Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) - Economic Offence – Prima Facie Conspiracy to Defraud – Bail Denied – Applicant accused of conspiring with two others to induce ₹82 lakhs from a restaurateur under pretense of bribing BMC officials for title transfer—Held: Prima facie material including WhatsApp chats, bank transfers, and voice recordings show active involvement—No protection under anticipatory bail warranted [Paras 1–7, 11–12, 14–16].

Repeated Modus Operandi – Similar FIRs on Record – Judicial Concern Over Pattern – Six criminal cases involving similar offenses (Sections 420, 467 IPC) pending against applicant—Court viewed pattern as habitual and a threat to public interest—Held: Grant of bail would impede investigation and risk repetition [Paras 12, 16].

Medical Grounds – Applicant’s Mother's Cancer – Found to Be Exaggerated – Applicant cited urgency due to mother's illness—Court found overwriting in medical reports and contradictions about timing of recommended surgery—Rejected plea as lacking credibility [Paras 9, 13].

Interference with Witness – Voice Recording with Victim's Daughter – Transcript of voice call showed applicant demanding bribe from complainant’s daughter—Held: Attempt to influence witness proved—Ground to deny bail [Para 14].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessary Despite No Third-Degree Risk – Citing CBI v. Anil Sharma and Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., Court reiterated custodial interrogation’s significance in white-collar crimes—Held: Even if torture not alleged, custodial interrogation aids in truth discovery and cannot be bypassed [Para 17].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application rejected – Interim relief also denied – Applicant found non-cooperative, untruthful, and likely to influence witnesses – No interference permitted in ongoing investigation [Paras 17–19].

Bail - Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Section 66D, Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 - Cyber Crime – Online Trading Scam – False Promise of Profits – Bail Granted – Accused allegedly added complainant to WhatsApp group and induced transfer of ₹58.34 lakhs under pretense of investment profits—Court held: Investigation complete, recovery effected, and petitioner in custody for 39 days—Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent tampering [Paras 1–5, 7].

Judicial Custody – No Antecedents and Recovery Complete – Detention Unwarranted – Court noted that petitioner had no prior criminal background—Investigation as to petitioner completed—Held: Further incarceration unjustified once purpose of custody served [Paras 5, 7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Article 21 – Reiterated in Light of Jalaluddin Khan Case – Quoting Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 604, Court emphasized that “bail is the rule and jail an exception”—Seriousness of allegations not sufficient ground to deny bail if legal conditions are met [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Strict Terms Imposed to Protect Investigation – Petitioner directed to appear before Investigating Officer bi-monthly and comply with trial court directions—Ordered to surrender passport and refrain from influencing witnesses—Violation to entail cancellation [Paras 7(i)–(vii)].

Decision – Bail application allowed – Petitioner released on executing ₹1,00,000 bond with two solvent sureties – Subject to compliance with enumerated conditions – Violation to lead to cancellation of bail [Para 7].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Ownership Claim Based on Sale Deeds – Dismissal of Suit – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of 'B' schedule property as part of 'A' schedule property located in Sy. Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 – Trial Court found that western boundaries in the sale deeds consistently mentioned the existence of Makali-Yadalu road – Boundaries in sale deeds and conversion order, along with plaintiffs’ own admissions, confirmed road as the dividing line – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish that 'B' schedule property fell within Sy. Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-43, 56-58].

Documentary Evidence – Rectification Deed and Survey Reports – Rectification Rejected – Plaintiffs sought to introduce rectification deed through application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to correct alleged boundary errors – Held: Rectification deed was neither disclosed earlier nor consistent with admitted documents – Vendor’s son (PW2) admitted that existing boundary was correctly described – Rectification application rejected as inadmissible and lacking bona fides [Paras 44-46].

Adverse Possession – Plea by Defendant – Not Established – Defendant claimed title by adverse possession over 'B' schedule property – Held: Defendant failed to plead or prove the essential elements of adverse possession, including specific date of possession, continuity, and hostility – Legal burden not discharged – Adverse possession plea rejected [Paras 47-54].

Pleading and Proof – Power of Attorney Holder as Sole Witness – Presumption Against Plaintiffs – Plaintiffs did not appear as witnesses and only examined GPA holder – Held: Failure of parties to step into witness box raises presumption that their version is untrustworthy – Plaintiffs’ failure to adduce direct evidence held fatal to their case [Paras 46, 57].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit upon correct appreciation of documents, survey sketches, and admissions by plaintiffs’ witnesses – Appellants failed to prove title or encroachment – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 58].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope under Order VII Rule 11 – Petition for rejection of plaint on ground of undervaluation and jurisdiction dismissed – Trial Court held suit for injunction over trademark “Shahi Sikka” was not barred by law and disclosed cause of action – Held: At threshold, only plaint averments are relevant and no legal bar or undervaluation could be established ex facie [Paras 1-3, 18-22].

