Criminal Revision – Impact of Stay on Discharge Orders – Judicial Custody – The Court analyzed the effect of staying a discharge order on the accused's release. It held that a stay order effectively suspends the discharge and re-establishes the accused’s status prior to the discharge order, necessitating his return to judicial custody. Respondent No. 4, who secured release after discharge, was directed to surrender as the release order’s validity ceased with the stay of discharge [Paras 18, 30-33].

Scope of Section 390 Cr.P.C. in Revisional Jurisdiction – The Court affirmed that Section 390 Cr.P.C., though primarily concerning appeals from acquittals, is applicable in revisional jurisdiction per Section 401 Cr.P.C. This provision allows the High Court to order arrest or surrender of an accused post-discharge or acquittal if there is a risk to the trial's integrity or potential for evidence tampering – Held: Section 390 Cr.P.C. enables the Court to preserve the status quo ante, ensuring custody of the accused during revision proceedings [Paras 15, 20-21, 27].

Preservation of Status Quo Ante – Stay Order’s Operative Effect – The Court underscored that a stay on a discharge order intends to pause all consequences arising from the discharge. Respondent No. 4’s release in the interim, due to procedural delays, did not override the stay's effect, as the accused’s legal status is bound by the ongoing judicial review – Held: A stay order revives the pre-discharge status of the accused, rendering any interim release or discharge benefits null [Paras 22-24].

Discretion under Section 390 Cr.P.C. – Considerations for Custody – The Court elaborated that discretion to re-arrest under Section 390 Cr.P.C. depends on factors such as seriousness of the offense, risk of absconding, and public interest. Here, given the serious charges and potential for witness influence, the Court found adequate grounds to exercise this discretion, directing Respondent No. 4’s surrender [Para 27].

Decision – The application filed under Section 390 Cr.P.C. by the State is allowed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to surrender before the Trial Court for judicial custody. He is entitled to seek bail subsequently, which would be decided per law.
 

Income Tax – Notice under Section 148 – Requirement for Effective Opportunity of Hearing – Section 148A of the Income Tax Act – Adequate Opportunity Not Provided - The petitioner challenged the issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, alleging that he was not given sufficient time to respond to the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) – Held: The respondent authority failed to provide an effective opportunity for the petitioner to present his case by proceeding prematurely and treating the petitioner’s adjournment request as a reply – Court found the lack of adherence to procedural requirements under Section 148A(b) rendered the order unsustainable [Paras 5-6].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – No Alternative Efficacious Remedy Available - The respondent argued for dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner has recourse through statutory appeal procedures – Held: Since the order under Section 148A(d) is not appealable, the petitioner had no alternative efficacious remedy, justifying the maintainability of the writ petition [Para 6].

Procedural Safeguards in Reassessment Proceedings – Requirement for Minimum Notice Period – Section 148A(b) of Income Tax Act mandates that the assessing authority should provide a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of 30 days for the assessee to respond to a notice – Court held that issuing the final order prior to the expiration of the permissible response period undermined procedural fairness and the petitioner’s right to defend – Order set aside on procedural grounds and matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Order Set Aside – The court set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, citing failure to grant effective opportunity of hearing – Case remitted to the Income Tax authority to reconsider the show cause notice under Section 148A(d) after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of response – Writ petition disposed of [Paras 7-8].
 

Juvenile Justice – Bail for Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) – Presumption of Release – The petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail after denial by both the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the appellate court, despite the Juvenile Justice Act’s reformative stance – The High Court reiterated that, under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, bail is the rule and refusal an exception, particularly where releasing the CICL does not risk moral, psychological, or physical danger to the child – Held: Bail granted, as no clear evidence suggested the CICL’s release would lead to negative influences, and family members undertook responsibility for his care [Paras 10-14, 21-24].

Interpretation of Section 12, Juvenile Justice Act – Grounds for Bail Refusal – The Juvenile Justice Act mandates that a CICL may be denied bail only if there are reasonable grounds to believe release would (i) lead to association with known criminals, (ii) expose the juvenile to harm, or (iii) defeat the ends of justice – Held: The appellate court’s reliance on speculative risk factors without concrete evidence did not meet these criteria, and thus, bail denial was improper [Paras 17-18, 25-26].

Principle of Juvenile Justice – Reformative and Rehabilitative Focus – The Act emphasizes the reformative approach, prioritizing the CICL’s well-being over punitive measures. The Court highlighted that, in the absence of evidence of past criminal influence or risks to the CICL’s welfare, continued detention contradicted the Act’s objectives – Held: Bail for juveniles is a statutory right, aligned with reformative principles unless substantive reasons for detention are provided [Paras 22-23, 27].

Decision – The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Orders from the JJB and the appellate court denying bail are set aside. The petitioner is granted bail subject to conditions, including a bail bond and oversight by responsible family members.
 

