Criminal Law – Quashing - Unnatural Sex by Husband – Consent and Marital Status – Proceedings Upheld – Applicant sought quashing of charges under Section 377 IPC asserting exemption based on marital relationship – Held: Unnatural intercourse by husband without wife's consent, even if she is above 18, is punishable under Section 377 IPC – Marriage does not negate a woman's bodily autonomy or her right to sexual dignity and orientation – Court declined to follow contrary Madhya Pradesh High Court view and relied on Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy to affirm that non-consensual carnal intercourse violates Article 21 and is triable under Section 377 IPC [Paras 18–25].

Dowry Harassment – 498A IPC – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Allegations and Continuous Cruelty Sufficient – Allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty were corroborated through statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – Delay in lodging FIR not fatal as harassment was continuous – Independent witnesses’ silence or lack of support not decisive – FIR discloses triable case and no ground for quashing made out [Paras 3–4, 27–30].

Medical Evidence and Consent – Lack of Medical Examination Not Ground for Quashing – Material Sufficient for Trial – Court held refusal of medical examination by complainant does not nullify prosecution – Presence of prima facie material including complainant’s statements justified continuation of trial – Right to privacy and sexual dignity held paramount even within marriage [Paras 19, 29].

Decision – Quashing Denied – Charges Maintainable – Applicant at Liberty to Seek Bail – Allahabad High Court rejected the application to quash proceedings – Held that charges under Section 377 IPC and dowry laws are prima facie made out – Directed that applicant may apply for bail before trial court [Paras 26, 31–32].

Civil Writ - Mobile Tower Installation – Cancellation of NOC by Gram Panchayat – Violation of Natural Justice – Resolution Set Aside – The Gram Panchayat revoked an earlier granted NOC permitting the petitioners to install a mobile tower, citing public objections regarding health risks from radiation – The High Court held the action arbitrary as no notice or hearing was given to the petitioners prior to cancellation – Held: Revocation without following audi alteram partem is invalid and legally unsustainable [Paras 30–31, 39].

Administrative Law – Lack of Scientific Basis – Cancellation Based on Unsubstantiated Complaints – Resolution Quashed – The resolution was based on generalized health concerns without any supporting scientific data – Court emphasized that apprehensions unsupported by evidence cannot override validly granted permissions – Held: Resolution lacks application of mind and fails the test of reasonableness [Paras 32–33, 39–40].

Telecommunication Law – Scope of Panchayat Powers – No Authority to Cancel NOC Once Granted – The Gram Panchayat, having issued NOC under GR dated 11 December 2015, had no further power to rescind it – The High Court reiterated that such powers are not vested under applicable telecom laws or policies – Held: Cancellation was ultra vires the Panchayat’s authority [Paras 34, 44].

Regulatory Framework – Section 14(4) of Telecommunication Act, 2023 – No Coercive Action Without Central Permission – The Court held that, in absence of public emergency or natural disaster, coercive steps such as shutdown or cancellation by local authorities are impermissible – Held: No such exigency existed; hence action unjustified [Para 35].

Telecom Infrastructure – National Policy and Public Necessity – Courts Support Expansion – Referring to national policies and precedents from other High Courts, the Bombay High Court stressed the necessity of mobile towers for modern communication – Held: Mobile connectivity is an essential service, and arbitrary local objections cannot override statutory rights and national infrastructure goals [Paras 41–50].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Resolution Quashed – The Court allowed the petition in terms of both prayer clauses, setting aside the impugned resolution and restraining respondents from obstructing installation or operation of the mobile tower – Held: NOC once granted cannot be revoked arbitrarily or without due process [Para 51].

Bail in POCSO Case – Section 6 of the POCSO - Section 376AB of the IPC - Allegation of Rape by Father – Bail Denied – The petitioner was charged with sexually assaulting his minor daughter, aged 11 years, under Sections 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – DNA evidence from the mattress matched both the victim and the petitioner – Held: Prima facie, involvement of the petitioner is established; the heinousness of the offence, breach of trust, and corroborative forensic evidence justify denial of bail [Paras 1, 11].

Progress of Trial – Delay Plea Rejected – No Unjustified Delay – Although the petitioner remained in custody for over two years, the Court noted that 18 out of 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined and the trial was nearing completion – Held: Mere duration of custody without substantial delay or inertia in trial progress is not a valid ground for bail [Paras 1, 12].

