Bail – Rape – POCSO Act - DNA Report – Admissibility at Bail Stage – Interim Assessment - DNA evidence considered as opinion evidence which requires proof in trial – Delay in analysis and questions regarding sample collection and testing procedures raised doubt – Held: DNA report cannot be treated as conclusive proof at bail stage and bail granted considering long incarceration [Paras 7.1, 7.3, 18-25].

Presumption under POCSO Act – Section 29 – Scope and Limitation – Presumption under Section 29 not absolute and comes into play only upon foundational facts being established – Prima facie inconsistencies in prosecutrix’s version noted, undermining foundation for presumption – Held: Bail granted, presumption under Section 29 not mechanically applicable [Paras 15-17].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Effect – FIR lodged after significant delay – Court recognized that delay alone not fatal in sexual assault cases involving minors – However, discrepancy in facts and circumstances undermined credibility of prosecution’s case at bail stage [Paras 10-11, 14].

Long Incarceration – Pending Trial – Relevance – Applicant incarcerated for over 2 years and 8 months with no certainty of trial commencement – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention considered a valid ground for grant of bail [Paras 12-13, 25].

Decision – Bail Granted – Court directed release of Applicant on bail with conditions to ensure non-tampering of evidence and non-contact with victim – Observations made limited to bail and shall not affect trial merits [Paras 26-29].

Railway Accident Claims – Burden to Prove Bona Fide Travel – Claim Rejected – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant claimed compensation for death of his son allegedly caused by falling from Train No. 12506 (North East Express) near Banhai Station – Tribunal found no eyewitnesses or evidence of ticket purchase or boarding – Held: Without proof of bona fide travel or untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) read with 124-A of Railways Act, no liability of compensation arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 7–12].

Railway Accidents – Death on Track Not Presumed to Be Fall From Train – Mutilated Body Found in Middle of Track – Presumption of Being Run Over - Body found severely mutilated in middle of track 6 hours after train passed – Tribunal and Court relied on physical evidence and precedent to infer that such condition unlikely from accidental fall from moving train – Held: Death more consistent with run-over or suicide attempt; not covered under ‘untoward incident’ [Paras 7, 11].

Evidence – Hearsay and Non-Eyewitness Testimony – No Presumption in Absence of Ticket or Witnesses - Testimony by deceased’s father was based on hearsay and contradicted by police record – No journey ticket recovered – Held: Mere averment of travel insufficient to establish right to compensation under Railway Claims framework [Paras 9–12].

*Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Tribunal’s Findings Upheld – No Compensation Payable - Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision finding no credible evidence of bona fide travel or untoward incident – Accordingly, appellant not entitled to any compensation – Appeal dismissed in entirety [Para 12].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Domain Name Dispute – Criminal Charges Quashed – Civil Dispute Mischaracterized – The petitioner was accused of impersonating the Chancellor of Alliance University and fraudulently attempting to take control of the university’s domain name – Held: Allegations arise from civil dispute over institutional control post-termination – Even if accepted at face value, do not disclose ingredients of forgery or cybercrime – Proceedings quashed [Paras 3–11, 27].

Cyber Offences – Section 66, 66D of IT Act – No Mens Rea or Unauthorized Access – Petitioner operated domain email claiming status as Chancellor, which he asserted under Section 15(2) of Alliance University Act – Held: No dishonest or fraudulent intention established – Use of email to claim disputed position does not constitute cybercrime under Sections 66 or 66D IT Act [Paras 9–10].

Forgery – Sections 465 and 468 IPC – No Falsification Proven – Court examined definition and precedents on “forgery” and “false documents” – Held: Mere assertion of status or domain management without proving false intent or fabrication does not meet threshold – Proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 10–12].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Civil Dispute Converted into Crime – High Court Criticizes Vexatious Prosecution – Referring to SC judgments in Mahmood Ali, Deepak Gaba, and Randheer Singh, held that criminal law cannot be weaponized for private vendetta or ongoing institutional rivalry – Allegations lacked prima facie criminality [Paras 11–12, 27].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance in C.C. No. 3218/2021 set aside – Petition allowed under Section 482 CrPC [Para 27].
 

NDPS Act – Bail and Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration Overrides Section 37 – Held: All petitioners except two had been in custody for nearly two years with trial not yet commenced—Court held that prolonged detention violated their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21—Bail granted subject to conditions – However, bail denied to petitioners Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta due to stronger material evidence and greater recovered quantities [Paras 91–103, 124–151].

