Criminal Law – Human Trafficking – Cybercrime – Job fraud involving trafficking of Indian citizens to Myanmar where they were held as cyber slaves – Applicants allegedly acted as intermediaries facilitating communication between job seekers and foreign agents in return for commission – Held: Applicants were minor players, unaware of the full consequences – Bail granted post chargesheet [Paras 6(i)–6(vi), 7]

Bail – Successive Bail Application – Post-Chargesheet – Section 483 BNSS – Factors considered – Applicants allegedly acted in good faith without knowledge of the trafficking consequences – Received limited commission – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: Continued detention post-chargesheet would amount to pre-trial punishment – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 6(vii), 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Sanjay Chandra v. CBI applied – Bail not to be denied as punitive measure where trial is likely to take time and accused’s role is limited – Observations in bail order not to influence trial on merits [Paras 6(vii), 11]

Decision: Applications allowed – Applicants to be released on bail on furnishing bond of ₹50,000/- each with one surety of like amount – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial – Rule made absolute [Paras 8–12]

Parole – Indigent Prisoner – Surety Bond – Repeated Mechanical Imposition – Waiver Directed – Life convict granted fourth periodical parole of 40 days – District Parole Advisory Committee imposed condition of furnishing two sureties of ₹25,000 each despite petitioner’s proven indigence and despite three prior orders of High Court waiving such condition – Held: Insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner renders sanctioned parole illusory and amounts to constructive denial of parole – Condition arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21].

Prison Jurisprudence – Parole as Reformative and Humanitarian Measure – Not Executive Largesse – Parole intended to preserve family ties and aid reintegration – Conditions must conform to Articles 14 and 21 – Poverty cannot be a disqualifying factor for availing parole [Paras 8–9, 19].

Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 – Rule 4 & Rule 8 – Nature of Power to Impose Conditions – Directory and Discretionary – Rule does not mandate furnishing of sureties in every case – Prisoner can be released on personal bond alone where circumstances so warrant [Paras 10–12].

Surety Requirement – Purpose – Means Not End – Furnishing surety is only to secure surrender after parole – Where indigence is established and undisputed, insistence on surety becomes oppressive and exclusionary – Such approach violates equality and dignity of prisoner [Paras 11–12, 15].

Fundamental Rights of Prisoners – Articles 14 & 21 – Prisoners Remain Rights-Bearing Individuals – Economic incapacity cannot justify hostile discrimination – Mechanical insistence on sureties from poor prisoners impermissible – Reliance on Sunil Batra, Moti Ram and Mohinder Singh [Paras 15, 17–19].

Precedent – Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat (FB) – Poverty Is No Crime – Authority obliged to release prisoner on personal bond when plea of poverty is not rebutted – Discretion must be exercised to advance constitutional protection, not undermine it [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Apathy – Repeated Defiance of Judicial Orders – Despite three earlier High Court orders waiving surety, authorities again imposed identical condition – Held: Reflects disturbing institutional apathy to rule of law – Judicial correction warranted [Paras 2, 15].

Guidelines Issued – Parole Authorities – Uniform and Humane Exercise of Discretion – High Court framed binding guidelines regarding imposition/waiver of surety bonds, recording of indigence, effect of prior waivers, proportionality of bond amount, and coordination with Legal Services Authority – Directions to be followed in all future cases [Paras 22–23].

Relief – Modification of Parole Order – Condition of furnishing sureties waived – Petitioner directed to be released on parole on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 only – Writ petition allowed [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Condition of furnishing two sureties set aside – Parole to be availed on personal bond alone – Guidelines issued for future compliance by authorities.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Conviction under Section 304B IPC – Dismissal of Appeals – Deceased married in July 1991 and found hanging in matrimonial home on 28.09.1995 – Trial Court convicted husband and parents-in-law for dowry death – High Court upheld conviction holding that all statutory ingredients of Section 304B IPC were satisfied – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 72–73].

Section 304B IPC – Essential Ingredients – Proof – Death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage – Evidence established persistent dowry demand of scooter, Rs.50,000/- and photocopy machine – Prior criminal case under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act lodged by deceased corroborated cruelty – Statutory requirements fulfilled [Paras 36, 48–55].