Criminal Law – Right to Bail in Extended Detention – Application of Section 480(6) of BNSS – The petitioner was held in custody for over two years, with the trial progressing slowly due to procedural delays – Section 480(6) mandates release if trial for non-bailable offenses triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence – Held: Since only one prosecution witness out of 33 had been examined despite the lapse of statutory 60 days, petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 5-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Extended Custody and Bail Entitlement under BNSS – Petitioner’s trial stalled with minimal progress due to procedural delays – Court emphasized the statutory protection against prolonged detention under BNSS, affirming that extended custody without trial progress infringes on rights of the accused – Held: Bail granted to prevent indefinite detention, with requirements for bond and surety [Paras 9-11].

Decision: The second bail application is allowed. The accused-petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each, subject to conditions of appearance at all court hearings [Paras 12-14].

Bail under NDPS Act – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 Rigors - The applicant, arrested with 46.23 grams of heroin, claimed that the contraband did not fall under "commercial quantity" and hence did not trigger Section 37’s stringent conditions of the NDPS Act – Court held that since the seized quantity was intermediate, the strictures of Section 37 were not applicable, making bail consideration favorable in this context [Paras 6-8, 13].

Previous Acquittal and Presumption of Innocence - Applicant had prior cases registered but was acquitted in one case (FIR No. 31 of 2022), with no conviction recorded in the other – Court reiterated that pending trial, the applicant enjoys the presumption of innocence, thus weakening the argument for continued custody solely based on past charges [Para 15].

Custodial Interrogation Not Required – Investigation Complete - Since the police had filed the final report and no further evidence was needed, the court observed that continued judicial custody would serve no additional purpose – Court noted that the applicant’s co-accused had also been granted bail on parity grounds [Paras 9-10, 16].

Bail Conditions – Prevention of Tampering and Assuring Appearance - Bail was granted under conditions including attendance at all hearings, no tampering with evidence, and prohibition on leaving India without court permission – Court directed compliance monitoring and allowed the state to petition if conditions were violated [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Bail application allowed. Applicant ordered to be released on personal bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with judicial proceedings.

Civil Law - Intellectual Property – Infringement of Copyright and Trademarks – Unauthorized Use – Injunction Granted - The plaintiff alleged unauthorized streaming of its registered audio content, artistic works, and trademarks including "Sunday Suspense" and "Radio Mirchi" by defendants – Unauthorized activities included online broadcasts, mobile applications, and social media accounts infringing the plaintiff's intellectual property – Cease-and-desist notices were issued, but violations persisted – Held: Defendants’ activities constitute clear infringement warranting protection under intellectual property law [Paras 1-8].

Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Expeditious Disposal of Commercial Suits – Defendants Proceeded Ex-Parte – Judgment Based on Plausibility of Claims - Several defendants failed to file written statements or contest the case – Court invoked Order VIII Rule 10, CPC, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff after determining that the plaint established a strong prima facie case without requiring further evidence – Emphasized legislative intent for expeditious resolution in commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Paras 9-13, 19-21].

Decision: Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 25 permanently restrained from infringing intellectual property rights as sought in the plaint. Pending applications and case proceedings disposed of [Paras 28-29].
 

Service Law - Statutory Rule Amendment – Retrospective Application – Prejudice to Vested Rights – The petitioners challenged the application of the OPS Amendment Order, 2021, which introduced additional disqualification criteria for redeployment, to vacancies arising in 2021. The Court held that the amendment could not retroactively impact the accrued rights of the petitioners, who were eligible under the pre-amended OPS Order, 2010. – Held: A statutory amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to take away vested rights unless explicitly stated. Vacancies arising before the amendment are to be governed by pre-amended rules. [Paras 31-33, 44].

Time-Bound Process – Violation of Statutory Timeline – Impact on Petitioners – The OPS Order, 2010 mandated completion of the redeployment process by March of each year. The State failed to adhere to this timeline, resulting in the application of amended rules to the petitioners’ cases. – Held: The delay in adhering to statutory timelines was arbitrary and prejudicial to the petitioners, who were otherwise eligible under the unamended rules. [Paras 23, 31, 44].

Disqualification Criteria – Discrimination and Article 14 – The petitioners argued that the disqualification clause introduced in 2021 was discriminatory, as similarly situated individuals with pending vigilance cases were granted redeployment. – Held: The application of the disqualification clause without uniformity was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Paras 19, 43].

Rule in Force on Date of Consideration – Right to be Considered – The State argued that rules in force at the time of consideration must apply. The Court distinguished this from the petitioners’ case, as the statutory obligation to complete redeployment within a specific timeframe had not been adhered to. – Held: Where statutory timelines are prescribed, delays cannot prejudice candidates eligible under the earlier rule. [Paras 35-42].

Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh Distinguished – The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s ruling in Raj Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 773, which overruled Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284, holding that rules in force on the date of consideration must apply. In the present case, statutory timelines imposed a duty on the State to fill vacancies under pre-amended rules. – Held: The general principle of applying rules in force at the time of consideration does not apply where statutory rules mandate a time-bound process. [Paras 42-43].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed: The Court directed the State to consider the petitioners’ cases for redeployment to district cadre strictly under the pre-amended OPS Order, 2010, without applying the disqualification criteria introduced by the 2021 amendment.
Vacancies to be Filled Promptly: The State was directed to complete the redeployment process within two months from the date of communication of this judgment, considering the 2021 vacancies under pre-amended rules.
 

Criminal Law – Proclamation Proceedings – Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation Against Absconder – Procedural Requirements – Quashment of Proclamation – The petitioner challenged the proclamation order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., claiming it was not executed per mandatory requirements – It was argued that no public reading of the proclamation was conducted in a conspicuous place, nor was the proclamation served personally – Held: Non-compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. renders the proclamation and subsequent orders illegal; proclamation quashed [Paras 2-9].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Compliance – Personal Service and Public Reading – High Court highlighted the necessity for prior issuance of warrants and public reading of the proclamation in a visible place in the accused’s village or town as per Section 82 Cr.P.C. – In this case, only affixing of notices was done, without public reading or due diligence in personal service – Held: Non-fulfillment of these requirements invalidates the proclamation [Paras 6-8].

Bail – Allowance to Surrender and Conditional Bail Grant – Despite procedural lapses, the petitioner was instructed to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks, with the Trial Court to consider bail upon surrender – Failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of this petition [Para 10].

Decision:

The proclamation order dated 27.02.2024 is quashed. Petitioner allowed to surrender within six weeks and apply for bail. Non-compliance with the surrender directive will lead to automatic dismissal of this petition [Paras 9-11].

Speedy Trial – Right under Article 21 of the Constitution – Inordinate delays in FSL report preparation impacting criminal trials, especially under the NDPS Act – Court constituted Committees for systemic reform – Recognizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial, this Court took suo moto cognizance of delays in the preparation and filing of Forensic Science Laboratory reports in Punjab and Haryana. This delay has exacerbated pendency in trials, particularly under NDPS cases, violating the right to a timely trial for under-trials and victims – Held: Delay in criminal justice processes infringes upon fundamental rights under Article 21, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure effective reforms [Paras 3-6].

Infrastructural Deficiencies in FSL – Insufficient space and outdated equipment – Impact on timely completion of forensic analysis – Committees highlighted infrastructure limitations such as cramped space and obsolete equipment in FSLs, including Punjab’s FSL Mohali and Haryana’s DNA division. These limitations impede efficient forensic work and contribute significantly to backlog in cases. The Court emphasized the urgent need to upgrade infrastructure, citing examples from other states with larger FSL facilities – Held: Space and equipment upgrades are crucial to resolving forensic backlogs and maintaining justice system efficiency [Paras 7-10].

Personnel Shortages – Impact on forensic processing timelines – Need for streamlined recruitment and adequate staffing norms – FSLs in both states face severe personnel shortages, including absence of full-time Directors and high vacancy rates, limiting capacity for timely analysis. Existing staff face added burdens of court appearances and handling unnecessary exhibits. The Court mandated urgent recruitment efforts and suggested contractual staffing as a stop-gap – Held: Proper staffing is essential to timely FSL reports; administration must ensure prompt hiring and staffing alignment with workload needs [Paras 11-15].

Financial Constraints – Inadequate budgets and utilization issues – Budget empowerment of FSL authorities – Committees revealed financial constraints limiting FSLs' procurement of essential chemicals and equipment, crucial in cases under the POCSO Act and NDPS Act. Punjab’s budget restrictions, due to limited financial powers of the FSL Director, led to lapsing of funds despite unmet needs – Held: Financial empowerment of the FSL Director is essential for timely resource allocation and uninterrupted forensic operations [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Recommendations – Reforms for FSL efficacy – Structural, operational, and procedural enhancements – The Court, acting under Article 226, endorsed specific Committee recommendations for immediate and effective FSL reform, including appointing a full-time Director, implementing SOPs, updating equipment, and improving infrastructure. Additional measures include video conferencing for court appearances, QR-coded record systems, prioritization protocols, and monitoring mechanisms for case pendency – Held: States must act swiftly to implement these reforms to uphold justice, prevent delays, and ensure the integrity of forensic reports [Paras 19-25].

Judicial Oversight – Directive under Article 226 – Mandate for compliance – Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court directed Punjab and Haryana to prioritize the outlined measures, emphasizing the constitutional imperative to uphold the right to a speedy trial. Copies of Committee reports were ordered to be sent to the Chief Secretaries of both states to ensure timely implementation – Held: The Court’s directives are essential to enforce fundamental rights and promote fair judicial processes [Paras 26-29].