Criminal Law - Acquittal of Accused – Allegations of Sexual Assault under Section 8 POCSO Act and Sections 451, 506 IPC – Acquittal Upheld - The appeal by the State challenged the judgment acquitting the respondent accused of charges of sexual assault and house trespass based on contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements – The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prosecutrix’s inconsistent versions, lack of corroboration, and absence of medical evidence rendered the prosecution case unreliable – Held: Trial court’s judgment justified; State’s appeal dismissed [Paras 1-43].

Inconsistent Testimony – Variations in Statements of Prosecutrix – Evidence Found Unreliable - The Court found material inconsistencies between the prosecutrix’s FIR statement, Section 164 CrPC statement, and court testimony regarding the nature of assault and sequence of events – Held: Unexplained contradictions raised serious doubt about veracity of allegations; benefit of doubt rightly granted to accused [Paras 22-26, 34].

Lack of Medical and Corroborative Evidence – No Injuries Found – Prosecution Version Weakened - Absence of external or internal injuries on prosecutrix and absence of injuries on accused contradicted claims of physical assault and struggle – MLC records did not support prosecution’s case – Held: Lack of corroborative evidence a significant factor in affirming acquittal [Paras 16, 29-30].

House Trespass Not Established – Section 451 IPC Not Attracted – Voluntary Opening of Door by Prosecutrix - The Court noted that the prosecutrix herself opened the door to the accused and thus the offence of house trespass was not made out – Held: Essential ingredients of Section 451 IPC absent; acquittal correct [Paras 36].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Intention to Cause Alarm Not Proved – The alleged threats were not proven to be intended to cause alarm or coerce prosecutrix - Held: Mere use of threats without intention to cause alarm insufficient to attract Section 506 IPC [Paras 37-42].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – No Substantial Error Found - The High Court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Held: State’s appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Para 43].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Civil Dispute Escalated to Criminal Litigation – Supreme Court Orders Executed – Conditional Bail Granted – Petitioners involved in property dispute culminating before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27400 of 2023 sought pre-arrest bail in cross criminal cases registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging mutual criminal trespass and violence after property possession was delivered pursuant to Supreme Court orders – Held: Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners in Cr.P.Nos.5730/2025 and 5860/2025 as there was no prima facie evidence of direct involvement, but rejected for petitioner in Cr.P.No.5861/2025 (A1) in view of previous criminal antecedents, credible allegations of criminal conduct, and statements implicating him in engaging antisocial elements – Court considered the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) 5 SCC 1 regarding grant of anticipatory bail and the nature of allegations – Custodial interrogation held necessary for certain accused, pre-arrest bail allowed/disallowed accordingly [Paras 16-34].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Revision – Quantum of Maintenance – Sections 125 and 127 CrPC – Enhancement Granted with Increment Provision – In this batch of revisions, the wife challenged the Family Court’s order reducing her maintenance from ₹30,000/- to ₹20,000/- while the husband sought further reduction on account of his retirement – The High Court scrutinised the husband’s financial standing, including his post-retirement benefits and assets, and held that the wife’s maintenance should not be reduced below a reasonable standard of living reflective of the matrimonial lifestyle – Held: Monthly maintenance enhanced to ₹25,000/- per month with an increment of 5% every two years to balance the legitimate needs of the wife and the resources of the husband [Paras 1-30].

Maintenance Order Effective Date – No Retrospective Effect – Section 127 CrPC – The Court clarified that the direction to enhance maintenance shall be effective from the date of the Family Court’s order (30.12.2023), refusing retrospective application from the date of the husband’s retirement as claimed by the wife – Exercise of discretion upheld considering fairness and legal principles [Paras 25-27].

Income Tax Return – Not Sole Basis for Determining Income – Section 143(1) Income Tax Act – The Court observed that income tax returns alone do not reflect the actual financial capacity of the husband, especially in maintenance matters – The Court relied upon judicial precedents and considered overall financial indicators, assets, and standard of living while fixing maintenance [Paras 17-24].

Balancing Rights of Parties – Fair Maintenance to Ensure Dignity – The Court reiterated that maintenance is not a charity but a right to ensure a life of dignity for the dependent spouse, and reduced financial capacity does not negate the responsibility towards a non-earning spouse – Final maintenance set at ₹25,000/- per month with increments [Paras 1, 19, 24, 28-30].

Decision – Revisions Partly Allowed – The wife’s revision partly allowed by increasing maintenance; the husband’s revision dismissed – Maintenance fixed at ₹25,000/- per month with 5% increase every two years from 30.12.2023 – Connected applications disposed of accordingly [Paras 28-30].

