Interim Bail – Medical Grounds – PMLA Investigation – Held: Applicant granted interim bail from 25/11/2024 to 15/12/2024 to care for his father-in-law undergoing surgery – Bail granted considering specific medical circumstances, notwithstanding the nature of allegations under PMLA – Applicant directed to comply with strict conditions to ensure non-interference with the ongoing investigation [Paras 6-9].

Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Interim Bail Jurisprudence – Held: The court acknowledged the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA but emphasized that the interim relief was granted based on unique humanitarian grounds without undermining the larger investigation [Para 8].

Money Laundering – ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam – Allegations: The Directorate of Enforcement alleged large-scale misappropriation of funds meant for SC/ST/OBC students under the Post Matric Scholarship Scheme, involving shell companies, forged documents, and fraudulent claims – Applicant accused of significant involvement in creating shell entities to divert scholarship funds into personal accounts [Paras 4.1-4.15].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Mandated – Held: The court imposed strict conditions, including surrender on 16/12/2024, restrictions on movement, non-tampering of evidence, and non-inducement of witnesses – ED reserved the right to seek cancellation upon violation of these conditions [Para 9-12].

Decision:

Interim bail was granted to the applicant from 25/11/2024 to 15/12/2024 under stringent conditions, including a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, compliance with investigation protocols, and geographical restrictions. The applicant was ordered to surrender on 16/12/2024 positively.

Judicial Review of Speaker’s Inaction – Permissible Scope – Directions Issued Valid – Appellant contended that the High Court cannot direct the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a timeframe – Court held that inordinate delay in deciding disqualification petitions violates constitutional mandates – Judicial review under Article 226 is permissible where the Speaker’s inaction undermines democracy – Held: Single judge's directions justified and upheld [Paras 34-38, 60-62].

Tenth Schedule – Role of Speaker as Tribunal – Judicial Superintendence Permissible – Speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule – Court relied on Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu to affirm that judicial review is confined to jurisdictional errors, mala fides, and constitutional violations – Held: Speaker’s inaction may warrant judicial interference to preserve democratic processes [Paras 39-41, 60(ii)].

Nature of Rules Under Tenth Schedule – Directory and Not Mandatory – Appellant argued the procedural rules under the Tenth Schedule are directory – Court held this does not exempt the Speaker from adhering to constitutional obligations – Delay beyond three months deemed unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 42-44, 60(vi)].

Precedents – Supreme Court’s Guidance on Disqualification Petitions – Court extensively referred to decisions in Kihoto Hollohan, Rajendra Singh Rana, Keisham Meghachandra Singh, and Subhash Desai, holding that disqualification petitions should generally be decided within three months, barring exceptional circumstances – Held: Speaker must adhere to this principle [Paras 45-48, 61].

Ratio Decidendi and Judicial Precedents – Application of Principles – Court emphasized the importance of following binding precedents and the doctrine of ratio decidendi – Observed that the Speaker must decide the petitions within a reasonable time to uphold the constitutional intent of the Tenth Schedule [Paras 54-58].

Decision: The appeals were disposed of as follows:
The common order dated 09/09/2024 passed by the single judge directing the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to place disqualification petitions before the Speaker was set aside.
The Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly was directed to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time, bearing in mind the pendency period, the object of the Tenth Schedule, and the Assembly's tenure.
Miscellaneous applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
 

Criminal Law - Robbery – Identification Without TIP – Conviction Upheld – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and that the complainant identified them in court for the first time – Court noted the complainant’s testimony was consistent and trustworthy, and TIP is not mandatory where the court finds the witness’s testimony reliable – Held: Conviction under Section 397 IPC upheld [Paras 11-15, 20].

Use of Deadly Weapon – Non-Recovery Not Fatal to Prosecution – Appellants contended non-recovery of knives rendered the prosecution’s case weak – Court observed that recovery of the weapon is not mandatory for a conviction under Section 397 IPC if the use of the weapon is proven through credible testimony – Cited Aas Mohd. @ Ashu v. State (2021 DHC 4339) as precedent [Paras 18-19].

Contradictions in Testimony – Minor and Non-Material – Court addressed alleged contradictions in the complainant’s account regarding the seating arrangement of accused persons in the TSR and the location of his discovery post-robbery – Held: Minor contradictions do not undermine the overall credibility of testimony [Paras 16-17].

Procedural Deficiencies – No Prejudice Found – Alleged lapses, including discrepancies in the presence of members in the raiding party, were held immaterial as recovery of the stolen TSR and personal belongings was adequately proven by corroborative evidence [Para 21].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Manish Kumar under Section 397 IPC was upheld. His bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to serve the remaining sentence. The appeal of co-convict Rajeev @ Sonu was declared abated due to his demise during the proceedings.

