Bail – Regular Bail – Conspiracy and Murder Charges – Petitioner sought regular bail, claiming false implication and lack of direct evidence. The petitioner was not named in the original FIR and was arrested based on the co-accused’s disclosure. The court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention, absence of a direct role in the crime, and the bail granted to co-accused. Emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Bail granted subject to furnishing of surety bonds [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Right to Speedy Trial – Reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial as integral to criminal jurisprudence. The court stressed that pre-conviction detention should be limited and that bail should generally be granted unless there are compelling reasons for denial [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Regular bail granted – The petitioner is to be released upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The decision does not reflect on the merits of the case [Para 5].

Defamation – Public Speech During Election Rally – Petitioner, a sitting MLA, made defamatory remarks during a post-election rally against the respondent, alleging association with a criminal gang and questioning his religious authenticity – Respondent contended that the statements harmed his reputation, leading to the filing of a private complaint – Magistrate took cognizance and issued process – Held: Statements made in an election rally, if defamatory, can form the basis of criminal proceedings – Allegations made against the respondent require trial – Petition to quash the criminal proceedings rejected [Paras 7-9].

Freedom of Speech – Limits in Political Rallies – Petitioner argued that statements made in a political context should not attract criminal prosecution under defamation laws – Held: While freedom of speech is essential in a democracy, it does not extend to making defamatory statements that damage an individual's reputation without factual basis – Public figures, including politicians, must exercise caution when making statements that can malign others, especially in the digital age where speech has a wide reach [Paras 8-9].

Cognizance of Offence – Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – The Magistrate's decision to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC was based on prima facie evidence, including the sworn statements and supporting documents – Held: The Magistrate acted within the bounds of law – There was sufficient material to proceed with the trial – No grounds for quashing the proceedings [Para 9].

Judicial Review – High Court's Limited Scope in Quashing Criminal Proceedings – The High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must be cautious while quashing criminal proceedings unless the case is clearly frivolous or malicious – Held: The case presented sufficient material to warrant a trial – Petition dismissed [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Criminal proceedings under Sections 499 and 500 IPC to proceed as ordered by the Magistrate – Trial necessary to determine the veracity of the statements and their impact on the respondent's reputation [Paras 10].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC – Court directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation and deposit the requisite court fee – Held, objections regarding insufficiency of court fee must be decided before proceeding with other issues in the suit – Revision petition dismissed as court found no illegality in the order directing the payment of court fees [Paras 14-26].

Court Fees – Suit for Declaration of Will as Void – Court held that a Will, post the death of the testator, secures property of monetary value – As such, under Section 7 Sub-Section IV(a) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, appropriate court fees must be paid for a suit seeking to declare a Will void – Revisionist's claim that no court fee was necessary rejected [Paras 18-22].

Decision:

Civil Revision dismissed. The order of the lower court directing the revisionist to pay the court fee was upheld. The revisionist was instructed to deposit the requisite court fees within the prescribed time.

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation upon Addition of Non-Bailable Offenses – Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Application – High Court's Dismissal of Petition Challenging Bail Cancellation Order – The Rajasthan High Court upheld the cancellation of bail originally granted to the accused under Section 436 of Cr.P.C., after non-bailable offenses were added in the final charge-sheet. The court held that under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., bail can be canceled if the nature of the offense changes due to subsequent investigation, justifying the arrest of the accused. The court referred to established precedents, concluding that the petition challenging the bail cancellation lacked merit [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Judicial Authorities for Bail Cancellation – The High Court relied on the principles laid down in Myakala Dharamarajam v. State of Telangana, and Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand to support its decision to uphold the bail cancellation. The court emphasized that bail can be revoked when subsequent investigations reveal new, graver charges that justify taking the accused back into custody [Paras 12.4-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The petition is dismissed due to the lawful application of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. by the trial court, which rightly canceled bail and issued an arrest warrant based on newly added charges in the final report. The High Court found no irregularities or arbitrariness in the trial court's decision, affirming the correctness of the bail cancellation order [Paras 14-15].
 