Evidence and Recovery – Role of Individual Petitioners – Varies Across Accused – Petitioners had differing degrees of involvement—Some linked by parcel addressee name only, others by digital evidence, confession, or contraband recovery – NCB relied on voluntary statements, chats, and forensic data – Bail granted where evidence lacked direct attribution or corroboration [Paras 6–19, 27–29, 76–84, 123–124].

Controlled Delivery – Non-Compliance Not Fatal to Bail – Held: Controlled delivery procedure under Section 50A NDPS is directory and non-mandatory—Failure to undertake the same does not vitiate proceedings, but may affect credibility of prosecution’s case in certain instances [Paras 23, 85, 128].

Procedural Lapses – Irregularities in Seizure, Sampling and Certification – Petitioners cited delay in certification under Section 52A NDPS, improper packaging, sample handling and record-keeping—Court observed such procedural errors need to be tested during trial but factored in overall while granting bail [Paras 63–69, 65–66, 68–69].

Commercial Quantity – Differentiated Treatment Based on Quantity – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian (500 LSD blots) and Yash Gupta (prior similar parcel and digital recovery) – Held: Gravity of offence based on quantity and individual role justified continued detention in their cases [Paras 124–128, 144–151].

Decision – Bail Allowed for Five Petitioners – Petitions of Vaibhav Yadav, Arnav Dhankar, Pritesh Aggarwal, Nishant Rawat, and Avtar Singh allowed – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta – Petitioners directed to furnish sureties and comply with strict conditions [Paras 101–103, 124, 151].

Civil Law - Lok Adalat – Award Finality and Bar on Civil Court Challenge – Challenge Not Maintainable – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or miscellaneous application to set aside a Lok Adalat award, even on grounds of fraud – Only remedy is a writ under Articles 226/227 of Constitution – Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC held not tenable [Paras 18–23].

Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – Treated as Civil Court Decree – Lok Adalat award based on Compromise Memo signed by parties and accepted by Presiding Officer – Award deemed final and executable as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act – Findings of due procedure and party consent upheld [Paras 14–17].

No Exception for Fraud Allegations – Supreme Court Precedents Binding – Citing State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh and Bhargavi Constructions, Court held even fraud claims must be raised in writ jurisdiction, not through separate suit or civil application – Procedural route used does not affect jurisdictional bar [Paras 18–22].

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Inapplicability to Lok Adalat Awards – Provisions applicable to consent decrees from court proceedings—not to statutory Lok Adalat awards – Attempt to indirectly challenge award under Rule 3 CPC rejected as contrary to Supreme Court rulings [Para 24].

Final Decision – Civil Judge’s Order Set Aside – Miscellaneous Civil Application Rejected – High Court allowed revision and quashed the impugned order – MCA No. 87 of 2021 declared not maintainable [Paras 25–26].

Election Law - Corrupt Practice – Election Manifesto Promises – Not Attributable to Candidate – Petition Rejected - Allegations of corrupt practices arising from the 'five guarantees' made in the INC's election manifesto were held insufficient to constitute corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act – The Court relied on S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and clarified that such promises are considered declarations of public policy and not acts of individual candidates – It was held that mere association with the manifesto or affixing a signature as a CLP leader does not establish personal liability or intent – Petition rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for lack of cause of action [Paras 10-19].

Lack of Material Facts – Pleadings Defective – No Specific Allegation – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition lacked material facts necessary to support allegations under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – No details provided showing how the alleged conduct materially affected the result – Bald assertions and absence of particulars were deemed fatal – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) confirmed [Paras 23-28].

Non-disclosure of Expenditure – Allegation Against Party, Not Candidate – Rejected - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of expenditure for manifesto distribution – Held: Promises and related expenses pertained to the political party, not the individual candidate – Hence, no duty of disclosure by the respondent under the R.P. Act [Paras 29-31].

Pleadings After Limitation Period – Rejoinder Cannot Cure Deficiency – Ignored - Petitioner’s attempt to supplement material facts through rejoinder was rejected – Court reiterated that material facts must be present in the original petition filed within limitation – Reference made to Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi [Para 34-35].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Balaji Decision Applicable – Petition Dismissed - The Court emphasized that until overruled, decisions of the Supreme Court such as S. Subramaniam Balaji are binding – Pending review or reference to larger Bench does not dilute binding nature – High Courts must follow settled precedent [Paras 36-38].

Casual Drafting – Lack of Diligence – Grounds Unsubstantiated – Election Petition Rejected - The Court noted careless drafting, factual inaccuracies, and copy-paste pleadings from other petitions – Such defects, combined with legal insufficiencies, led to rejection of the petition in limine [Paras 41-42].

