SC/ST (POA) Act – Anticipatory Bail – Bar Under Section 18 – Prima Facie Case – Appellants challenged order rejecting anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 352, 133, 115(2), 118(1), 351(1) read with Section 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act — Complaint alleged that on 08.02.2026 appellants intercepted, assaulted and abused complainant/Mahendra in the name of his caste near Mavalli Circle — Held: Where the complaint, on its face, does not make out a prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Act, the absolute bar under Section 18 does not operate and the Court retains discretion to grant anticipatory bail — Appellants granted anticipatory bail [Paras 9, 11, 17, 18].

SC/ST (POA) Act – Section 3(1)(s) – "Place Within Public View" – Essential Ingredient – Section 3(1)(s) requires that the caste-based abuse be uttered at a place within public view — Complaint reveals that only Shivaraj, son of Sureshappa Gouda, was present near the scene of the alleged offence — No prima facie averments disclosing presence of members of general public — Held: The ingredient of "place within public view" requires that the place be open where members of the public can witness or hear the utterance — Since only a single connected individual was present and there is no allegation of public witnessing, complaint prima facie does not make out offence under Section 3(1)(s) [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Motivated Complaint – Property Dispute – Series of Litigations – Complaint subject matter of appeal is one in a series of civil and criminal litigations arising from a family property dispute over agricultural lands among descendants of one Puttappa Gouda — Complainant/Mahendra found to be working as tractor driver under Shivaraj, son of Sureshappa Gouda, who is defendant No. 3 in civil suit OS No. 11/2024 filed by the branch of appellants — Name of complainant also mentioned in Crime No. 1/2026 filed by the rival branch — Held: Complaint appears to be engineered in furtherance of prior disputes — Appellants are local agriculturalists with no criminal antecedents — Discretionary power exercised in favour of appellants [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed — Order dated 28.02.2026 of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl. Misc. No. 161/2026 set aside — Appellants granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties, obtaining regular bail within ten days, reporting to jurisdictional police once in every fifteen days until charge sheet is filed, regular appearance before Trial Court, non-tampering with witnesses and non-departure from jurisdiction without permission.

Civil Law – Written Statement – Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Documents – Conflict Between Co-ordinate Benches – Reference to Larger Bench – Written Statement filed by Defendant/MCD on 25.09.2022 (within the 120-day outer limit) was kept in defect as it was not accompanied by the mandatory Affidavit of admission/denial of documents – Affidavit filed belatedly on 14.12.2022, beyond the 120-day period – Joint Registrar by Order dated 17.03.2023 refused to take the Written Statement on record – Co-ordinate Bench in Unilin Beheer B.V. held that a Written Statement unaccompanied by such Affidavit is non-est and cannot be taken on record – Three subsequent co-ordinate Benches in COSCO International, Neeraj Ahuja and Shefali Kohli took a contrary view holding that such filing is merely a curable defect – Held: Conflicting views of co-ordinate Benches require resolution by a Larger Bench; matter referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench [Paras 4–34].

Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 – Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter VII – Mandatory Nature of "Shall" – Rule 3 mandates that the Affidavit of admission/denial of documents shall be filed along with the Written Statement, without which the Written Statement shall not be taken on record – Rule 4 provides that failure to file such Affidavit results in deemed admission of Plaintiff's documents – Use of the word "shall" in Rule 3 is mandatory and cannot be read as "may" – Permitting a Written Statement without the Affidavit to be taken on record would render the word "shall" in Rule 3 wholly otiose, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation – Held: Every word used by the legislature must be given its due import; no part of a statute should be rendered surplusage [Paras 8–9, 23–25].

Judicial Discipline – Conflicting Judgments – Co-ordinate Benches – Reference Obligation – Where a Single Judge is inclined to disagree with a view of a co-ordinate Bench, judicial propriety and decorum require referral to a Larger Bench rather than adopting a contrary interpretation – Conflicting decisions by Benches of equal strength create uncertainty and confusion in law – Courts are bound to maintain judicial discipline and preserve certainty of law – Held: In view of directly conflicting judgments on the same question, the matter must be referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative and uniform pronouncement [Paras 28–34].

