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].

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – MDMA 70 gms – FSL positive – Twin conditions – Bail refused – Accused No.3 sought bail under Sec. 483 BNSS/439 CrPC for offences under Secs. 8(c), 21(c) & 22(c) NDPS – Court held seizure of 70 gms MDMA from petitioner established prima facie by mahazar and FSL report – Quantity is commercial – No grounds to believe petitioner not guilty nor that he would not commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–9].

Delay/Procedure – Sec. 42 & Sec. 57 NDPS – At bail stage – Petitioner’s contentions that the seizing officer did not comply Sec. 57 and that Sec. 42 was not followed held to be matters for trial – Not determinative at bail stage when commercial quantity recovered [Para 8].

Factual Foundation – Arrest & Seizure – Petitioner arrested on 18.12.2024 – 70 gms MDMA and a mobile phone seized – Charge-sheet filed; case fixed for hearing – No criminal antecedents pleaded, but gravity and statutory rigour under Section 37 outweigh plea for bail [Paras 3, 4, 7–8].

Public Interest – Drug offences against society/youngsters – Court notes societal impact and likelihood of re-offending as factors against grant of bail in commercial quantity cases [Para 4].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 9].

Excise Law – Illegal Transportation of Liquor – Acquittal – Accused intercepted while allegedly transporting 55 cartons of country liquor without permit – Prosecution relied solely on police testimony as independent witness turned hostile – Photographer did not confirm seizure proceedings – No photographs of search or sealing of liquor bottles produced – Held: Serious procedural lapses and contradictions in prosecution version created reasonable doubt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld [Paras 6, 17, 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Reaffirmation of legal principles that interference is warranted only if trial court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion except guilt is possible – Held: Trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and based on contradictions and lack of independent corroboration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 13, 23].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witness – Independent witness denied witnessing seizure and stated he signed on police request – Police failed to examine any other neutral witnesses despite the seizure occurring at a public bus stand – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and hostile testimony cast doubt on fairness of investigation – Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 20–22].

Contradictory Testimony – Chain of Events Not Plausible – Rukka, site plan, and officer testimonies conflicted on number of officials chasing vehicle and their mode of travel – Motorcycle could not carry four police personnel – Discrepancies undermined the reliability of prosecution story – No clear evidence of actual seizure at the stated spot [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – Trial Court’s judgment found to be a reasonable view based on gaps in evidence, contradictions, and lack of corroboration – High Court declined to interfere under settled principles of appellate review against acquittal.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Issued as Security – Accused issued cheque for ₹10 lakhs, allegedly in discharge of loan liability – Defence claimed cheque was given as security for registration charges in real estate transaction – Trial Court held real estate transaction and RTGS payment occurred on same date, lending credence to defence – Held: Cheque not proved to have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal upheld [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles – High Court reiterated that unless trial court’s view is perverse or impossible, appellate court will not interfere – Omission in statutory notice and doubtful version of complainant regarding earlier cheques considered relevant – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and not liable to be disturbed in appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Accused denied liability and explained cheque was given as security – Complainant failed to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of existing debt – Held: Presumption rebutted – Burden not discharged by complainant – DW-1’s testimony partially favourable but insufficient to prove complainant’s case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Pleadings – Omission in Statutory Notice – Complainant admitted two earlier cheques were issued and replaced by impugned cheque – Omission to mention earlier cheques in statutory notice undermined credibility – Held: Such omissions can raise doubt about genuineness of transaction when key part of liability is left out [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court upheld – No perversity or illegality found in the reasoning – Complainant failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act successfully rebutted.

Civil Law – Suit For Recovery - Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – Barred Suit – Plaintiff relied on alleged last payment of ₹4,080 on 18.07.1992 as acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court held the document (Ex-A10) untrustworthy due to surrounding circumstances and timing amid criminal litigation between parties – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove valid acknowledgment – Suit filed on 17.07.1995 is barred by limitation [Paras 14, 21–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Inchoate Instrument – Section 20 NI Act – One promissory note (Ex-A5) left blank in the promisee column though duly stamped and signed – Plaintiff failed to fill in promisee’s name before filing suit – Held: Document incomplete and unenforceable – Section 20 does not rescue claim absent completed instrument at time of suit – No decree can be granted on incomplete negotiable instrument [Paras 18–19].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Defendants admitted borrowal of ₹2,04,000 in reply notice (Ex-A9) but claimed it was paid via Ashok Sharma and related to another entity – Held: Presumption under Section 118 applies to Ex-A2 to A4, which were in plaintiff’s name and not rebutted by acceptable evidence – However, relief denied due to bar of limitation and defects in Ex-A5 [Paras 15–17].

