Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prolonged Judicial Custody – Denial of Bail – Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in an FIR registered under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC for the murder of two inmates inside a jail van – Petitioner has been in judicial custody for over nine years while only 32 out of 79 prosecution witnesses have been examined – Trial delayed due to co-accused absconding and complex circumstances – Court noted the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, including convictions for crimes committed while on bail – Held: Prolonged custody alone does not justify bail in light of the gravity of the offense, risk of recidivism, and societal interests – Bail application dismissed [Paras 17–23].

Criminal Law – Heinousness of Offense – Grounds for Denial of Bail – Allegation that the petitioner, along with co-accused, strangulated two inmates with gamchas inside a jail van in the presence of armed police guards – Court observed the brazen and depraved nature of the crime committed in a highly secure environment – Held: The severity and circumstances of the offense justify denial of bail despite prolonged custody [Paras 17.1, 17.2, 19.3].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevance in Bail Decisions – Petitioner has a history of 28 criminal cases, including convictions under the Gangsters Act and for crimes committed while on bail – Court emphasized the petitioner’s demonstrated proclivity for committing offenses during bail periods as proof of recidivism – Held: Criminal antecedents and risk of repeat offenses are valid grounds to deny bail [Paras 19.1, 19.6, 20].

Right to Speedy Trial – Balancing Against Societal Interests – Petitioner invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that prolonged custody without trial violates the right to liberty – Court held that delay in trial is only one factor to be considered and must be weighed against the gravity of the offense, societal safety, and petitioner’s past conduct – Held: Speedy trial rights cannot override societal interests and the seriousness of the offense [Paras 19.2, 19.5, 23].

Judicial Discretion – Balancing Individual and Societal Interests – Court reaffirmed that the principle "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" must be applied judiciously – Emphasized that societal safety and petitioner’s history of criminality take precedence over prolonged incarceration – Held: Denial of bail is a justified exercise of discretion in view of larger public interest [Paras 19.4, 21].

Judicial Directions – Expedited Trial – Court expressed concern over delays in the trial and urged the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously without further undue delay – Held: While bail is denied, the justice system must ensure timely trial completion [Para 24].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Prolonged custody does not outweigh the gravity of the offense, criminal history, and societal risks – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Paras 22–24].

Civil Writ - Passports for Minors – Consent of Both Parents – Declaration in Annexure C – Passport Authority refused to process passport renewal applications of minors without the consent of their father – Mother submitted a declaration under Annexure C stating an ongoing custody dispute with no court order prohibiting passport issuance – Held: Annexure C suffices in absence of a prohibitory order, and the Passport Authority cannot demand additional court permission [Paras 14-17].

Fundamental Right to Travel – Scope of Article 21 – The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad – Refusal to issue a passport based solely on a parent’s objection without valid legal grounds violates the constitutional right to travel, which must be safeguarded [Paras 7, 22].

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Division Bench Judgment – Relied on Miss Yushika Vivek Gedam v. Union of India & Others, WP No. 19042/2024 (Bombay High Court) – Reiterated that a parent's refusal to consent cannot automatically bar passport issuance if the declaration under Annexure C has been submitted [Paras 9-17].

Custody Disputes – No Bar to Passport Issuance – Mere pendency of a custody dispute does not prevent passport issuance for minors unless a prohibitory order is passed by a competent court – Respondent No. 3 (father) retains the right to approach the Family Court for further remedies [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The Passport Authority’s impugned communication dated 08/11/2024 quashed.
Directed the Passport Authority to process and renew the passports of the petitioners within one week.
Respondent No. 3 (father) granted liberty to approach the Family Court for prohibitory orders or to raise issues concerning document authenticity without being influenced by this judgment [Para 17].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Public Servant Accused of Corruption – Petitioner, a Regional Transport Officer, was accused of illegal cancellation of registration certificates (R.C.) of vehicles and unauthorized concessions on taxes, causing a financial loss to the State – Held: The nature of evidence (mostly documentary) and the petitioner's position as a public servant do not necessitate custodial interrogation – Bail granted subject to strict conditions. (Paras 8–9)

Grant of Bail – Protection Against Evidence Tampering – While the prosecution argued that the petitioner might influence witnesses and tamper with evidence, the court observed that much of the evidence was documentary and already recovered – Held: Adequate conditions imposed to prevent interference with the investigation. (Paras 7–8)

Applicability of Section 438 CrPC – Balancing Individual Liberty with Investigation Needs – The petitioner argued that his actions were within the scope of his duties, though the prosecution alleged misuse of official authority – Held: Anticipatory bail can be granted in such cases to protect the petitioner’s liberty while ensuring non-interference in the investigation. (Paras 8–9)

Corruption and Abuse of Power – Scope of Allegations – The petitioner, a Joint Regional Transport Officer during the relevant period, was accused of unauthorized tax concessions and cancellations of vehicle R.C. books even after being relieved from office – The court noted that allegations involve serious misconduct under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act but did not warrant pretrial detention. (Paras 3–8)

Decision:
Bail Allowed: Petitioner directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹2,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required until the final report is filed.
ii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission from the jurisdictional court.
iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.
iv) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offense during the bail period.