Taxation Law – Recovery of Tax - GST Liability – Liability of Retired Partner – Section 90 of CGST Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged a demand of Rs. 37,84,228/- and land attachment initiated against him under GST laws, arguing he had retired from the partnership firm on 20.04.2021 and was no longer responsible – The Court held that under Section 90 of the CGST Act, a partner remains jointly and severally liable until written intimation of retirement is furnished to the Commissioner – No timely intimation was made – Petitioner's continued reflection as active partner in GST records justified proceedings against him [Paras 5, 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of PGST Act – Writ Not Entertained – The Court observed that petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the PGST Act to challenge the assessment and recovery proceedings – Reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where statutory remedies exist unless exceptional circumstances are shown – No such circumstances made out [Para 5].

Land Attachment – Validity of Red Entry – Recovery Action Under Section 79 of PGST Act – Upheld – Petitioner's claim that he learned of land attachment only later and did not consent to it was held irrelevant in light of non-compliance with statutory requirements – The Department’s actions in seeking red entry and initiating recovery under DRC-09 and related provisions were found lawful [Paras 3, 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty Granted – The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law [Para 16].

Criminal Law - Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act & Section 7 and 25 of the Arms Act – Acquittal Upheld – Arms and Explosives Case – Prosecution Version Unreliable – The appeal challenged the judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Jammu, acquitting the respondents of charges under the Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and RPC – The trial court found material contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative regarding arrest, disclosure, and recovery of arms – The High Court held that the trial court’s findings were plausible, based on proper appreciation of evidence – Held: No perversity found – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 1, 44-50].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles for Interference – No Perverse Findings – Trial Court View Held Plausible – The High Court reiterated that unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or impossible, the appellate court cannot interfere with a judgment of acquittal merely on an alternate appraisal of evidence – Held: Trial court's view was reasonable and supported by material contradictions and lack of credible evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 45-47, 50].

Recovery of Arms and Explosives – Doubtful Disclosure – Contradictions in Prosecution – Prosecution failed to establish that disclosure statements were made voluntarily and in presence of credible witnesses – Several material witnesses turned hostile and contradicted each other – Held: Recovery process doubtful; prosecution case unreliable [Paras 28-35, 48-49].

Credibility of Witnesses – All Police Officials – Absence of Independent Witnesses – Prosecution failed to associate civilian witnesses despite availability – Several official witnesses contradicted each other regarding arrest, disclosure, and recovery – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and contradictions rendered evidence untrustworthy [Paras 16-18, 43].

Arrest and Disclosure – Contradictory Testimonies – Unclear Narrative – Discrepancies in prosecution version whether accused were walking or travelling, whether they were taken to police station or directly to recovery site – Held: Inconsistencies undermined reliability of prosecution version [Paras 21-27].

Chain of Custody and Seizure – Not Proved – No Evidence of Sealing, Safe Custody – Prosecution failed to prove how arms and explosives were secured, sealed, or stored – Magistrate who supervised sealing not examined – Held: Investigation lacked integrity and failed legal standards [Paras 39-42].

Final Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that the trial court’s view was reasonable and no ground existed to interfere – Judgment of acquittal dated 02.01.2014 sustained – Appeal dismissed [Paras 50-51].

Criminal Taxation Law - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest Declared Illegal – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – In a petition under Article 226 seeking release of the detenue, the Court found that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence officials had kept the detenue in custody for over 30 hours without presenting him before a Magistrate and without serving grounds of arrest – The arrest was held to be in clear contravention of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also violated mandatory procedures under Sections 69 and 70 of the CGST Act – Held: The arrest was illegal and the detenue is entitled to release – Further, DGGI officials are to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing a Warrant Officer appointed by the Court [Paras 1-33].

Illegal Detention – Overnight Custody by DGGI – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Detention Unlawful – The detenue was kept in the GST zonal office overnight for more than 30 hours without production before Magistrate – Held: Detention amounts to violation of constitutional protections and is illegal – Consent under coercive circumstances is invalid – Arrest is deemed to have commenced with the unlawful restraint [Paras 13-20].

Section 69 CGST Act – Arrest Authorization Without Application of Mind – Arrest Vitiated – The Additional Director General merely endorsed the proposal for arrest forwarded via the E-office system without independent analysis or satisfaction – Held: Mechanical authorization without reasons to believe or application of mind violates the safeguards under Section 69 and Supreme Court rulings – Arrest declared illegal [Paras 21-25].

Grounds of Arrest – Delay in Communication – Arrest and Remand Vitiated – Although the detenue was restrained at 5:46 PM, grounds of arrest were communicated only at 8:40 PM – Held: Arrest becomes illegal when grounds are not promptly served at the moment of restraint – Subsequent remand proceedings also rendered invalid [Paras 26-29].

