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].

Writ of Mandamus – Section 67B of the Information Technology Act - Child Pornography Allegation – Teaser of Movie "Bad Girl" on YouTube – Direction Issued for Removal – Petitioners alleged that the teaser of a Tamil film hosted on YouTube contains child pornographic and obscene content in violation of child protection laws – Despite filing complaints with relevant authorities, no timely action was taken – Held: State and statutory authorities failed to act despite receiving complaints – Court directed the Union Government to issue appropriate orders for removal of the content and for the Women and Child Commissions to monitor the matter – Criminal proceedings not directed due to lack of specific accused details – Writ petition allowed with directions [Paras 1–14].

Child Protection – State Obligation under Article 39(f) and Article 45 – Responsibility Affirmed – The Court emphasized the constitutional duty of the State to safeguard the moral and emotional well-being of children – Held: Online dissemination of sexually inappropriate material impacts children's minds – Authorities must act proactively to protect young viewers – Court found failure to act contrary to constitutional duties [Paras 7–11].

Criminal Prosecution – No Direction for FIR – Lack of Specific Allegations – Petitioners sought initiation of criminal proceedings under POCSO and POSH Acts – Held: Court declined to issue direction for prosecution since names of accused and full facts were not provided – Petitioners are at liberty to file a complaint before competent authorities [Para 13].

Duty of Online Platforms – Accessibility of Obscene Content – YouTube Not Impleaded – Not Fatal – Though YouTube was not made a party, the Court held that the Union Government has authority to direct removal of content under IT laws – Held: First respondent to act and issue directions within one month to remove the obscene teaser and related content [Paras 12–13].

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].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 364A, 392, 397, 412, 34 of the IPC - Sections 25, 27, 54, 59, 30 of the Arms Act - Grant of Bail Post Recording of Key Witnesses – Section 483 BNSS – Bail Granted - The applicant, a dismissed police constable accused in a kidnapping for ransom case, sought bail after the examination of all key material witnesses – The Court noted that after completion of prosecution evidence, risk of tampering or influencing witnesses substantially reduces – Observed prolonged incarceration serves no useful purpose given pending trial duration – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-9, 22-24].

Presumption of Innocence – Principle Reaffirmed – Despite the serious nature of allegations, the Court reiterated the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence and right to liberty – Referred to landmark rulings emphasizing bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Upheld that gravity of offence alone is not sufficient ground to deny bail if other safeguards exist [Paras 12-13, 23].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Discrepancies Noted in Recovery Evidence – The applicant pointed out inconsistencies in police records, including absence of clear CCTV identification, non-conduct of TIP, and conflicting CDR details – The Court refrained from detailed evaluation at bail stage but acknowledged contradictions in case narrative as relevant for bail consideration [Paras 6-9].

Humanitarian Considerations – Custodial Incarceration and Right to Dignity – Court highlighted applicant’s clean antecedents, status as sole breadwinner, and prolonged custody since 2021 – Cited Supreme Court’s emphasis on dignity of accused and overcrowding in jails while allowing bail – Noted the applicant’s reinstatement in service as relevant factor [Paras 4-5, 11, 14].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted with stringent conditions including personal and surety bonds, appearance before court, furnishing of contact details, no criminal indulgence, and no interference with prosecution witnesses – Safeguards balanced liberty rights with judicial control [Para 24].

Decision – Bail Granted – Application Allowed – The application for regular bail was allowed subject to conditions after considering post-evidence stage, inconsistencies in prosecution case, and humane factors favouring release – Court directed compliance with terms and communication to jail authorities [Paras 24-26].

Real Estate Project – Right to Withdraw – Section 18 of RERA – Limited Timeframe for Exercise of Right – The Court held that though Section 18 of RERA confers an unqualified right on allottees to withdraw when there is a delay in possession, this right cannot be exercised indefinitely – Where possession is validly offered along with Occupation Certificate (OC), the allottee must make a decision within two months – Failure to do so disentitles the allottee from claiming prolonged interest on refund – Held: Allottees entitled to refund with interest only up to two months from the offer of possession, beyond which the developer is not liable [Paras 18-32, 35-36].

Defective Title Claims – Section 18(2) of RERA – Separate Cause of Action – The Court held that claims regarding defective title of land fall exclusively under Section 18(2) of RERA and must be claimed separately – Such grievances cannot be a ground to indefinitely postpone decision to withdraw under Section 18(1) – Allottees are at liberty to initiate separate proceedings for compensation on the ground of defective title without affecting their limited right to refund [Paras 24-26, 33-34, 36].

