Bail in POCSO and IPC 376 Cases – Consideration of Consent and Delay – Accused Granted Bail – The applicant was accused of repeated sexual assault over 15 months; the prosecutrix was 16 years old at the time of filing the FIR – The court considered mitigating factors, including the consensual nature of the relationship, delay in filing the FIR, and absence of coercion – The court noted inconsistencies between the prosecutrix's FIR and medical statements, indicating consent – Held: The applicant was granted bail on furnishing a bond and complying with conditions such as not leaving Maharashtra, not contacting the prosecutrix, and reporting to the police periodically [Paras 10-15].

Mitigating Factors in Bail for Sexual Offences – Relevance of Age and Relationship History – Bail Granted – The court considered the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942) and Bombay High Court’s judgment in Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra (BA No. 1036 of 2015) – Held: When an alleged victim is above 16 years, her voluntary participation in a relationship is a mitigating factor in bail considerations – The court highlighted the evolving social and psychological aspects of teenage relationships – Bail granted [Paras 11-12].

Delay in Filing FIR – Not a Sole Ground to Reject Bail – Bail Granted – The court examined Ramkrushna S. Kumbhar v. State of Maharashtra (ABA No. 3000 of 2022) – Held: While delay in filing an FIR does not automatically favor the accused, it is a relevant consideration when coupled with other mitigating factors, such as consensual nature and lack of coercion – The applicant was granted bail on these grounds [Para 6].

Observations on the Nature of Relationship – Consent and Circumstances Considered – Bail Granted – The court acknowledged that the prosecutrix was in a long-standing relationship with the accused, visiting his house frequently, and admitted to consensual intercourse – No evidence of physical force or coercion was presented – Held: The accused was not a sexual predator but engaged in a consensual relationship, warranting bail [Paras 10, 13-14].
 

Contractual Employment – Right to Regularization – No Vested Right in Fixed-Term Employees – The petitioners were appointed under "Mission Mangalam" scheme on contractual basis for three years as per Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 – Upon completion of tenure, their services were not extended, leading to petitions for regularization and parity with government employees – Held: Contractual employees do not have a vested right to regularization – Their appointment letters explicitly stated non-permanence, and they cannot claim benefits at par with government employees [Paras 8.5-10].

Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Not Applicable to Contractual Employees – Petitioners claimed regular pay-scale citing "equal pay for equal work" – Held: Regularization requires parity in recruitment process, service conditions, and nature of duties – Petitioners were selected through a different process than regular government employees, and their employment was tenure-based – Doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not apply to contract-based appointments [Paras 10.1-10.2].

No Violation of Article 14 and 16 – Differentiation Between Regular and Contractual Employees Justified – Petitioners alleged discrimination and arbitrary termination – Held: The employer (GLPC) has discretion to engage employees on a fixed-term basis – Policy decisions on employment terms do not violate constitutional guarantees unless arbitrary or mala fide – No evidence of hostile discrimination presented [Paras 11-12].

Reliance on Umadevi Judgment – No Automatic Right to Regularization – Petitioners cited State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, arguing long tenure creates legitimate expectation of regularization – Held: Umadevi explicitly bars regularization of contractual employees unless they were engaged in violation of rules or working against permanent sanctioned posts – Petitioners were appointed as per government policy and contractual terms, hence no automatic regularization [Para 15].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Contractual Employees Have No Right to Regularization – The Court held that contractual employment under Mission Mangalam was validly terminated upon completion of tenure – No claim to permanent employment, regular pay scale, or government service benefits – Petitions dismissed [Paras 16-19].
 

Criminal Courts – No Inherent Power of Review – Exceptions Exist to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice – The petitioner contended that a criminal court lacks inherent power to review or recall its own orders, except in cases of clerical, typographical, or mathematical errors – The High Court reaffirmed this principle but held that exceptions exist where an order is passed due to misrepresentation, fraud, or unforeseen circumstances – Held: The Trial Court’s recall of the dismissal order was legally justified as it corrected an injustice caused by an erroneous police statement [Paras 6, 11-12].

Anticipatory Bail – Recall of Dismissal Order Justified Due to Police Misrepresentation – The private respondents’ initial bail application was dismissed based on an incorrect statement by a police official that they had not complied with investigation directions – The State later admitted the error in an affidavit, confirming that the respondents had in fact cooperated – The High Court held that when a judicial order is based on a factual mistake attributable to the police, the Trial Court is justified in reconsidering its decision – Held: Recall of the dismissal order and grant of bail was proper to prevent injustice [Paras 7-9].