Jurisdiction of Benches – Appeals Based on Sentence Length – Rules Clarified – Question arose whether criminal appeals with a sentence of ten years or less, traditionally heard by a Single Judge, could be transferred to a Division Bench when arising from a common trial court judgment involving cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction (e.g., under Section 372 or 377 CrPC) – Held: Such listing before a Division Bench is valid to prevent contradictory outcomes, but does not confer jurisdiction where none existed [Paras 8-12, 18].

Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents – Principles of Coram Non Judice – Referencing Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra and Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, Court emphasized that judicial orders by an incorrect Bench are nullities, yet no similar issue arises when Division Benches hear cases meant for Single Judges [Paras 20-22].

Allocation of Benches – Avoidance of Anomalous Orders – Practice of listing all appeals arising from the same trial judgment together, including those requiring Division Bench jurisdiction, upheld to maintain judicial consistency and efficiency [Paras 23-25].

Rules vs. Practical Necessity – Procedural Amendments Suggested – Court recommended amendments to Patna High Court Rules to institutionalize the practice of grouping related appeals to Division Benches in appropriate cases [Paras 28-30].

Decision:

The reference was answered by affirming that appeals carrying sentences up to ten years can validly be heard by a Division Bench when arising from a common judgment involving related cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the need for amendments to ensure procedural clarity and avoid ambiguity.

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment – Inclusion of Widowed Daughter – Discriminatory Exclusion Held Unconstitutional – Petitioner, a widowed daughter, was denied compassionate appointment under BSNL’s scheme – Court held that exclusion of widowed daughters from the definition of “dependent family member” is discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, and contrary to precedents expanding the definition of family – Held: Widowed daughters who were dependent on their deceased parent must be considered eligible for compassionate appointment [Paras 25-35, 61].

Judicial Precedents – Expansive Interpretation of Family in Compassionate Appointment Cases – Relying on decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Meenakshi Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Chhetra Vidut Vitran Co. Ltd., the Court noted a consistent trend in treating married and widowed daughters as part of the family for compassionate appointment purposes [Paras 38-49].

Dependency Criterion – To Be Determined on Facts – The Court clarified that the eligibility of a widowed daughter must be assessed based on her dependency on the deceased at the time of death, and non-inclusion in the guidelines alone cannot disqualify her [Paras 56-58].

BSNL’s Weightage System – Cannot Supplant Eligibility Guidelines – BSNL’s 2007 weightage system, which restricted references to unmarried daughters, was held subordinate to the broader eligibility criteria in the 1998 DoPT guidelines, which do not exclude widowed or married daughters [Paras 51-53].

Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Tribunal's order dated 13/01/2023. It directed BSNL to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment within two months, applying the weightage point system and ensuring that her widowed status does not result in exclusion.

Probate – Holograph Will – Grant of Probate Allowed – Lower Court Judgment Reversed – Appeal against rejection of probate for a holograph Will executed by testator, Sudhir Chandra Konar, on 31.12.1986 – Trial Court rejected probate citing suspicious circumstances, undue influence, and mental incapacity of the testator – High Court found the Will properly executed, attested, and aligned with the testator's intentions – Trial Court judgment set aside – Probate granted to appellant [Paras 1, 2, 58-60].

Will - Testamentary Capacity – Soundness of Mind – Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Probate Granted – The testator was alleged to lack testamentary capacity due to Senile Dementia. Evidence revealed no symptoms of dementia at the time of the Will's execution in 1986, and the testator actively practiced law until 1996. Attesting witnesses affirmed the testator’s soundness of mind and disposing state at execution – Held: The testator had sufficient mental clarity during the Will's creation [Paras 35-37].

Suspicious Circumstances – Deprivation of Legal Heirs – Justified Disposition – Allegations arose of unnatural exclusion of certain heirs. Evidence showed the testator provided for all heirs, favoring the appellant (his younger son) based on circumstances such as proximity and care. The Will aligned with the testator’s stated intent to preserve his Burdwan residence within the family – Held: No undue influence or coercion established; the disposition was fair [Paras 42-45].

Interpolation in Will – Appointment of Executor – No Effect on Validity – The Will contained a post-execution addition appointing the appellant as executor, signed by the testator. The interpolation, being a bona fide correction, did not affect the Will’s validity – Held: Such an amendment does not invalidate the testamentary disposition [Para 49].

Execution and Registration of Will – Compliance with Section 68, Evidence Act – Probate Upheld – Witnesses attested to the execution and registration of the Will, confirming it was voluntary and free from undue influence. Minor discrepancies in witness testimony, attributed to the passage of time, did not detract from its credibility – Held: The Will was validly executed and registered [Paras 50-53].

Delay in Probate Application – Explained and Excused – The Will’s registration occurred 14 years post-execution due to logistical and familial considerations. The delay was deemed non-prejudicial – Held: Probate application delay not fatal to the case [Para 54].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Learned 5th Court, Additional District Judge, Burdwan, dated 12th March 2012, was set aside. The court held that the appellant, Deb Prosanna Konar, successfully proved the Will in accordance with law, including removing suspicious circumstances. Accordingly, probate of the Will dated 31/12/1986 of the deceased Sudhir Chandra Konar was granted to the appellant. The connected interlocutory application, I.A. No.: CAN 5 of 2024, was also disposed of. No costs were awarded.