Question Referred: Whether a Written Statement filed within the statutory period under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, but unaccompanied by an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents, renders such filing non-est in law, or whether the absence of such Affidavit constitutes a curable defect permitting the Written Statement to be taken on record upon subsequent compliance [Para 32].

Decision: O.A. 43/2023 disposed of by reference – Matter placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench – In the event the Larger Bench holds the Written Statement can be taken on record, the matter shall stand remitted to the Joint Registrar for consideration of sufficiency of reasons for delay; if the Larger Bench holds otherwise, the impugned order of the Joint Registrar shall stand affirmed – I.A. 7780/2023 (condonation of delay in filing Chamber Appeal) allowed.

Anticipatory Bail – Impersonation of Advocate – Forged Documents – Custodial Interrogation Required – Applicant, an LL.B. final-semester student working as a junior intern, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR registered for offences under BNS, 2023 – During panchanama at applicant's husband's shop and residence, visiting cards, a fabricated Bar Council of Gujarat enrollment card, case registers, a board proclaiming applicant as an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, police station seals, and notarial seals were recovered – Statements of multiple other victims surfaced during investigation, with total alleged fraud amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- by all accused in connivance – Held: Prima facie case established; custodial interrogation necessary to uncover roots of offence, trace other victims, and determine involvement of other persons – Noble profession of advocacy cannot be permitted to be tarnished in such manner – Application rejected; stay of order also declined [Paras 4–6].

Anticipatory Bail – Principles – Constitution Bench – Case tested on the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, (1980) 2 SCC 665 – No exceptional ground found to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS [Para 5].

Decision: Application rejected – Rule discharged – Request for stay of order also rejected.

Voyeurism — Section 354-C IPC — Essential Ingredients — Quashing of FIR — Applicant accused of staring at complainant's chest and insulting her during office meetings — FIR registered under Section 354-C IPC — Held: Section 354-C is a specific provision penalising watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a "private act" in circumstances where she would reasonably expect not to be observed — Unwanted staring at a woman's chest in an office setting, even if morally reprehensible, does not satisfy the narrow statutory ingredients of voyeurism — FIR quashed [Paras 8–15].

"Private Act" — Statutory Interpretation — Section 354-C IPC — Explanation to the section clarifies that a "private act" is confined to situations involving exposure of intimate body parts, use of a lavatory, or a sexual act not ordinarily done in public — The legislative intent is to penalise intrusion into bodily privacy in intimate or secluded settings, not to criminalise every offensive gaze or workplace misconduct — Mere staring in an office meeting does not bring the conduct within the ambit of the section [Paras 8–9].

Workplace Misconduct vis-à-vis Criminal Offence — Criminal law cannot be used to convert every workplace grievance into an offence of voyeurism — Allegations of staring, insulting behaviour, and workplace harassment may, at the highest, amount to misconduct or indecency — Such conduct does not fit the narrow mould of Section 354-C — To permit prosecution to continue on such facts would be to ignore the clear language of the statute [Para 13].

Internal Complaints Committee — Exoneration — Employer constituted Internal Complaints Committee under Vishaka guidelines and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 — Committee, after inquiry, exonerated the applicant — Held: Internal finding in applicant's favour adds support to his stand, but the primary ground for quashing is the absence of the statutory offence itself [Para 12].

Abuse of Process — Continuation of proceedings based solely on suspicion, general allegation, or moral disapproval — Without the essential ingredient of watching or recording a woman during a private act or dissemination of such image, FIR and supporting statements, even if accepted in full, do not make out the offence under Section 354-C — Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal Application allowed — FIR bearing Crime Register No. 177 of 2015 registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, under Section 354-C IPC quashed and set aside — All further proceedings including charge-sheet terminated — Rule made absolute — No order as to costs [Para 16].

