Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion - The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife insisted on moving to her parental home and later deserted him without consent - The respondent claimed harassment and demand for dowry - The Court noted the absence of denial by the respondent that she left the matrimonial home and the omission to explain the circumstances of her departure - Held: The evidence pointed towards desertion and cruelty by the respondent – The marriage is dissolved on these grounds [Paras 7-10].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Evidence - In cross-examination, the appellant confirmed his modest income, supported by a certificate of net salary - The respondent and her father’s claims of a higher income could not be substantiated, and they failed to explain the departure from the matrimonial home - Held: The appellant's contentions were supported by evidence, and the respondent's objections were not upheld [Paras 12-15].

Permanent Alimony – Consideration of Appellant's Income - Considering the appellant's current income and the respondent's age and education, the Court directed a permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court - Held: The alimony is justified in exercising the Court's discretion, given the dissolution of marriage [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition is reversed – The marriage solemnized on 9th March 2015 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court within two months – The decree to be drawn up expeditiously [Para 17].

Service Law – Appointment Validity – Retrospective Application of Rules – The petitioners were appointed as teachers and non-teaching staff before the enforcement of the 1978 and 1984 Rules, which mandated training qualifications and a prescribed selection procedure – The institution received temporary and permanent recognition in 1980 and 1984, and was included in the grant-in-aid list in 2006 – Held: Appointments made before the rules were valid, and subsequent rules did not render these appointments illegal, especially after acquiring necessary qualifications – The objection to their appointments at this stage is unsustainable - Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 30-38].

Service Law – Training Qualification – Effect of Non-Possession at the Time of Appointment – Training became an essential qualification under the 1978 Rules – Petitioners appointed before these rules were not trained – Held: Appointment of untrained teachers prior to these rules does not suffer from any defect – The lack of training qualification at the time of appointment was irregular but not void, and their services were affirmed after acquiring the necessary training [Paras 38, 41].

Education Law – Recognition and Grant-in-Aid – The institution was granted recognition and was included in the grant-in-aid list without any objections to the petitioners' qualifications or appointments at that time – Held: The authorities cannot raise objections at this belated stage regarding the procedure adopted at the time of initial engagement of the petitioners [Paras 41, 44].

Principle of 'No Work, No Pay' – The matter of salary payment to the petitioners from July 2012 till their superannuation was relegated to the authority to ascertain their working during this period – Held: Petitioners are entitled to salary if they worked, otherwise not entitled under the principle of 'no work, no pay'.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The order of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent of relegating the matter regarding salary entitlement from July 2012 till retirement to the authority for determination – The petitioners' initial engagement in the institution was found in accordance with the law, and they are entitled to consequential benefits.

Criminal Law – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Granted – The appellant, Manik Bhattacharya, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly receiving Rs. 7,00,000 from 44 candidates – Charged under Section 3, read with Section 70, and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 – His bail applications were denied twice by the trial court – Upon appeal, the High Court considered his prolonged detention, health issues, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Noting the delay in framing charges and the unlikelihood of a trial conclusion soon, the High Court granted bail with stringent conditions – [Paras 24-25, 27-28]

Investigation and Witness Testimony – The ED alleged the appellant's involvement in illegal appointments in primary education – Evidence included statements from co-accused Tapas Kumar Mondal, who stated that Rs. 3.25 crores were collected to secure appointments for 325 candidates – The appellant argued these statements did not directly implicate him, and the ED failed to establish a money trail to him – Furthermore, no money was recovered from his possession, and he challenged the authenticity and completeness of the evidence – [Paras 6, 14]

Grounds for Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – The High Court referred to the principles established by the Supreme Court concerning the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Considering the appellant's nearly two-year detention without trial and the vast amount of documentary evidence, the Court found that further detention would breach his fundamental rights – The improbability of a near-future trial conclusion indicated that prolonged pre-trial detention would equate to punishment without trial – [Paras 22, 23, 29, 30]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – The High Court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions: surrendering the passport, restricted movement without court permission, and no tampering with evidence or witness intimidation – The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties – It was clarified that the observations in this judgment were solely for the bail application and would not influence the trial court's assessment of the case's merits – [Paras 31-34]

Constitutional Law – Local Body Elections – Appeals Dismissed – Article 243-U – Mandate for Timely Municipal Elections - The appeals challenged the learned Single Judge's direction for notifying elections, citing the incomplete "triple test formalities" for OBC reservation - The Court highlighted the inviolability of the constitutional mandate under Article 243-U, stating that elections should be conducted even if the "triple test formalities" are not completed - Held: The failure to conduct elections undermines the democratic setup envisaged by the 74th Constitutional Amendment – The "triple test formalities" cannot obstruct the constitutional duty to hold elections, ensuring the elected bodies are installed promptly [Paras 39, 44, 45, 49].