Victim Safety – Accused Residing with Victim Prior to Arrest – Bail Denied for Victim Protection – The Court held that releasing the accused on bail posed a serious risk to the safety of the victim, who is his biological daughter – Held: Given proximity and prior access, petitioner’s release not compatible with victim’s welfare [Para 13].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Petition seeking regular bail rejected in view of the serious nature of the allegations, corroborative DNA evidence, and concern for the victim's safety – Held: Dismissal of bail petition warranted; observations in this order shall not affect the trial on merits [Paras 15-16].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Assessment – Contributory Negligence and Quantum – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurance Company contested MACT’s award of ₹4,53,047 on two grounds: improper apportionment of liability between two vehicles and excess compensation – Court held no contributory negligence was proved by insurer regarding second motorbike involved – On quantum, MACT correctly applied heads of compensation, but disability was temporary (25%) and proved only for two years – Award revised accordingly – Held: Compensation reduced to ₹2,99,047 with 9% interest from date of petition; no interference with pain and suffering, special diet, and cost components [Paras 4–27].

Civil Law - Wakaf by User – Applicability of Section 3(d) of the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978 – Ziyarat is Wakaf by nature – Held that religious properties such as Ziyarat, Dargah, or Graveyard are Wakafs by user irrespective of formal notification – No formal declaration required under the Act for such properties to be treated as Wakaf – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-15].

Wakaf Notification – Scope of Section 6 of the Wakafs Act, 1978 – Publication in Gazette is directory and does not constitute the creation of Wakaf – Section 6 only requires the government to publish a list of Wakafs following a survey under Section 4 – It does not amount to declaration or conferment of Wakaf status – Writ Court rightly rejected the plea that absence of notification negates Wakaf status [Paras 14-15].

Ownership Dispute – Khasra Number Discrepancy – Appellants claim that Ziyarat falls within their proprietary land (Khasra No. 323) which is not notified as Wakaf – Held: If Ziyarat is located within Khasra No. 323, appellants are free to seek demarcation from revenue authorities or file civil suit – However, challenge to Wakaf Board’s order is not maintainable since Khasra No. 323 is not part of the Wakaf notification (SRO 510 of 1985) – Appellants have no locus to question management of Wakaf properties located in Khasra No. 322 min [Paras 9, 16-18].

Survey of Wakafs – Section 4 – Survey conducted under Section 4 presupposes the existence of Wakafs by dedication or user – Appellants never objected during the original 1985 notification process (SRO 510) – Cannot raise challenge at this stage without challenging the foundational notification itself – The Court upheld that the Wakaf Board was within its legal authority to take over the management [Paras 12, 15, 17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No legal infirmity in the writ court’s judgment dismissing WP(C) No. 1044/2023 – The appellant may pursue remedies before revenue authorities or civil court for their proprietary claim but cannot challenge the Wakaf Board’s management over the notified Wakaf properties [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law - Rape and Unnatural Offence – Acquittal Challenged – Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The appellant, mother of the victim, challenged the trial court's acquittal of the accused, her husband, on allegations of sexual assault of their minor daughter – Prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of the mother (PW.4) and the victim (PW.23) along with medical evidence – Held: The evidence revealed significant inconsistencies, including admissions by the victim of being tutored by the mother – DNA findings contradicted the prosecution's case, with the victim’s DNA absent on crucial materials allegedly worn during the incident – Medical reports showed infections consistent with non-sexual causes like urinary tract infection and pinworms rather than sexual abuse – The failure to examine key independent witness (the maid Geeta) was fatal to the prosecution – The trial court’s reasoning that the case arose out of marital discord and custody disputes was justified – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-20].

Medical Evidence – DNA Report – Contradictions – DNA of the accused was found on seized clothes and bedspreads but the victim's DNA was conspicuously absent from those items – Vaginal and anal swabs tested negative for the accused’s DNA – Held: DNA evidence undermines the prosecution case and supports the defence claim that the materials may have been manipulated or do not relate to the alleged incident – No reliable medical corroboration to sustain the charge of rape [Paras 14-15].

Victim's Testimony – Reliability – Victim admitted in court that she was tutored by her mother and given incentives like chocolate and picnics for her statements – Held: Testimony tainted by influence, lacked spontaneity, and inconsistent with her memory about key events – Courts held that though conviction can rest solely on victim’s testimony, in this case, the evidence was neither credible nor free from doubt – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to the accused [Para 17].