Medical Negligence – Section 304A IPC – Pre-Anaesthetic Check-up – Framing of Charges – Revision – Petitioner, an Anaesthetist at a private hospital, administered anaesthesia to a 23-year-old patient who underwent post-partum sterilisation surgery on 13.09.2014, two days after delivery – Patient died due to peripartum cardiomyopathy caused by primary pulmonary hypertension – Allegation that petitioner failed to conduct mandatory pre-anaesthetic check-up before surgery – Report of District Level Expert Committee of five senior medical officers unanimously concluded from hospital case records and postmortem report that pre-anaesthetic check-up was not done – Petitioner disputed the finding and relied on hospital case sheet, post-transfusion report and anaesthesia record to contend check-up was conducted – Sessions Court held offence under Section 304 IPC not attracted but found prima facie material for Section 304A IPC and framed charges accordingly – Held: Factual dispute as to whether pre-anaesthetic check-up was conducted cannot be resolved in revision proceedings, as it requires recording and evaluation of evidence – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 2–3, 6–8].

Medical Negligence – Gross Negligence – Pre-Anaesthetic Check-up – Causation – Failure to conduct pre-anaesthetic check-up before administering anaesthesia prima facie amounts to gross negligence – Such check-up can raise suspicion or detect primary pulmonary hypertension and peripartum cardiomyopathy if symptoms or signs are present – If the medical condition could have been detected and adequate precautionary measures taken, failure to conduct the check-up would constitute gross negligence even though causality would arise only in cases where the condition was symptomatic – Whether the deceased had symptoms indicative of such ailments is a matter to be examined at the stage of evidence by the Trial Court [Para 8].

Criminal Revision – Scope – Termination of Prosecution – Revisional Court cannot terminate criminal prosecution at the stage of charge framing where documents on record point to prima facie materials establishing the alleged offence – Factual disputes regarding authenticity of hospital records, whether complete hospital records were placed before the expert panel, and examination of expert witnesses (CW28 to CW32) are matters exclusively within the domain of the Trial Court – Revisional powers cannot be invoked to discharge an accused where material on record discloses prima facie grounds for framing charges [Para 7–8].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Framing of charges under Section 304A IPC and forwarding of the case to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad for trial upheld [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC challenged – Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence with no independent eyewitness – For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, of conclusive nature, and must exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved – Chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused – Trial Court convicted the appellant without enumerating the chain of circumstances – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 12–13, 30].

Last Seen Together – Singular Circumstance – Insufficient for Conviction – Appellant and co-accused last seen with deceased at 11.00 p.m. by PW 1 (mother) and PW 2 (brother) – Body found at 3.00–4.00 a.m. in injured condition – Wide time gap of approximately four hours between last seen and discovery of body – Possibility of third person intervening not ruled out – No evidence of events between 12 midnight and 3 a.m. connecting appellant to death – Last seen together is a singular piece of circumstantial evidence and does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that the accused committed the crime – Something more establishing connectivity between accused and crime is required – Mere non-explanation by accused cannot by itself lead to proof of guilt [Paras 19–23].

Eyewitness – Credibility – Got-up Witness – PW 3, watchman at Amrai and neighbour of deceased, claimed to have seen accused assaulting deceased with beer bottle at 12 midnight – Evidence of assault came by way of omission and not initial disclosure – PW 3 admitted he identified accused at the instance of police who told him these were the persons who assaulted – No TI Parade conducted – PW 3 went back to sleep after allegedly witnessing assault and made no attempt to inform the family or police – Conduct wholly unnatural – Witness found to be a got-up witness planted by prosecution – Evidence not inspiring confidence [Paras 20–21].

Motive – Not Conclusively Proved – Prosecution sought to establish motive through PW 1 and PW 2 deposing about quarrel between accused and deceased four to six months prior – No complaint was lodged about said quarrel – Investigating Officer admitted no evidence collected regarding prior quarrel – Deposition of PW 10 (police constable friend of deceased) about phone call at midnight at most shows quarrel ongoing but does not prove commission of murder – Motive in circumstantial evidence cases may create strong suspicion but suspicion however strong cannot be substitute for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 24–25].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Inconclusive – Chemical Analyser Report – PW 8 (panch witness) admitted in cross-examination that police did not show him the clothes and accused and had obtained signature on an already prepared panchnama – Chemical Analyser's report on blood grouping from clothes found inconclusive – No fingerprints found on beer bottles as per Fingerprint Expert report – Recovery of blood-stained stone also inconclusive – No forensic material connecting appellant to the crime [Paras 27, 21].