Prosecution Liberty: Prosecution may seek cancellation of bail in case of any breach of conditions. (Paras 9)
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prima Facie Case – Grant of Bail

Petitioner accused of sexually harassing the de facto complainant during a public event and making sexually colored remarks on social media – Prosecution argued that petitioner’s comments and actions amount to body shaming and sexual harassment – Court observed that the allegations prima facie attract the offenses under Section 75(1)(i) and 75(1)(iv) of BNS and Section 67 of IT Act – Held: Petitioner to be released on bail as offenses are punishable with imprisonment for up to three years, subject to compliance with stringent conditions – Bail granted. Paras7–9,14.

Criminal Law – Double Meaning Words – Prima Facie Evidence

Allegations that petitioner used double-meaning words in public and online remarks – Court noted that the statements, when interpreted in the context, support the prosecution's claim of sexual harassment – Held: Prima facie evidence of offenses under BNS exists, warranting imposition of stringent bail conditions.

Bail Jurisprudence – “Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception”

Reiterated that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” must guide decisions in cases where the offenses are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years – Held: Petitioner’s continued detention is not warranted as the maximum punishment prescribed is three years – Bail granted with conditions to ensure fair trial and societal safety. Paras11,13.

Right to Bail – Societal Concerns vs. Fair Trial

Prosecution opposed bail, arguing that granting bail to a prominent personality like the petitioner might send a wrong societal message – Court balanced societal concerns with the principle of fair trial and the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: Bail granted, noting that petitioner is not a flight risk and can be subjected to stringent conditions to prevent misuse of liberty. Paras10–12.

Body Shaming and Social Commentary – Judicial Criticism

Court expressed strong disapproval of body shaming, noting its harmful societal impact – Observed that public figures must exercise greater responsibility in their words and actions – Held: Petitioner’s conduct warrants serious censure, but detention is not justified when stringent bail conditions can safeguard societal interests. Paras10,14.

Bail Conditions – Need for Compliance

Petitioner required to execute a bond and comply with conditions, including refraining from making derogatory remarks and cooperating with the investigation – Held: Violation of conditions will entitle the jurisdictional court to cancel bail. Para14.

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties – Bail granted subject to compliance with stringent conditions to ensure societal safety and fair trial – Prosecution and complainant at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated. Paras14.

Writ – Election Law - Disqualification of Elected Sarpanch – Encroachment on Government Land – Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act – Petitioners sought disqualification of Respondent No. 1 (Sarpanch) based on alleged encroachment by his mother on government land – Held: Encroachment by a close family member can result in disqualification under certain circumstances – However, the allegation of encroachment must be substantiated with concrete evidence, and mere conjectures or surmises are insufficient to unseat a democratically elected representative – No conclusive proof of encroachment was established – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11, 16, 22].

Standard of Proof – Elected Representatives – Strict Proof Required – Removal of an elected official carries severe consequences and must be supported by definitive evidence – Statutory remedies must be exercised with strict adherence to procedural requirements – Courts must not rely on mere probabilities when adjudicating on disqualifications [Paras 16-19].

Housing Schemes on Government Land – NREP and Similar Initiatives – Construction of houses for landless laborers under government schemes does not necessarily constitute encroachment – In the absence of evidence showing irregularity in such schemes, disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) is unwarranted – Official records supported the claim that the house was constructed under a government scheme [Paras 13-15, 20].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Additional Divisional Commissioner's order reversing the Collector's disqualification order upheld – Petitioners failed to establish encroachment conclusively – No costs awarded [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Fraudulent Land Transfers – Allegations of Sale of Government-Vested Land – Allegations of illegal transfer of government-vested land using fabricated powers of attorney – Petitioners include councilors, intermediaries, and witnesses – Held: Prima facie evidence of fraud, forgery, and conspiracy; investigation into large-scale transfer of government land on forged documents must continue; quashing of proceedings not permissible [Paras 11-16].

Fabrication of Power of Attorney – Legal Implications – A fabricated power of attorney created in the name of a fictitious individual was used to execute transactions – Held: Prima facie evidence of illegal execution of deeds; proper investigation required to ascertain the authenticity of documents and the role of petitioners [Para 12].

Role of Petitioners – Witnesses, Councilors, and Beneficiaries – Petitioners claimed they acted in good faith as witnesses and identifiers – Held: Mere denial of knowledge of the illegality is insufficient; culpability of all parties to be examined during investigation and trial [Paras 5-9].

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Legal principles governing quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Held: High Court should exercise its power sparingly and only when complaints are frivolous or baseless; economic offences and public interest crimes demand a full-fledged investigation, not premature interference [Paras 13-15].

Economic Offences – Public Interest Implications – Fraudulent land transactions involving government-vested property constitute an economic offence affecting public interest – Held: Such offences have a serious societal impact; continuance of criminal proceedings is necessary for justice [Para 16].