Cancellation of Bail – Requires Cogent Grounds of Misuse – No Such Grounds Established – The petitioner sought cancellation of bail, arguing that the Trial Court’s exercise of jurisdiction was impermissible – The High Court reiterated that once bail is granted, it can only be cancelled if the accused violates bail conditions, tampers with evidence, or misuses liberty – In the absence of such allegations, mere legal objections to the grant of bail do not justify cancellation – Held: No compelling reason existed to revoke the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents [Paras 10, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Personal Liberty Should Not Be Curtailed Due to Administrative Errors – The High Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed due to procedural lapses or administrative mistakes – The police’s incorrect statement led to an unjustified rejection of bail, necessitating its recall – Held: A strict view of recall powers should not override the broader principle of ensuring justice [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Anticipatory Bail Upheld – The Court found that the Trial Court acted within its discretion to rectify a glaring factual mistake and prevent injustice – Since no misuse of bail was alleged, there was no valid ground for cancellation – Held: Petition dismissed, anticipatory bail of private respondents upheld [Paras 14].

Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Whether Conviction Sustainable – The appellant was convicted for rape based on an alleged false promise of marriage—Trial Court found that the prosecutrix consented to sexual relations believing in the appellant’s promise—Held: Consent obtained under a misconception of fact due to a false promise of marriage is not valid under Section 90 IPC—However, prosecution failed to establish that the appellant never intended to marry her—Benefit of doubt granted—Conviction set aside [Paras 24-27].

Long-Term Consensual Relationship – Whether Sexual Relations Were Based Solely on Promise of Marriage – The parties were in a relationship for over a year, met frequently, and stayed together in hotels—Prosecutrix knew of caste differences that could prevent marriage—Held: Prosecution failed to prove that the promise of marriage was the sole inducement for consent—Lack of evidence of initial fraudulent intent—Acquittal justified [Paras 19-23].

Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Differentiating False Promise and Breach of Promise – Court relied on Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471—Held: A breach of promise does not constitute rape unless there is evidence of deliberate deception at the outset—Present case falls within breach of promise, not false inducement—Acquittal granted [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant directed not to contact prosecutrix or her family in any manner—Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 27-30].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Grant Without Finding of Possession – Order Set Aside – The lower appellate court maintained the trial court’s dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed but granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that an injunction cannot be granted without recording a clear finding of possession – Held: Since the land in dispute was not identifiable, the relief of permanent injunction was unjustified and was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Challenge to Prior Transaction – Claim Not Sustainable – The plaintiff-respondent challenged the sale deed dated 12.11.2007 but failed to challenge an earlier sale deed of 20.01.2000 from the original co-owner – The courts found that once the first sale deed was accepted and acted upon, the subsequent sale was legally valid – Held: Without challenging the foundational transaction, the claim for cancellation of the later sale deed is untenable [Paras 11-12].

Possession – Failure to Establish Actual Occupation – Relief Cannot Be Granted – The lower appellate court granted an injunction based on a partition decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that such a decree did not automatically establish actual possession in the present case, especially when the land in dispute was unidentifiable – Held: Possession must be proven through evidence in the same proceedings; injunction relief set aside [Paras 13-14].

No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Allowed in Part – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since the lower appellate court granted relief contrary to its own findings on possession and identifiability of land, interference was justified – Held: Judgment granting permanent injunction set aside; remaining portion of the judgment upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Second appeal allowed in part – The relief of permanent injunction granted by the lower appellate court was set aside – The remaining findings, including the dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, remained intact – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Robbery and Murder – Sections 394, 397 IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld – The appellant was convicted for armed robbery and murder along with co-accused – The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, including an injured witness – The defense argued that the witnesses were interested parties and that the investigation was defective – Held: The presence of eyewitnesses was natural, and minor inconsistencies in statements do not affect the reliability of their testimony – The trial court’s findings were upheld, and no material error was found [Paras 5, 7, 25, 26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Interested Witnesses – Conviction based on testimony of family members of the deceased – Defense argued that such testimony was unreliable – Held: Relationship with the victim does not render a witness unreliable unless enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused is proven – The testimony was found to be credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 12-14, 17, 19, 20].

Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Conviction upheld based on the testimony of an injured witness – Held: The testimony of an injured witness carries special evidentiary weight as they have firsthand knowledge of the incident – Unless strong grounds exist to discredit their statements, their testimony should be given due consideration – The trial court rightly relied on the injured witness’s statement [Paras 23, 24].