Final Decision – I.A. No. 1/2023 Allowed – Election Petition Rejected - The application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC was allowed – Entire election petition rejected for lack of cause of action and non-compliance with legal requirements [Paras 43-44].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Clause – Unilateral Termination Option – Clause Upheld – Appointment Directed - Clause allowing only the lender (Applicant) to opt out of arbitration upon becoming a SARFAESI beneficiary was challenged – Delhi High Court's Tata Capital ruling was distinguished as context-specific and not binding in Section 11 proceedings – Held: Existence of arbitration agreement was evident and valid; unilateral opt-out clause not fatal at this stage – Arbitrator appointed [Paras 3-17].

Scope of Section 11 – Limited Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement Sufficient – Court Not to Assess Validity - Applying precedents including Interplay Judgment (2024) and SBI General Insurance, the Court reiterated that under Section 11(6A), the judicial review is limited to existence, not validity of arbitration clause – Substantive objections must be raised under Section 16 before the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 18-19].

SARFAESI Proceedings – Not a Bar to Arbitration – Parallel Remedies Permissible - Applicant’s initiation of SARFAESI proceedings does not preclude arbitration – Relying on M.D. Frozen Foods v. Hero Fincorp, dual remedies permissible; arbitration agreement remains intact [Para 19].

Previous Arbitration Lapsed – Fresh Arbitration Not Barred – Unilateral Appointment Void – The Court held that prior arbitration, initiated through a unilaterally appointed arbitrator, had lapsed – Such proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of neutrality – Applicant’s fresh invocation of arbitration allowed under Section 11 [Paras 20-21].

Final Order – Arbitrator Appointed – Objections to Be Raised Before Tribunal - Sole Arbitrator appointed; respondents may raise jurisdictional and substantive issues before the tribunal under Section 16 – No stay granted as Respondents’ interests are protected by arbitral safeguards [Paras 21-24].
 

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor – Section 354B IPC and Section 10 POCSO – Conviction Upheld – Based on consistent testimony of the victim and her immediate disclosures to two neighbors, supported by FIR and medical evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction – Appellant’s act of disrobing the 7-year-old victim after luring her into his room established assault with sexual intent [Paras 1–12].

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Allegation Disbelieved – Section 376AB Charge Not Made Out – Although the victim later alleged penetrative assault, her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and neighbors' accounts did not corroborate this – Doctor's finding of ruptured hymen without accompanying injuries led the court to reject rape charge [Paras 5–6, 12].

Medical and Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies Not Material – Court held minor contradictions and absence of medical injuries did not undermine consistent core accusation of sexual assault – Trial court rightly excluded exaggerated claims and focused on credible portion of testimony [Paras 6–8].

Admissibility of Magistrate Statements – Not Prejudicial – High Court rejected challenge that non-examination of Magistrate who recorded Section 164 CrPC statements prejudiced defence – Held: Such statements admissible under Section 80 Evidence Act; Appellant had opportunity to summon magistrate but didn’t [Para 13].

Age of Victim – Proven Through Birth Certificate – Challenge to age dismissed as birth certificate was on record and marked as exhibit without contrary evidence from Appellant [Para 13].

Presumption Under POCSO – Not Rebutted – Section 29 of POCSO invoked to affirm guilt – Appellant failed to rebut presumption or prove any ulterior motive such as property dispute – Contradictions deemed immaterial [Para 14].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – CRA (SB) No. 72 of 2023 Dismissed – Judgment of trial court upheld in entirety, with no interference warranted [Paras 15–16].
 

Tenancy Law - Lease and Eviction – Expired Lease Period – Tenant Liable for Eviction – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld concurrent findings that the appellant was a tenant under a registered lease deed from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2008 – Quit notice issued and tenancy not renewed – Appellant held unauthorized occupant thereafter – Eviction decree affirmed [Paras 1–4, 16–21, 26].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Disputed facts already decided by two courts below based on evidence – Law clarified that factual conclusions not open to re-evaluation in second appeal [Paras 13–15, 26].

Oral Assurances and Construction Investment – No Proof – Tenant’s Claims Rejected – Allegations that landlord permitted continued occupation or rent waiver in lieu of construction by tenant were rejected due to lack of evidence – No documents or credible proof produced by appellant – Oral promises deemed vague and unenforceable [Paras 18–20].

Pendente Lite Transfers – Section 52 TPA – Purchasers Added as Respondents – During pendency of suit, plaintiffs sold property to respondents 7–10 – Purchasers validly impleaded under Section 52 as pendente lite transferees – Entitled to take possession on success of suit [Paras 25, 28].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Possession to Be Delivered – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant directed to hand over possession within three months to respondents 7–10 or face legal enforcement [Paras 28–29].