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdictional Threshold – Intellectual Property Suits Valued Below ₹3 Lakhs – No Presumption of Bar – Defendant contended that suit must lie before Commercial Court due to IPR subject – Court rejected, citing Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel – Held: Unless specified value crosses ₹3 lakhs and it involves commercial dispute, Commercial Court jurisdiction not attracted – Plaintiff’s valuation accepted in absence of contrary material [Paras 4-15].

Trade Marks Act – Section 142(2) – Bar on Suits for Groundless Threats – No Groundless Threat Alleged – Defendant invoked Section 142(2) but failed to establish that suit for injunction was hit by statutory bar – Court held provisions inapplicable as suit did not allege threat of infringement action but sought direct relief against trademark usage [Paras 3, 5].

Plaint Valuation – Court Fee and Jurisdiction – Presumption in Favour of Plaintiff’s Valuation – No Evident Undervaluation – Court held that in absence of minimum statutory threshold, valuation must be tentatively accepted unless prima facie arbitrary – Defendant failed to show undervaluation or that court lacked jurisdiction [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Discretion – Use of Order VII Rule 11 – Drastic Power to be Exercised Cautiously – Only if Suit Ex Facie Barred by Law or Discloses No Cause of Action – Court reaffirmed that rejection of plaint must be based solely on plaint contents and not defendant's assertions – Held: Trial required for adjudication of factual disputes [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No legal bar or jurisdictional defect found in trial court’s refusal to reject plaint – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Validity of Summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Special Court Empowered – Petitioners were initially cited as witnesses but were summoned as accused after evaluation of the case record – Held: Summoning was within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and does not constitute second cognizance – Offence-based cognizance allows summoning of new accused if material discloses their involvement [Paras 17-23, 26-27].

Sanction – Applicability to Retired Public Servants – Section 19 of PC Act – No Retrospective Effect – Petitioners (except Rajeev Arora) were retired before amendment to Section 19 took effect on 26.07.2018 – Held: Sanction not required for offences taken cognizance of prior to the amendment – Cognizance is of the offence, not the individual – Amendment does not apply retrospectively [Paras 65-68].

Section 197 Cr.P.C. – No Sanction Required for Offences of Cheating and Conspiracy – Held: Acts alleged have no reasonable nexus with official duties – Public servants cannot claim immunity under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for offences like cheating and abetment, as these acts lie outside the scope of official functions [Paras 63-64].

Article 20(3) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination – Not Violated – Petitioners were not accused at the time of their statements – Summons based on independent material – Held: No compulsion or constitutional violation established – Petitioners not entitled to protection under Article 20(3) [Paras 70-73].

Prima Facie Involvement – Deliberate Deferment of Award – Material Indicates Independent Action by Officials – Petitioners Rajeev Arora and D.R. Dhingra failed to act on repeated communications from the Land Acquisition Collector – Files went missing – Held: Prima facie case made out based on record and witness statements [Paras 29-37, 38-43].

Files Processed for Private Developers – Conduct of Petitioners Kulwant Singh Lamba and Dhare Singh – Petitioners involved in routing and clearing of license/CLU files post-deferment – Actions linked to benefit of private developers – Held: Same footing as co-accused – Summoning justified [Paras 44-48].

Disagreement with Police Report – Court Not Bound by IO’s Conclusions – Special Court has power to summon persons not named in chargesheet if prima facie material exists – Held: Magistrate or Special Court is not a post office – Summoning order valid [Paras 49-53].

Direction to Obtain Sanction – Procedural Step, Not a Mandate – Court directed CBI to place material before competent authority – Held: No judicial direction to grant sanction – Legal process under Section 19 of PC Act followed – No encroachment on administrative discretion [Paras 58-62].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – No Legal Error in Special Court’s Summoning Order – At summoning stage, only prima facie case is required – Detailed evaluation not warranted – Held: Trial must proceed – Petitions dismissed [Paras 74-76].

Criminal Law - Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Illegal Possession and Conscious Custody – Conviction Confirmed – Accused intercepted while transporting 150 kg of ganja—Search and seizure compliant with Section 50 NDPS Act—Evidence of P.W.1 and independent witness P.W.3 held credible—Contraband properly seized, sealed, and produced—Court upheld trial court’s findings on conscious possession and recovery [Paras 2, 8].

Section 42 NDPS Act – Compliance Established – Written information regarding secret tip-off was typed and timely conveyed to superior—Court held compliance sufficient under guidelines in Karnail Singh—Typed version acceptable when handwritten record unavailable—Challenge rejected [Paras 9.4–9.5]

Section 67 NDPS Act – Statements Held Admissible – Tofan Singh ruling held applicable prospectively—Since statements were recorded prior to the ruling, they remain admissible—Court accepted them as corroborative evidence of conspiracy and intention [Paras 10.1–10.3].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Non-Strict Compliance Not Fatal – Contraband produced at remand, stored in godown, and properly marked—Supreme Court’s Bharat Aambale and Kashif rulings followed—Substantial compliance considered adequate in light of corroborative evidence [Paras 13.1–13.3].