Offer of Possession – Validity Despite Litigation – Possession Offer is Valid with OC/CC – Court ruled that pending litigation over land title does not render the possession offer invalid if Occupation Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC) is obtained and there is no injunction – Statutory requirements are satisfied when the developer discloses litigation status as per Circular No. 28 of 2021 and no legal restraint exists on possession – Hence, possession offer cannot be questioned solely on the basis of litigation pendency [Paras 33-34].

Refund Period – Limitation on Interest Accrual – Developer’s Liability Limited – Bombay High Court held the developer’s liability to pay interest on refunded amounts ceases two months after possession offer with OC – Beyond this period, allottees cannot claim further interest even if they choose not to take possession, ensuring fairness to developers in delayed decisions by allottees [Paras 29-32, 35-36].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – The High Court partly allowed the appeals by quashing the Appellate Tribunal’s direction for prolonged interest and refund, directing refund with interest up to two months post OC offer – Liberty granted to allottees to pursue defective title claims under Section 18(2) separately – Charge on flats to continue till payment – No costs awarded [Paras 35-36].

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 - Partition Suit – Proof of Will and Gift Deeds – Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 Evidence Act – Rejection Upheld – Plaintiff sought partition of ancestral properties claiming intestate succession after mother’s death – Defendants relied on Will and two settlement deeds – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected Will and settlement deeds on grounds of non-proof in law, absence of attesting witness examination, and internal inconsistencies – Held: Courts correctly applied law, mandatory requirements of execution and attestation of Will and settlements not satisfied, partition granted in favour of plaintiff [Paras 1-24].

Suspicious Circumstances – Misdescription in Will – Disinheritance Invalidated – Will described son as minor when major, raising serious doubt on mental awareness of testatrix – Courts rightly held such misdescription rendered Will suspicious – Onus on propounders to dispel suspicion not discharged – Held: Non-compliance with proof requirements and suspicious circumstances rightly led to rejection of Will – Partition rightly decreed [Paras 25].

Settlement Deeds – Lack of Proof – Rights Not Established – Settlement deeds relied upon by defendants were not proved through attesting witnesses and formal legal requirements – Mere possession or enjoyment under such deeds insufficient to establish title when challenged – Held: Courts correctly disregarded unproven settlement deeds, no legal right conferred thereby [Paras 26-28].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Limited Interference – Held: Under Section 100 CPC, High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings unless substantial question of law arises – In absence of procedural error or perversity, concurrent findings stand affirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 29].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld lower courts’ judgment granting 1/3rd share each to parties in A and C schedule properties, dismissing Will and settlement deeds for want of legal proof – Appeal dismissed without costs [Para 29].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Section 324 IPC – Property Dispute Between Brothers – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC by the Sessions Court while acquitting him under Sections 448/326/307 IPC based on the same evidence – The High Court found the conviction unsustainable as prosecution failed to prove assault by dangerous weapon beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Merely because the complainant sustained injuries is insufficient to attract Section 324 IPC when the prosecution failed to establish key elements like the use of a weapon, independent corroboration, and credible evidence – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. Acquittal [Paras 1, 7, 11, 17-19].

Family Property Dispute – Delay in Lodging Complaint and Compromise Attempt – Impact on Credibility – The Court noted the complainant and accused were brothers residing in the same house with long-standing disputes over immovable property – Delay of over a month in filing complaint without valid explanation, combined with evidence of demand for monetary settlement (Rs. 20,000), cast doubt on the prosecution's version – Absence of corroboration by neutral witnesses and procedural lapses by the investigation undermined the case [Paras 6, 8-14].

Shared Residence – No Trespass – Dispute Among Co-residents – Allegation of trespassing dismissed as both complainant and accused resided in the same house under separate arrangements – Hence, Section 448 IPC was not applicable – The Sessions Court acquitted under this charge correctly [Paras 8, 12].

Medical Evidence – Injuries Not Shown to be Grievous – Failure to Prove Assault by Weapon – Court held that the prosecution failed to link injuries conclusively to the accused as doctors did not record crucial details like the weapon used or clear indicators of grievous injuries under medical jurisprudence – Defence witnesses indicated accidental fall, corroborated by inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – Benefit of doubt given [Paras 11, 15-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Under Section 324 IPC Set Aside – High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC, noting the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18-19].

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].