CCTV Surveillance – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Inference of Malafide – Despite court direction, DGGI failed to produce CCTV footage and claimed cameras were dysfunctional – Held: Excuse rejected – Inference drawn that non-compliance was deliberate and intended to conceal illegality – Non-adherence to Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh binding directions [Para 12].

Obstruction of Warrant Officer – Prima Facie Contempt – DGGI Officials Misbehaved and Obstructed Judicial Function – The Court-appointed Warrant Officer was stopped from recording the detenue's statement and had official papers snatched – Held: Prima facie contempt made out – Officials directed to show cause – Law cannot be allowed to be subverted by such conduct [Paras 2.1, 9, 10, 33].

Detenue’s Rights During Interrogation – Statement Must Be Recorded During Office Hours and Under CCTV – The Court reiterated that summoned persons are entitled to legal safeguards during questioning – Held: DGGI must ensure statements are recorded in office hours, preferably under CCTV surveillance, and allow presence of counsel within visible range during investigation – Directions consistent with Mahesh Devchand Gala and Agarwal Foundries cases [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Arrest Held Unlawful – Detenue Entitled to Release – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 were violated by illegal detention and arrest – Authorization under Section 69 was procedurally defective – Arrest and remand are declared null and void – Matter adjourned for final orders on release and contempt action [Paras 30-33].

Criminal Law – Default Bail - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 29(1), 36A(4), 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act - Extension of Statutory Remand Period – Requirement of Specific Reasons – Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Extension Order Set Aside – The petitioner was arrested in connection with seizure of commercial quantity of methamphetamine and was in custody beyond 180 days – The Special Court extended remand without specific reasons in the Public Prosecutor’s report – Held: Report failed to disclose appreciable progress of investigation or compelling reasons for continued custody – Extension of custody beyond 180 days declared unsustainable and set aside [Paras 1-12].

Role of Public Prosecutor – Mandatory Independent Application of Mind – Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act, Public Prosecutor must independently evaluate the investigation status – In the absence of reasons in the Prosecutor’s report, continued custody of accused is unjustified – Courts cannot mechanically extend custody on vague or routine grounds – Reference made to Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 and Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, (2009) 17 SCC 631 [Paras 7-9].

Default Bail – Right to Statutory Bail under NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, having completed 180 days in custody without valid extension, entitled to default bail – Further, the Court satisfied twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act, namely reasonable grounds for believing the petitioner is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order extending time for filing final report beyond 180 days quashed – Petitioner granted bail on execution of bond and strict conditions including regular reporting to police, prohibition on tampering evidence, and presence at trial – Court empowered to cancel bail in case of violation [Para 12].

Civil Law - Negligence – Electrocution Death – Damages - Liability under Fatal Accidents Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellants, legal heirs of deceased Naresh Kumar, sought damages for his death caused by electrocution from a live electric wire on a pole, alleging negligence on part of the electricity board in maintaining safety of electric lines – The Trial Court granted ₹2 lakhs as damages but the First Appellate Court reversed the decree citing lack of conclusive evidence and attributing contributory negligence to the deceased – The High Court, on appreciation of witness testimony, postmortem and viscera reports, held that death was due to electrocution caused by negligent maintenance of electric wires – The absence of burn marks was held not decisive against electrocution in light of medical jurisprudence – No contributory negligence was found on part of the deceased – Held: The electricity department is responsible to ensure public safety, and the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the decree – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside and the Trial Court decree is restored, awarding compensation to the appellants [Paras 4-15].

Arbitration – Legal Heirs as Parties – Clause Permitting Continuation of Firm – Arbitration Agreement Extends – The partnership deed contained a clause (Clause 15) allowing continuation of business with legal heirs after a partner's death – Clause 16 permitted arbitration of disputes – Held: Legal heirs are entitled to invoke arbitration despite absence of reconstitution deed – Dispute maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 3-5, 14, 33-35].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Petition – No Grounds Made Out – Application Rightly Dismissed – Court found that none of the conditions under Order VII Rule 11 were satisfied – There was a valid cause of action and no legal bar to institution of proceedings – Allegations raised in arbitration petition were not inherently meritless – Commercial Court’s order upheld [Paras 6-7, 22-32].

Partnership Act – Dissolution Not Automatic on Death – Clause in Deed Overrides Section 42(c) – Partnership at Will – Deed explicitly stated that firm would not dissolve on a partner’s death and would continue with successors – Held: Such contractual stipulations prevail over Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act [Paras 33-34].

Commercial Courts Act – Writ Petition Maintainable Despite Section 8 – Constitutional Jurisdiction Not Ousted – Section 8 bars revision/petition against interlocutory orders of Commercial Court – However, High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutional and not excluded by statutory bar – Court may interfere in rare and compelling circumstances [Paras 16-21].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to interfere with Commercial Court’s rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application – Matter directed to proceed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act [Paras 36-37].