Conviction Under Section 460 IPC – No Specific Charge – Defense contended that the appellant was convicted under Section 460 IPC despite no specific charge being framed – Held: The court has the power under Section 222 CrPC to convict under an appropriate provision if the facts establish the offense – The trial court’s reliance on Section 460 IPC was justified in the given circumstances [Paras 8, 27].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Rakshpal was upheld – The court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s findings – The appellant’s bail bonds were canceled, and he was ordered to surrender – The conviction of co-accused Rameshwar in a related appeal was also upheld, further affirming the correctness of the trial court’s judgment [Paras 27, 28, 29].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Wrongful Termination – Compensation Instead of Reinstatement – Whether Justified – Held: Yes – The respondent was employed as a bus driver from 05.03.2002 but was terminated on 09.09.2012 without notice – The petitioner claimed voluntary abandonment, citing a full and final settlement of ₹30,000 – The Labour Court found no evidence of abandonment and held that the settlement voucher was fabricated – Held: Reinstatement was not feasible as the respondent had since taken other employment, but he was entitled to compensation – Compensation of ₹5,00,000 upheld [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Review Under Article 226 – Whether High Court Can Reassess Evidence in Labour Matters – Held: No – The High Court cannot act as an appellate court in a writ petition under Article 226 – Held: Findings of fact by the Labour Court, if based on some evidence, cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or arbitrary – Reliance placed on State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 [Paras 5, 9].

Voluntary Abandonment of Service – Whether Proved – Held: No – The petitioner claimed that the respondent voluntarily left employment after accepting ₹30,000 in full settlement – Held: No proof was produced to show that the respondent took the money as a final settlement – Labour Inspector’s report of 04.12.2012 showed that the petitioner refused to reinstate the respondent, contradicting the claim of abandonment [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Compensation Upheld with Costs – The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court’s award of ₹5,00,000 as compensation – Petitioner directed to pay ₹25,000 as costs to the respondent for litigation expenses – Payment to be made within one week [Paras 13-15].
 

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – No Proof of Husband’s Higher Income – The Family Court assessed the petitioner’s income as Rs. 20,000/- per month based on the Minimum Wages Act in the absence of any concrete evidence of actual earnings – The High Court modified this, holding that since the petitioner was only 10th class pass and not proven to be a skilled worker, his estimated income should be Rs. 18,000/- per month [Paras 16-17].

Family Law – Maintenance Distribution – Equitable Sharing of Income – The Family Court divided the petitioner’s income into five shares based on Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, (2004) SCC OnLine Del 192, allocating two shares to the husband and three shares to the wife and children – The High Court upheld this principle while modifying the quantum based on the revised income estimate [Paras 18-19].

Legal Obligation – Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Responsibility – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his duty to maintain his wife and children, even if he claims financial constraints [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Maintenance Reduced – Monthly Award Fixed at Rs. 3,600/- Each – The High Court modified the Family Court’s order, reducing maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 3,600/- per month for each respondent, in light of the revised income assessment – All other conditions of the Family Court’s order remained unchanged [Paras 19-20].
 

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff Must Prove Possession – The Court held that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession – In this case, the plaintiffs proved possession through property tax records, assessment bills, and eviction suits against tenants – The appellant (defendant) failed to file a written statement or challenge evidence [Paras 22-24].

Property Law – Title and Possession – Mere Claims of Ownership Do Not Create a Dispute – The appellant contended that there was a cloud on the title due to alleged competing claims – The Court ruled that mere unsubstantiated assertions do not raise a valid dispute – Since the appellant failed to produce any evidence of ownership, the trial court’s decree was upheld [Paras 25-28].

Land Encroachment – Unauthorized Construction – Right of Owner to Seek Injunction – The appellant had allegedly constructed unauthorized sheds on the suit property—The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished these structures twice – The Court held that the landowner has the right to seek a permanent injunction against trespassers – The appellant’s claims of ownership were based on forged documents, as per police and BMC reports [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Precedent – No Need for Declaration of Title When Plaintiff is in Possession – The Court relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which held that when a person in possession faces interference, an injunction suit is sufficient without requiring a declaratory suit for ownership – Since the plaintiffs were paying taxes, maintaining records, and managing tenants, no further declaration was necessary [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Injunction Upheld – The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal – The appellant was permanently restrained from trespassing, constructing, or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession – No costs imposed [Paras 33-35].