization – The insurance company and the vehicle owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Oversight – Failure of Claims Tribunal to Consider Evidence – The Claims Tribunal failed to analyze the claimant’s medical bills properly and relied on assumptions rather than evidence – This approach was held to be unreasonable, necessitating modification of the award [Para 13].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,84,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization. Respondent Nos. 1 (vehicle owner) and 2 (insurance company) are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent (insurance company) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within one month, after giving credit for any amounts already deposited.

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – The respondent-husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing that the appellant-wife displayed unruly behavior, threatened suicide, and created disturbances at the matrimonial home – The appellant denied these allegations and, in turn, claimed that she was subjected to physical abuse and forced to consume poison – The Family Court found that the allegations of cruelty were established and granted divorce – Held: Findings of cruelty by the Family Court were justified based on evidence presented, and no interference is warranted [Paras 2.2, 5-6].

False Allegations – Filing of Section 498-A IPC Case – Impact on Divorce – The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent and his family after the filing of the divorce petition – The respondent and his parents were acquitted – The High Court, relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SC) and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013 SC), held that false allegations leading to acquittal amount to mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce [Paras 2.2, 6].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Period of Separation – The parties had been separated for 23 years since 2001, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down – Relying on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2003 SC) and Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985 SC), the High Court observed that prolonged separation is a strong indicator of irretrievable breakdown, which is a valid ground for divorce – Held: The appeal lacks merit, as the long separation further justifies the decree of divorce [Paras 7-9].

Alimony – Right of Wife to Withdraw Maintenance Amount – The Family Court had ordered alimony, which was deposited by the respondent – The High Court directed that the appellant-wife is permitted to withdraw the amount from the Family Court, Vadodara – Held: The respondent’s obligation towards alimony remains intact [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Divorce Granted on Grounds of Cruelty – Wife Permitted to Withdraw Alimony from Family Court – The Family Court’s findings were upheld, as the allegations of cruelty were supported by evidence – The long separation and the false criminal complaint further justified the decree of divorce [Paras 9-10].
 

NDPS - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle – Confiscation Not Automatic – Section 457 Cr.P.C. – Order Denying Custody Set Aside – The trial court erred in rejecting interim custody of the seized vehicle merely on the ground that it may be confiscated if the offence is proved – Confiscation is subject to trial and can only be ordered upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – At the interim stage, denial of custody is unjustified [Paras 4-5].

Ownership of Seized Vehicle – Non-Accused Owner Entitled to Custody – No Evidence of Involvement in Crime – The petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle, with hypothecation to Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited – He was not an accused in the case – Keeping the vehicle unused at the police station or court premises would lead to deterioration – Held, the rightful owner is entitled to interim custody subject to conditions ensuring production of the vehicle when required [Paras 5-6].

Trial Court’s Order – Lack of Proper Legal Reasoning – Erroneous Interpretation of Confiscation Law – The trial court incorrectly presumed that the vehicle would necessarily be confiscated – Confiscation arises only upon conviction, not at the stage of investigation or trial – Held, the trial court’s reasoning was legally flawed, and interim custody should have been granted [Paras 4-6].

Decision: The criminal revision case is allowed, and the trial court’s order is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner upon execution of a self-bond for the vehicle’s value, as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, along with two sureties of like amount. The petitioner must also execute an undertaking not to alienate, transfer ownership, or make any physical modifications to the vehicle. Further, the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial court until the final disposal of the case.
 

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Second Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Legal Validity – The prosecutrix's father moved an application for recording her second statement under Section 164 CrPC, claiming that the earlier statement was false and implicating the applicant would amount to abuse of process – Held: While the law permits recording of multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC, such requests must not be used to negate or defeat the earlier statements, especially when not sponsored by the investigating agency – Application dismissed [Paras 6–10].

Section 164 CrPC – Role of Investigating Agency in Requesting Statements – Statements under Section 164 CrPC should ideally be recorded when sponsored by the investigating agency – Allowing unsponsored applications may derail the investigation and result in the misuse of the provision – Magistrates have discretion to reject such applications when unsupported by valid reasons – Held: The Trial Court rightly dismissed the application for recording the prosecutrix’s second statement [Paras 7–9].

Protection of 164 CrPC Statements – Sanctity of Evidence – Safeguards Against Misuse – Recording multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC should be exceptional and subject to proper safeguards – Repeated statements risk diluting the evidentiary value and sanctity of the process – Held: The Court must balance the legal rights of witnesses with the sanctity of investigation – The application for recording a second statement was rightly rejected by the Trial Court [Paras 6–10].

Judicial Caution – Statements Without Investigating Agency’s Sponsorship – Supreme Court Guidance – Following precedents from Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that Magistrates should exercise caution in recording unsponsored statements under Section 164 CrPC – Held: The Magistrate was justified in rejecting the unsponsored application, as the investigating agency did not support the request for the second statement [Paras 7–10].

Decision: The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. The Trial Court's decision rejecting the application for recording the second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC is upheld. The Court emphasized that statements under Section 164 CrPC must not be misused to negate earlier statements and should be recorded only in exceptional circumstances when supported by the investigating agency [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law - Limitation – Time-barred Claims – Section 31, State Financial Corporations Act – A petition for recovery of dues filed 22 years after foreclosure and 6 years after the last payment without acknowledgment of debt is barred by limitation – Held: The petitioner failed to establish any renewal of guarantees or acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period; claim dismissed as time-barred [Paras 3, 11, 13].