Municipal Law – Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 – Sections 16(4), 16(8), and 20 - The State had appointed administrators after the expiry of the elected bodies' tenure, citing Section 16(8) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 - The Court noted that this was a temporary arrangement, emphasizing the need for elections to uphold the "government by the people" principle - Held: The appointment of administrators should not become a permanent solution, and elections must be conducted to ensure democratic governance at the local level [Paras 46, 47].

Judicial Precedents – "Triple Test Formalities" and Democratic Mandate - The State relied on K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra to argue for the necessity of "triple test formalities" - The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Suresh Mahajan v. State of M.P., which held that the absence of "triple test formalities" cannot justify delaying elections - Held: Non-compliance with the "triple test" cannot defer the constitutional mandate for elections, as it would defeat the purpose of the 74th Amendment [Paras 48, 50].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The State is directed to notify elections for Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Nagar Panchayats in Jharkhand immediately – The court upholds the learned Single Judge's direction to ensure the democratic process of elections is not hindered, reiterating the inviolability of the constitutional mandate for timely elections [Paras 51, 52].

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].

Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Negligence Not Established – The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal’s findings of negligence and liability on the grounds that the deceased driver of the motorcycle had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident – Held: Merely detecting alcohol in the stomach during the post-mortem is insufficient to prove intoxication or negligence – No other evidence was presented to establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or driving negligently at the time of the accident – Tribunal’s decision upheld regarding the liability of the Insurance Company [Paras 22-23, 30].

Insurance Policy Conditions – Occupant of Tractor Not Covered – The claim regarding the injury suffered by the respondent traveling on the tractor-trolley, which was insured under a "Farmer's Package Policy," was challenged on the grounds that the insurance did not cover the occupant as no premium was charged for such coverage – Held: The insurance was specific to agricultural use, and the policy covered only the driver – Occupant not covered under the policy – Insurance Company’s liability exonerated [Paras 24-26, 31].

Policy Violation – Tractor Used for Agricultural Purpose – The Insurance Company argued that the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes at the time of the accident – Held: The Tribunal found that the tractor was being used to carry bricks for constructing a farm wall, which falls under agricultural purposes – Insurance Company liable for claims arising from the tractor’s use [Paras 26, 30].

Contributory Negligence – Multiple Riders on Motorcycle – The argument that having four persons on a motorcycle contributed to the accident was dismissed, as there was no evidence connecting the number of riders to the cause of the accident – Motorcycle collided with the tractor due to the latter’s negligence [Paras 28-29].

Interest on Compensation – Higher Rate as Penalty – The higher interest rate imposed by the Tribunal in case of delayed payment by the Insurance Company was found to be inconsistent with established legal principles – Interest adjusted to the standard rate of 6% p.a. [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].

Murder Case – Conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Discrepancies in FIR and Witness Statements – Conviction Upheld - The appellants were convicted for murder based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and evidence linking the blood-stained weapons recovered from the appellants to the deceased. The defense argued discrepancies in the timing of the FIR, contradictions in the accident register, and doubts over the presence of eyewitnesses. Held: The conviction was upheld, as the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the discrepancies were deemed minor and insignificant [Paras 12-13, 19].

Credibility of Injured Witnesses – High Reliability – Duty to Discredit through Concrete Evidence – The appellants contended that the injured witnesses were unreliable, particularly regarding their failure to help the deceased and the alleged contradictions in their testimony. Held: Injured witnesses are generally considered highly reliable, and the defense failed to provide concrete evidence to discredit their testimony. Minor inconsistencies did not affect the core of the prosecution's case [Paras 15, 19].

Discovery of Weapons – Link with the Crime – Matching Blood Groups – The appellants argued that the recovery of weapons was unreliable due to the presence of blood of different groups on the knives. Held: The prosecution proved the connection between the recovered weapons and the crime, as the blood found on the knives matched the deceased's blood group. The presence of an additional blood group was consistent with the injuries sustained by the witnesses [Paras 16-17].

Delay in FIR Filing – No Impact on Prosecution's Case – The defense highlighted a delay of 3 hours in the registration of the FIR and discrepancies in the accident register, where the injuries were allegedly caused by "unknown persons." Held: The FIR was registered promptly and reached the court prior to the preparation of the accident register, rendering the discrepancy in the register irrelevant [Paras 12-13].

Minor Contradictions in Witness Statements – No Ground for Acquittal – The appellants argued that minor contradictions in witness statements about the timing and sequence of events should lead to their acquittal. Held: Minor contradictions did not affect the core issue of the case. The testimony of multiple eyewitnesses was consistent and corroborated by forensic evidence [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The court upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court in SC No. 10 of 2016. Both appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under Sections 302 r/w 34, 341, and 323 of the IPC [Paras 20-21].