Non-Examination of Key Witness – Maid Present During Incident Not Examined – Critical Witness Suppressed – The housemaid Geeta, who was present during the alleged incident of 13.06.2012, was not examined by the prosecution despite her statement being recorded by the investigating officer – Held: Non-examination raises adverse inference against the prosecution – Supports the finding of the trial court that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 16].

Legal Principle – Presumption of Innocence Strengthened – Citing the principle that between “may be true” and “must be true,” the Court reiterated that unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt with clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence, benefit of doubt must go to the accused – Acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence – No ground to interfere with trial court’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Para 20-21].

NDPS Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Alleged Financing of Contraband Purchase – Bail Granted – Petitioner, a woman and sixth accused, allegedly transferred money to her son and driver who were found in possession of MDMA – Prosecution invoked conspiracy under Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act – Held: Mere monetary transfers to family members insufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy in absence of physical manifestation or overt acts – Petitioner’s relationship with accused and financial transactions explained as familial support – No direct evidence of involvement in drug offence [Paras 3–8].

Conspiracy – Requirement of Overt Acts – Supreme Court Precedents – Court reiterated that conspiracy requires more than speculative inference – Relied on R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737 and State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra (2018) 10 SCC 516 – Held: No prima facie case of agreement between petitioner and co-accused – Petitioner’s conduct does not meet threshold for rigour under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 7–8].

Comparative Parity – Co-accused Granted Bail – Petitioner arrested on same day as 5th accused who was already granted bail – No criminal antecedents – Continued detention not warranted – Bail granted on parity grounds and in light of gender and health considerations [Paras 5, 9].

Bail Principles – NDPS Act – Applicability of Section 37 – Reference to Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 INSC 1045) and Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC 374 – Despite strict interpretation, Court found petitioner not likely to commit offence or tamper evidence – No prior record – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Bail Granted – Court held that petitioner’s custody not justified in absence of credible evidence of conspiracy – Found reasonable grounds to believe she is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Ordered release on bail with standard safeguards and liberty to modify by jurisdictional court [Paras 12].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Commercial Quantity – Bail Denied – Petitioner found present in vehicle from which 3.575 kg of charas was recovered – Court held that physical presence in a private vehicle carrying commercial quantity of narcotic substance raises presumption of conscious possession under Sections 35 and 54 of NDPS Act – No explanation from petitioner rebutting presumption – Bail declined [Paras 1–2, 11–13].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that bail in offences involving commercial quantity can only be granted if prosecution is heard and there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend – Held: These conditions not met – Material on record points to petitioner’s complicity – Bail rejected in absence of satisfying both conditions [Paras 14–18].

Parity with Co-Accused – Not Applicable – Co-accused Desh Raj released on bail due to lack of evidence and inadmissibility of statement under Section 67 – Petitioner’s case distinct as he was physically present at the scene of recovery – Held: Parity plea rejected due to different factual circumstances [Paras 4, 20].

Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 – Applicability – Recovery from jointly used vehicle – Court reiterated legal position that once possession is proved, onus shifts to accused to explain lack of knowledge or involvement – Mere absence of call detail or bank records insufficient to rebut statutory presumption – Bail denied [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found that statutory presumptions under NDPS Act applied and were not rebutted – Presence in vehicle constituted prima facie evidence of offence – Petition dismissed with observations having no bearing on merits of trial [Paras 18, 22–23].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83, 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act - Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the BNS - Lack of Conscious Possession – Accused not Found at Scene – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The applicant was implicated based solely on secret police inputs and was not found in conscious possession of liquor during the raid – The Court observed that the applicant was only a witness to the rent agreement and no material suggested his direct involvement – Held: No custodial interrogation required – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-6].

Relevant Judicial Precedents – Bail Jurisprudence – Cited Apex Court Decisions – The Court relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 to reinforce the settled position on anticipatory bail – Emphasis placed on the applicant’s right to liberty in absence of compelling custodial need [Para 7].

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Cooperation – Bail with Conditions – Anticipatory bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹15,000 with surety and subject to multiple conditions including cooperation with investigation, attendance at police station, travel restrictions, and non-tampering with evidence – Trial Court directed not to be influenced by observations made at bail stage [Paras 8-10].