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity with Co-accused – Petitioners sought regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused who were similarly situated and had already been granted bail. The petitioners had been in custody for over a year and there was prima facie evidence connecting them to the offense. However, considering the parity principle, the prolonged incarceration without trial, and the bail granted to co-accused, the court granted bail to the petitioners, imposing strict conditions to ensure no tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses [Paras 1-8].

Bail Conditions – Firearms and Influence – The court imposed conditions restricting the possession of firearms by the petitioners to ensure the safety of the victim and society, and to prevent any influence on witnesses. The petitioners were required to surrender all firearms and ammunition and were prohibited from entering the victim’s property until all key witnesses had been examined. These conditions aimed to balance the petitioners' liberty with the need for a fair trial [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Bail granted – The petitioners were released on bail subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the imposed conditions to prevent any potential harm to the victim or society [Paras 9-18].
 

Transfer of Proceedings – Convenience of Wife – Domestic Violence Case – The applicant sought transfer of a domestic violence petition from Amritsar to Hoshiarpur, citing difficulties in attending proceedings due to the distance and her current residence with her parents in Hoshiarpur. The court granted the transfer, considering the principle that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is a significant factor. The fact that related matrimonial proceedings, including a divorce petition, were already transferred to Hoshiarpur further supported the application [Paras 1-4].

Matrimonial Disputes – Transfer of Cases – Multiple Proceedings – The court emphasized that when multiple proceedings between the same parties are pending in different courts, it is desirable to have them consolidated in one court to avoid conflicting judgments. The existence of other related cases in Hoshiarpur, including a Section 125 CrPC petition and an FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, supported the transfer to ensure convenience and consistency [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Application allowed – The domestic violence petition (COMA/262/2021) was transferred from the Family Court in Amritsar to the competent court in Hoshiarpur. The court directed the Family Court in Amritsar to send the case records to the District and Sessions Judge in Hoshiarpur for assignment [Para 4].

Contract Law – Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale – Appeal against trial court’s decree for specific performance – Dispute regarding nature of the agreement (sale vs. mortgage) – Defendant’s claim of mortgage arrangement rejected due to lack of evidence – Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations established – Trial court’s decree for specific performance upheld – The appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the agreement in question was a valid contract of sale, and the plaintiff had substantially fulfilled their obligations under the agreement [Paras 12-40].

Evidence Evaluation – Burden of Proof on Defendant – Defendant failed to produce evidence to substantiate the claim of a mortgage deed instead of a sale agreement – Plaintiff successfully demonstrated the execution of a sale agreement through attestor and scribe testimonies – Defendant’s failure to disprove the plaintiff’s evidence and refusal to examine a crucial witness (defendant’s wife) led to an adverse inference – The appellate court found that the plaintiff's case was supported by credible evidence, while the defendant's allegations were unsubstantiated [Paras 16-23, 39].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment for specific performance was upheld – The court noted that the defendant had accepted 95% of the sale consideration, enjoyed possession of the property, and had no credible basis to claim the transaction was a mortgage rather than a sale – The appellate court emphasized that the contract was fair, free from fraud, and that the plaintiff had consistently shown readiness and willingness to perform the contract [Paras 29-41].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 174-A IPC – The applicants sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC, initiated on the basis of an FIR rather than a written complaint by the court, which issued the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC. The High Court, relying on the settled legal position, held that proceedings under Section 174-A IPC can only be initiated on the basis of a written complaint by the court and not on a police report. The court emphasized that lodging an FIR under Section 174-A IPC contravenes the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC and undermines personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The proceedings against the applicants were quashed [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Application allowed; proceedings pending against the applicants were quashed. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the concerned court forthwith [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Addition of Charges under Section 302 IPC – The petitioner was initially granted bail under Sections 304 and 201 IPC for the death caused by an overdose of intoxicants. Later, Section 302 IPC was added based on medical evidence indicating a head injury. The petitioner was re-arrested. Court noted that out of 26 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined, and the petitioner had already been in custody for nine months. Given that co-accused were granted bail, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the petitioner was granted regular bail [Paras 1-10].

Bail Jurisprudence – Principle of ‘Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception’ – The court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as established in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977), emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence. The court balanced the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration with the fact that no witnesses had been examined and co-accused were on bail [Paras 6-10].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or trial court. The court clarified that the observations made in the order should not influence the merits of the trial.