Judicial Precedents – Limits of High Court’s Inherent Powers – Reliance on principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and others – Held: Quashing not justified where serious allegations of fraud and public interest issues are involved [Paras 14-15].

Decision: CRR 3244 of 2023, CRR 4421 of 2023, CRR 1947 of 2024, and CRR 1950 of 2024 dismissed. Criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 304 of 2023 to continue.
 

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment – Rule 9(7) of 1990 Rules – Delayed Application – Application Rejected – Respondent applied for compassionate appointment in 2013, seven years after her father’s death in 2006, citing her mother’s medical unfitness – Rule 9(7) mandates that minors at the time of death of a government servant must apply within three years of attaining majority – Held: Respondent failed to meet the requirements of the rules, and compassionate appointment cannot be granted after 17 years – Appeal allowed, respondent’s application rejected [Paras 7, 18, 20-21].

Purpose of Compassionate Appointment – Immediacy of Financial Need – Appointment Denied – The scheme of compassionate appointment exists to address the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of a government servant – A prolonged delay (seven years in application, 17 years in total) defeats the purpose of the scheme – Held: Delayed claims cannot be entertained as compassionate appointment is not a matter of inheritance or vested right [Paras 10, 21].

Eligibility – Widow’s Medical Unfitness – Burden of Proof – Respondent relied on a medical certificate issued seven years after the death of her father, asserting that her mother was unfit for employment – Court held that the incapacity must be proven at the time of death, not at the time of the delayed application – Held: Respondent failed to prove that her mother was unfit at the relevant time [Paras 13, 20].

Case Law Distinction – Malaya Nanda Sethy Distinguished – Compassionate appointment in Malaya Nanda Sethy was granted where the widow was unfit and the son applied promptly – Court held that the respondent’s case is different as there was no immediate application, and the claim was unjustifiably delayed – Held: Malaya Nanda Sethy is factually inapplicable to the present case [Paras 12, 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Respondent’s Claim Rejected – The Single Judge’s judgment directing consideration of the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment was erroneous and contrary to the scheme's intent – Appeal allowed – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed [Paras 22-23].
 

Electricity Regulation – Compliance with HERC Regulations – Consumer Protection – Directions issued to the petitioner to comply with Regulation 5.5 of HERC Single Point Supply Regulations – Petitioner alleged violation of natural justice principles for non-service of notice – The Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings through its principal, M/s Max Heights Metro View Apartments, and cannot misuse the principle of audi alteram partem when it deliberately avoids participation – Transparent billing and adherence to regulations are mandatory, and the Forum’s directions were found valid [Paras 3-10].

Overcharging and Unauthorized Charges – Regulatory Compliance – Refund to Residents – The petitioner-firm was found to have included unauthorized charges such as common area electricity charges and power backup fees in residents' bills – The Court upheld the Forum's direction to refund excess charges to residents and emphasized that bills must comply with HERC’s Regulation 5.5 and Sales Circular No. U-01/2021 – Refund and compliance were ordered to ensure billing transparency [Paras 6-9].

Principles of Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – No Violation – Petitioner argued that the Forum’s order violated principles of natural justice as no notice was served – The Court rejected this claim, noting that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings through its principal, which participated in the process – Natural justice principles cannot be used as a defense to circumvent the legal process or regulations [Paras 10-11].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum's order dated 19/11/2024 upheld – Directions for compliance with HERC regulations, transparent billing, and refund of unauthorized charges to residents were maintained – No order as to costs [Paras 12].

Trademark Infringement - Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act - Visual and Phonetic Dissimilarity - Whether the defendant's modified mark “MAHINDRA ZEO” infringes the plaintiff's registered trademark “EZIO” - Held: No - The defendant modified its mark by removing “e” and including the house mark “MAHINDRA” - The marks are visually and phonetically distinct - No automatic presumption of confusion arises - Plaintiff's case of infringement and passing off prima facie rejected [Paras 17, 20-21, 40].

Goodwill and Market Presence - Consideration in Passing Off - Plaintiff's Absence of Market Presence - Plaintiff is yet to launch any product under the mark “EZIO” - Defendant, with an established market reputation, demonstrated bona fide adoption of its mark “ZEO” based on independent searches - Likelihood of confusion negated by plaintiff’s lack of established goodwill [Paras 22-25, 40].

Likelihood of Consumer Confusion - Factors for Determination - Nature of Goods and Purchasing Decisions - Cars as High-End Products Purchased After Deliberation - Purchasers consider both the product and manufacturer’s reputation - The inclusion of “MAHINDRA” distinguishes the defendant’s mark from the plaintiff’s [Paras 31-34].

House Mark as a Distinguishing Feature - Use of “MAHINDRA” with “ZEO” - Defendant's house mark “MAHINDRA” serves as a differentiator in the market - The court emphasized the established practice in the automobile industry of identifying models along with manufacturer names [Para 34].

Decision on Interim Injunction - Application Dismissed - Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or likelihood of confusion - Balance of convenience favored the defendant, as its product was already launched, unlike the plaintiff's - Observations limited to interim stage [Paras 40-43].