Recovery under Section 31 – Requirements for Mortgage Validity – For invoking Section 31, the petitioner must establish the existence of a validly executed and registered mortgage or hypothecation – Held: The properties of respondents 4 and 6 were not legally mortgaged as the mortgage deed was signed by company directors and not the property owners; hence, the petition is not maintainable [Paras 11, 13].

Competency of Witness – Authorization and Evidence Admissibility – A corporate petitioner must be represented by an authorized officer under a valid Board resolution – Held: The Junior Officer representing the petitioner lacked proper authorization; his evidence was inadmissible, rendering the petition unsustainable [Paras 14, 15].

Breakup of Loan Amounts and Repayment Details – Lack of Specifics – The petition did not provide a clear breakup of the sanctioned amounts, repayments, and interest calculations for term loans and hire purchase loans – Held: The absence of material details and unexplained inflated claim of ₹1842 crores for loans of less than ₹2 crores demonstrates suppression of material facts and renders the claim illegal and misleading [Paras 8-10, 15].

Application of Bankers' Book Evidence Act – Financial statements must comply with the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, including proper certification – Held: The petitioner's financial records were uncertified, and the witness was unable to explain entries or substantiate the claim, rendering the evidence unreliable [Para 15].

Decision: The petition was dismissed as time-barred, unsubstantiated, and devoid of merit. The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with statutory requirements under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, lacked proper evidence, and did not establish valid mortgages or guarantees. The inflated claim of ₹1842 crores was also deemed misleading.

Criminal Law - Adjournments – Excessive and Repeated Requests – Court’s Duty to Prevent Abuse of Process – Repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence were granted, including a final opportunity on 11/11/2024 – Despite this, no evidence was produced on 21/12/2024 – Held: The petitioner’s conduct was aimed at delaying proceedings, and the order of the trial court closing the defence evidence is proper and justified [Paras 4-6, 9].

Fair Trial – Right to Lead Defence Evidence vs. Timely Justice – While the right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it cannot be used as a tool to delay justice – The petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with court orders to produce defence evidence demonstrated gross negligence, justifying the closure of his right to lead evidence [Paras 7, 9].

Judicial Responsibility – Addressing Adjournment Culture – Courts have a duty to discourage adjournments granted in a mechanical or routine manner, which harm the justice delivery system – Reiterating the principles in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Court emphasized the need to avoid delays that erode public trust in the judicial process and undermine the rule of law [Paras 7-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Speedy Remedy Undermined by Delays – The petitioner’s dilatory tactics in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act undermined the efficacy of the Act, which is designed to provide a speedy remedy – Held: The trial court rightly refused to tolerate delays that obstruct the purpose of the law [Para 10].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 21/12/2024, closing the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence, is upheld.
 

Service Law - Regularization of Contractual Employees – Applicability of 2003 Policy – Employees Entitled to Consideration – Petitioners, engaged on an ad-hoc, daily wage, or contractual basis for over two decades, sought regularization under the 2003 policy – The State argued that the policy was withdrawn in 2007 in compliance with Uma Devi (2006) – However, a 2014 notification restored the benefit to eligible employees who were denied regularization due to administrative reasons – Held: The State is bound by its 2014 notification – Petitioners eligible under the 2003 policy must be considered for regularization within six months – Arrears to be granted from the date of petition filing, without interest [Paras 26-30].

Regularization Under 2011 Policy – Marginal Shortfall in Service Period – Consideration Directed – Petitioners who fell short of the 10-year continuous service requirement by a few months were denied regularization under the 2011 policy – Held: The State should consider condoning shortfall of up to three months, subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court litigation (SLP (C) No. 18374 of 2022) – If found eligible, petitioners are entitled to arrears from the petition filing date, without interest [Paras 31-34].

Regularization of Employees Already Regularized in 2014 – No Retrospective Benefit – Petitioners who accepted permanent appointments in 2014 after a walk-in interview sought retrospective regularization from 2003 – Held: These employees waived their earlier claims by accepting appointment terms and furnishing affidavits – They cannot now claim retrospective regularization – Relief denied [Paras 35-40].

Application of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 – Petitioners not eligible under 2003 or 2011 policies sought protection under the 2024 Act, which grants security of tenure until superannuation – Held: Petitioners to be considered under the 2024 Act for service continuation and benefits like gratuity and leave encashment [Paras 41(vii)].

State’s 2014 Notification – Inconsistent with Uma Devi (2006) – Requires Review – The Court noted that the 2014 notification contradicted the Uma Devi (2006) ruling, which prohibited backdoor regularization – However, given binding precedents from this Court, relief was granted to petitioners per existing notifications – The State may reconsider the notification’s validity in the future [Para 43].

Decision: No petitioner would be regularized as per the 1996 policy. The respondent shall consider and decide the claim of petitioners, within six months from today, who are claiming regularization as per the policy of 2003. If any of the petitioners is found eligible for regularization as per the policy of 2003, he shall be entitled to arrears from the date of filing the petition before this Court. The arrears shall not carry interest. If any petitioner has already retired, his/her pensionary benefits will also be fixed/revised apart from arrears from the date of filing the petition before this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not declared that the policy of 2003 is applicable to each instrumentality of the State Government. The competent authority of each organization would independently examine this aspect, and the employee would be granted an opportunity of hearing if any adverse opinion is formed.