Conspiracy and Attempt – Sections 28 and 29 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld – Court found that coordinated travel, volume of contraband, and Section 67 statements proved attempt and conspiracy to traffic drugs—Each charge considered independently valid despite acquittal under Sections 25 and 27(A) NDPS Act [Paras 14].

Accused’s Explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Found Unbelievable – Defense claim that third party planted contraband during mechanical breakdown found to be false and unsubstantiated—No supporting material produced—Court held that explanation was an afterthought [Paras 11.1–11.2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act affirmed—Court found compliance with procedural safeguards and corroborated recovery—No merit in defense contentions [Paras 15–16].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Obviousness Based on Prior Art – Matter Remanded - The patent application claiming novel piperidine compounds with anti-cancer properties was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), referencing compounds from prior art D1 – The Court held that the reasoning was interlinked with non-patentability assessment under Section 3(d) and must be reconsidered after proper identification of the closest known substance – Remanded for fresh evaluation including analysis of enhanced efficacy data [Paras 3–4, 17–19].

Patent Law – Section 3(d) – New Form of Known Substance – Identification of Known Substance Mandatory – Objection Not Sustainable - The Controller failed to identify a specific ‘known substance’ in the prior art D1 against which the claimed compound was assessed – Citing DS Biopharma, the Court ruled that the absence of such identification deprived the applicant of an adequate opportunity to respond with comparative efficacy data – Rejection under Section 3(d) set aside [Paras 12–17].

Decision – Rejection Set Aside – Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The impugned order rejecting the patent was set aside – The matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh adjudication after providing the appellant a hearing and addressing all submissions – The fresh order must address patentability with clear identification of the known substance and evaluation of efficacy data [Paras 20–23].

Civil Law - Trademark Dispute – Objection to Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts Act Interpretation – Dismissed - Defendant challenged jurisdiction of Trial Court to hear trademark injunction suit on grounds that it should lie before Commercial Court due to nature of IPR dispute – Court held that Commercial Court jurisdiction only arises if suit involves a commercial dispute and the specified value is ₹3 lakhs or more – In absence of such valuation, Trial Court can proceed – Held: No presumption that all IPR cases must be valued above ₹3 lakhs; suit not barred by law [Paras 3–10, 15–16].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Limitations – Application Rejected - Court reiterated that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and can only be exercised if it is evident from the plaint that the suit is barred by law or discloses no cause of action – Held: Since valuation could not be conclusively disputed at threshold and cause of action was pleaded, plaint cannot be rejected [Paras 18–22].

Suit Maintainability – Trade Mark Act Section 142(2) – Not a Bar - Defendant’s claim that suit is barred under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 60 of the Copyright Act was rejected – Court observed that these provisions did not apply to the facts of the present case and cause of action was disclosed on plaint reading – Held: Suit for permanent injunction maintainable before civil court [Paras 4–5, 23].

Valuation in IPR Suits – Plaintiff’s Discretion Accepted – Undervaluation Allegation Rejected - Court reiterated principle that plaintiff as dominus litis has right to value the suit, subject to judicial scrutiny – In absence of material to show deliberate undervaluation, Court to accept plaintiff’s valuation at threshold – Held: Defendant failed to establish undervaluation; plaint valuation accepted [Paras 14, 16–17].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed - Court found no legal ground to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Dismissed revision petition and all pending applications – Suit to continue before Trial Court [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law - Custodial Death – Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148, and 120-B of the – Appeal Against Acquittal - Eyewitness Credibility – Acquittal Upheld – The prosecution alleged that the accused, including a police constable, were involved in the murder of an undertrial prisoner after taking him out of judicial custody – The two eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution were found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies, contradictions, delayed disclosure, and intoxication – Held: The trial court rightly disbelieved their testimony and the High Court declined to interfere with the finding [Paras 11–11.2].

Recovery of Weapons – Lack of Independent Corroboration – Evidentiary Gaps – The prosecution relied on the recovery of blood-stained weapons allegedly used in the offence – The High Court found the recoveries were made after 12–13 days, without independent witnesses, and the FSL report did not confirm human blood – Held: Such recoveries were doubtful and could not support the prosecution’s case [Paras 13–14].

Hostile Witnesses and Omissions – FIR and Testimonies Not in Sync – Several witnesses were declared hostile – Key omissions in FIR and contradiction in the statements of family members regarding timeline and threats – Held: Material inconsistencies and lack of credible motive weakened the prosecution’s version significantly [Paras 7–7.6, 15–16].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reversal Only on Perversity or Illegality – The appellate court reiterated that interference in an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's judgment is perverse, illegal, or ignores material evidence – Held: Trial court’s conclusions were based on plausible appreciation of facts and law, hence no interference was warranted [Paras 17–19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal of the accused as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – The surviving respondents were directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20–21.2].