Call Detail Records – Corroborative Value Limited – CDRs proving three calls made by appellant to deceased after 10 p.m. on 26.05.2016 consistent with last seen theory – CDRs at most prove contact between appellant and deceased at around 11 p.m. – By themselves insufficient to connect appellant with the murder in the absence of other incriminating material [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide judgment dated 18.12.2019 in Sessions Case No. 823/2016 quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Appellant directed to execute PR Bond of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 481 BNSS, 2023 for appearance in event of appeal against acquittal [Para 31].

Land Acquisition – Arbitration – Compensation – Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Appeals Dismissed – Lands of respondents at village Deolai acquired for widening of NH-211 – CALA passed first award on 15.07.2017 granting compensation at basic rate of Rs.7,966/- per sq. mtr. with slab deductions for larger extents – Second award dated 28.07.2017 for the same lands set aside by High Court as without jurisdiction – NHAI challenged first award before Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5); Arbitrator dismissed application by award dated 19.01.2024; District Court dismissed Section 34 application on 15.11.2025 – NHAI preferred present appeals contending unfair hearing, non-consideration of documents and arbitral bias – Held: No patent illegality established; awards confirmed; appeals dismissed [Paras 1–6, 32].

Arbitration – Failure to Lead Evidence – Self-Induced Prejudice – NHAI filed arbitration application on 24.01.2022 but failed to file supporting documents along with affidavit in evidence despite multiple last-chance opportunities granted between June and July 2023 – Documents eventually submitted by e-mail on 22.01.2024, two days after award was pronounced on 19.01.2024 – Arbitrator had written to Project Officer noting repeated failures – Held: Failure to place documents on record for two years is attributable to NHAI itself; contention of denial of fair hearing does not appeal to the Court; ground of procedural unfairness rejected [Paras 11–13, 19, 22, 28].

Arbitration – Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Scope of Interference – Court entertaining Section 34 application not to act as appellate court or reappreciate evidence – Interference limited to grounds under Section 34, viz. violation of fundamental policy of Indian law, conflict with most basic notions of morality or justice, or patent illegality going to the root of the matter – Erroneous application of law or mere reappreciation of evidence not a ground for interference – Held: No patent illegality on face of award; District Court's order under Section 34 affirmed [Para 30] — Relied upon: PSA Sical Terminals Private Limited v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust Tuticorn and Anr., (2023) 15 SCC 781.

Arbitration – Inconsistent Conduct of Party – Estoppel – NHAI alleged fraud and corruption in CALA's determination of compensation for adjacent village Satara where rates of Rs.13,656/-, Rs.16,721/- and Rs.21,397/- per sq. mtr. were awarded, yet NHAI did not challenge those awards and in fact accepted and settled them before the District Court, with claimants waiving only one year's interest – Held: NHAI cannot allege corruption in Satara awards while simultaneously accepting and compromising them; NHAI is blowing hot and cold at the same time; allegation of tainted selection of comparable sale deeds not sustainable [Paras 23–26].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Adequacy of Compensation – Arbitrator found on evidence led by claimants that average of sale deeds showed market value exceeding Rs.12,191/- per sq. mtr., indicating CALA rate of Rs.7,966/- to be less than actual market value – Arbitrator however declined to enhance as claimants had not filed independent counter-claim under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Compensation for adjacent village Satara ranged from Rs.13,656/- to Rs.21,397/- per sq. mtr. – Held: Compensation of Rs.7,966/- per sq. mtr. for village Deolai appears reasonable, if not undervalued, in comparative context; no ground for interference under Section 37 [Paras 20–21, 25–26, 32].

Decision: All 18 Arbitration Appeals dismissed – Arbitral award dated 19.01.2024 and order dated 15.11.2025 of the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confirmed – All pending Civil Applications disposed of.

Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rule 4 CPC – Suppression of Material Facts – Standard of Proof – Ad interim injunction granted ex parte in favour of plaintiff vacated by Trial Judge primarily on ground of suppression of material facts — Division Bench finding that plaintiff had categorically disclosed in paragraphs 11, 15 and 16 of the plaint the recording of defendants' names in the Records of Rights while simultaneously disputing their title and authenticity of such entries — Photocopies of all relied-upon documents filed along with the plaint as per firisty at the time of obtaining ex parte order — Held: Suppression of material facts contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 4 must be palpable and ex facie — Where detailed appreciation of evidence and further materials is necessary to determine the importance or relevance of the alleged suppressed material, such exercise transgresses into merits of the suit and cannot be undertaken at the Order XXXIX Rule 4 stage [Paras 11, 12, 17, 24].