Registration of Gift Deeds – Applicability of Section 22-B – Rejection of Registration Orders Upheld – Appeals against Single Judge’s order directing registration of gift deeds – Section 22-B of the Registration Act applies exclusively to sale deeds and not to deeds of gift – Court held the language of Section 22-B is clear and does not extend to gift deeds – Held: Registration authority’s refusal to register the deeds was incorrect [Paras 10-12, 20].

Interpretation of Statutes – Plain and Ordinary Meaning Rule – Section 22-B of Registration Act – Government argued for an expansive interpretation of “relating to the sale of immovable property” in Section 22-B – Court emphasized that clear statutory language must be given its plain meaning unless legislative intent suggests otherwise – Held: Section 22-B cannot be stretched to include deeds of gift [Para 15].

Registration Rules – Rule 30 of Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules – Layout Approvals Required for Alienation of Non-Agricultural Land – Although Section 22-B is inapplicable, Rule 30 allows the authority to demand subdivision plans or approved layouts before registering documents for non-agricultural land – Registration authority directed to act under Rule 30 [Paras 24-25].

Disputed Ownership – Declarations from Competent Court Required – Disputes regarding ownership of land sought to be gifted require adjudication by a competent court – Authority cannot resolve ownership disputes at the time of registration – Held: Respondent may approach appropriate forums to establish ownership rights [Para 27].

Decision:

The appeals were disposed of with the following directions:

Section 22-B of the Registration Act does not apply to deeds of gift; thus, refusal based on this section was incorrect.

The registration authority is permitted to enforce Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules for non-agricultural lands by requiring compliance with layout and subdivision approvals.

The respondent may seek necessary declarations from a competent court regarding ownership of the land intended to be gifted.

There were no orders as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Bail – Mental Illness – Schizophrenia – Granted – Application for bail by the accused charged under Sections 302/201 IPC for the murder of her three-month-old son – Medical reports confirmed the applicant suffers from schizophrenia – Court considered that the accused is a woman, sick, and infirm under Section 437 CrPC – Observed: Keeping the accused in custody serves no purpose when material witnesses have been examined and no motive or past hostility exists – Bail granted [Paras 10-13, 18].

Mens Rea – Relevance of Mental Condition – Section 84 IPC – Defense argued that schizophrenia negates mens rea and the accused’s actions were due to unsoundness of mind – Court acknowledged the availability of this defense during trial but highlighted the absence of logical or probable motive in the murder, bolstering the inference of diminished responsibility [Paras 6-9].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witness – Impact on Bail – The complainant, who is the brother of the applicant, turned hostile – Court noted that evidence appreciation is for the trial, but this factor strengthens the bail plea – Held: No purpose is served by continued custody when evidence evaluation will occur during trial [Paras 15-16].

Conditions for Bail – Monitoring Mental Health – While granting bail, the court mandated monthly examinations of the applicant by the Medical Board at Psychiatric Disease Hospital, Jammu – Held: Trial court to ensure hospital/mental asylum treatment if future medical reports warrant such intervention [Para 19].

Decision:

The bail application was allowed. The applicant was directed to be released on bail under the following conditions:

The father of the applicant, who filed the bail application, to stand as surety for ₹50,000/- and the applicant to furnish a personal bond of like amount before the trial court.

The applicant’s father to ensure her presence in court on hearing dates unless otherwise directed.

Monthly medical evaluations of the applicant’s behavior to be conducted by a Medical Board at Psychiatric Disease Hospital, Jammu.

The trial court to pass orders for hospital or asylum care if medical reports indicate such a requirement.

No costs were awarded, and pending petitions were disposed of.

Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – No Detention Found – Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for her minor daughter allegedly detained by her estranged husband – Court held that since no judicial orders presently govern custody and respondents possessed a valid injunction restraining forcible removal of the child, no case of illegal detention exists – Petition dismissed [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Custody Framework – Remedies Under Family Law Open – Court observed that disputes relating to child custody are best addressed under the Guardians and Wards Act or similar family law mechanisms – Held: Parties may seek appropriate remedies without being influenced by observations made in this case [Paras 12-14].

Interim Arrangement – Welfare of Child Prioritized – Considering the child's comfort and welfare, the Court allowed the petitioner temporary access until 4 p.m. on 24/11/2024, directing the child to be returned to the respondents at the specified location thereafter [Paras 15-16].

Decision:  The writ petition was dismissed, holding that no illegal detention of the child was established. Interim access was granted to the petitioner for two days, with explicit directions for the return of the child to the respondents on 24/11/2024. The Court left all issues regarding custody open to be decided by appropriate family law forums.