Civil Procedure – Verification of Pleadings – Inconsistency in description of plaintiff's status—Suit filed as "Proprietor" but verified as "Partner/Manager"—Held: Unexplained ambiguity in business structure and verification creates procedural defect—Plaintiff failed to clarify firm status even after remand—Trial Court rightly found plaint defective [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Against Dismissal – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court dismissed suit after remand for failure to prove limitation and validity of documents – High Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence – Held: No reason to interfere with findings—Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court dated 04/09/2013 in O.S. No. 5989 of 1997 upheld – Suit barred by limitation and based on incomplete documents – Defendants entitled to recover deposit amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn – No order as to costs.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Appeal against concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts granting injunction against encroachment on Abadi Deh land – Held: No substantial question of law involved – High Court cannot interfere with pure findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Property Law – Abadi Deh Land – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiff proved ownership of Khasra No. 44 and joint proprietary rights in Abadi Deh land (Khasra No. 54) – Site plan and oral evidence proved encroachment by defendants on portion marked ‘ABCD’ – Defendants violated compromise to measure land before construction – Held: Plaintiff entitled to protection and restoration of possession [Paras 8–10].

Injunction – Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff initially sought only permanent injunction, but replication raised issue of ongoing illegal construction – Court exercised power under Order VII Rule 7 CPC to mould relief – Held: Mandatory injunction justified where encroachment proved and issue raised during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 11].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Witnesses – Defendants’ witnesses gave inconsistent evidence and contradicted own pleadings – Plaintiff’s witnesses supported site plan and compromise – Held: Trial court rightly relied on consistent and trustworthy plaintiff evidence – No error found in appreciation of facts [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings upheld – Plaintiff’s entitlement to permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of.

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Filing Securitisation Applications – Limitation Act Applicability – Section 17 Proceedings Are Original in Nature – DRT Has Jurisdiction to Condon Delay – Borrowers filed writ petitions challenging DRT orders rejecting their SAs for delay beyond 45 days – Petitioners argued that the DRT erred in holding that it lacked power to condone delay – Held: There is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act in SARFAESI – Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies – Provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 apply to applications under Section 17 – DRT is a judicial forum and proceedings under Section 17 are original in nature – Borrowers cannot be non-suited merely on technical delay [Paras A-24, A-28, C-1, C-2]

SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Harmonious Construction – DRT Jurisdiction – Both Acts Complementary – Borrowers’ Right to Fair Adjudication Requires Delay Condonation Where Justified – Courts emphasized that the SARFAESI and RDB Acts operate in the same field and DRT has overlapping jurisdiction – When banks/financial institutions can seek benefit of Limitation Act under RDB Act, same cannot be denied to borrowers under SARFAESI – Tribunal cannot mechanically reject SAs without examining grounds for delay [Paras A-17 to A-21, A-30]

Interpretation of Special Laws – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act – No Express Exclusion in SARFAESI – Hence, Sections 4 to 24 Apply – Court held that in absence of express exclusion, general limitation provisions remain applicable – Provisions of Limitation Act to be read as supplementing SARFAESI – DRT can condone delay based on judicial discretion [Paras A-23, A-24, A-45]

COVID-19 Pandemic and Practical Difficulties – Consideration of Bonafide Delay Grounds – Technical View Not Justified – Court observed that borrowers often explore loan settlement or OTS schemes, during which time limitation may expire – Physical absence of DRT at local seats and pandemic-related disruptions further justified delay – Such factors must be considered while applying limitation principles [Paras A-31, P-7 to P-9]

Precedents Followed – Apex Court Rulings in Transcore, Mardia Chemicals, Consolidated Engineering, Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal, M.P. Steel Corporation – High Court in Fair Style Embroidery Works – All Support Applicability of Limitation Act to SARFAESI Proceedings – Ratio of Supreme Court judgments confirms that Limitation Act applies to original proceedings before Tribunals unless expressly excluded – Section 5 applicable for condonation of delay, and Section 14 for exclusion of time due to bona fide proceedings [Paras A-32 to A-36, A-41, A-42]

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition No. 6432 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 4104 of 2023 allowed – Impugned DRT orders set aside – Matters remanded to DRT for deciding Section 5 Limitation Act applications afresh – Review Petition No. 453 of 2024 dismissed [Para C-3]

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.

Maintenance – Income Assessment – Section 125 CrPC – Family Court awarded Rs. 22,000 per month to wife based on net salary of Rs. 90,562 of the petitioner – High Court held award constitutes ~25% of net income, consistent with guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha – Upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 5, 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Desertion – Petitioner argued wife had deserted him and was unwilling to reconcile – High Court held that unless desertion is adjudicated under Section 9 HMA in pending Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020, maintenance cannot be denied – Allegations of desertion alone not sufficient to bar entitlement [Paras 4, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers, it cannot reappreciate factual findings unless there is patent illegality or material irregularity – No such error found in the trial court’s maintenance order – Revision dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Maintenance Claim – Alleged unwillingness to reconcile or prior settlement proceedings cannot negate statutory entitlement to maintenance – Trial court’s findings based on admitted income and legal entitlement upheld [Paras 3, 5, 6].