Order XXXIX Rule 4 – Scope and Limitations – Distinction Between Vacation of Ad Interim Order and Final Adjudication of Injunction Application – Trial Judge, consequent upon allowing the Order XXXIX Rule 4 application, simultaneously disposed of the main temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 without giving both parties opportunity to address it on merits and before written objection was even filed — Held: Scope of Order XXXIX Rule 4 is restricted to parameters governing the ex parte ad interim order — Final adjudication of the temporary injunction application is an independent proceeding to be heard and decided after both parties bring their pleadings and materials on record — Such approach of the Trial Judge is completely erroneous and contrary to law [Paras 23, 25, 26].

Records of Rights – Disputed Entries – Pleadings – Plaintiff disputed title of defendants whose names appeared in the Records of Rights and specifically pleaded that RS Record entry of one Asiran as 50% owner was made illegally, bore no date, case number, or signature of Revenue Officer, and was therefore of doubtful authenticity — Prayer for declaration that such recording does not extinguish plaintiff's title specifically made in the suit — Held: No suppression — Stand in plaint, injunction application and reliefs sought were consistent throughout [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Correction of Deed Number – Not Suppression – Only the number of a deed was erroneously stated in the plaint while the date was correctly mentioned — Subsequent application for correction does not amount to suppression of a material fact within the meaning of Order XXXIX Rule 4 [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned Order No. 5 dated 15.05.2024 set aside — Ad interim injunction granted on 20.03.2024 restored and to remain in operation till disposal of the temporary injunction application — Contesting respondents granted six weeks to file written objection to temporary injunction application — Trial Judge directed to dispose of the temporary injunction application expeditiously and independently without being influenced by observations in this judgment — No order as to costs.

Railway Accident Compensation – Bona Fide Passenger – Burden of Proof – Section 124-A, Railways Act, 1989 – Appellant claimed compensation for amputation of both legs allegedly sustained when he fell from a passenger train near Red Fort on 20.06.2015 – Occurrence of untoward incident and nature of injuries established from contemporaneous MLC, DD entry No. 20A dated 20.06.2015 at Old Delhi and hospital record – Principal issue whether appellant was a bona fide passenger – Appellant relied on Monthly Season Ticket (MST) No. 11ZQB9P194 issued in the name of "Raju" – However, two other MSTs on record reflected the name "Raj Kumar" – Age recorded in MST (35 years) inconsistent with age in MLC, Aadhaar card, Election Commission identity card (age 38 years/25 years as on 01.01.2012), permanent disability certificate (28 years) and claim application (27 years) – Certificate of local MLA relied upon to establish same identity did not reconcile age discrepancy – Held: Inconsistency in name coupled with mismatch in age and absence of reliable explanation renders linkage between appellant and MST unreliable – Initial burden of establishing bona fide travel not discharged – Claim not sustainable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–10].

Railway Claims – Discrepancy in Documents – Evidentiary Value of Government Records – Government records prepared at first point of contact in the ordinary course carry significant evidentiary value – Where name recorded in MST differed across documents and age reflected therein was inconsistent with multiple official records, plea of incorrect recording at the time of MST issuance without any corroborative material or prior complaint of error cannot be accepted – Explanation of mistaken recording does not inspire confidence in absence of any request for correction to the issuing authority [Para 8].

Condonation of Delay – 922 Days – Beneficial Legislation – Railway Claims Tribunal Act – Liberal Approach – Delay of 922 days condoned taking into account appellant's economically weaker status, financial constraints preventing timely engagement of counsel, and prolonged medical treatment and rehabilitation on account of permanent disability – Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arise out of beneficial and social welfare legislation – Liberal and justice-oriented approach required while considering condonation applications to prevent genuine claims from being defeated on technical grounds [Paras 1–7, CM Appl. 51620/2019].

Decision: Delay of 922 days condoned – Appeal on merits dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 17.02.2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA II(u) No. 195/2015 upheld [Paras 7–10, FAO].