“Soon Before Death” – Meaning and Application – Proximate Link – Compromise in earlier dowry case signed by deceased on 16.08.1995 – Acquittal based on compromise on 28.09.1995 – Death occurred on same day – Held: Proximate and live link between dowry-related cruelty and death clearly established – Requirement of “soon before” satisfied [Paras 54–55].

Evidence – Letters Written by Deceased – Corroborative Value – Inland letters and envelopes proved and exhibited – Letters disclosed apprehension of death, dowry demand and physical torture – Documentary evidence corroborated oral testimony of parents – Held reliable and admissible [Paras 52–53].

Nature of Death – Suicide or Otherwise – Irrelevant for Section 304B – Medical evidence indicated death due to hanging – Even assuming suicide, death was “otherwise than under normal circumstances” – As per settled law, suicide also falls within ambit of Section 304B IPC – Defence plea rejected [Paras 60–66].

Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act – Mandatory Presumption – Once prosecution proved dowry-related cruelty soon before death, statutory presumption of dowry death arose – Accused failed to rebut presumption by cogent evidence – Burden not discharged [Paras 44–45, 68–70].

Conduct of Accused – Suspicious Circumstances – Evidence showed room door not fully bolted – Husband indicated which door could be opened – Conduct of accused inconsistent with theory of suicide – Strengthened prosecution case [Paras 57–64].

Sentence – No Interference – Husband sentenced to life imprisonment and parents-in-law to seven years’ RI – Sentence held proportionate and in accordance with law – Suspension of sentence vacated – Appellants directed to surrender [Paras 72–74].

Decision: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.22 of 1998 (R) and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.23 of 1998 (R) dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC affirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Appellants directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Criminal Law – Murder and Theft – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence – No eyewitnesses to the occurrence – “Last seen” theory not proved as material witnesses (P.Ws.6 to 16) turned hostile – Held: In absence of complete chain of circumstances, conviction under Sections 302 and 379 IPC unsustainable [Paras 16, 18, 20].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Stolen Property – Sole Incriminating Circumstance – Recovery of 20 goats from house of A2 nearly three months after incident – No other corroborative evidence connecting accused with murder – Held: Conviction for murder and theft cannot be based solely on recovery effected after considerable delay [Paras 10-12, 18-20].

Evidence – Presumption from Recovery – Limits – Reliance on recovery of movable property – Goats allegedly retained for three months without disposal – Conduct found unnatural and improbable – Distinguished Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. where recovery of jewellery was involved – Held: Presumption insufficient to establish guilt for offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Majority of prosecution witnesses examined to prove circumstantial links turned hostile – Prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen theory or nexus between accused and crime – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 11, 16, 20].

Offence under Section 411 IPC – Receiving Stolen Property – Partial Conviction Sustained – Recovery of stolen goats from possession of A2 proved through evidence of P.Ws.20 and 24 – Test Identification Parade of goats conducted and not challenged in cross-examination – Held: Conviction of A2 under Section 411 IPC justified and confirmed [Paras 17, 21].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal Nos.1807, 1953 and 2683 of 2018 allowed – Convictions and sentences of Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Sections 302 and 379 read with 34 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2021 partly allowed – Convictions of Accused No.2 under Sections 302 and 379 read with 34 IPC set aside – Acquittal recorded for those offences – Conviction and sentence under Section 411 IPC confirmed – Accused No.2 directed to be released, having already undergone sentence.

Land Acquisition – Lapse under Section 11-A – Delay in Award – No Lapse If Delay Caused by Court Stay – Petitioner claimed acquisition lapsed as award under Section 11 was made more than 11 years after Section 6 declaration – Held: Delay was due to stay orders obtained by adjacent landowners – Exclusion of stay period justified award being within 2-year limitation – Acquisition not deemed lapsed [Paras 13–18, 20]

Subsequent Purchaser – Lack of Locus to Challenge Acquisition – Petitioner acquired property via settlement deed in 2012, long after Section 4 notification (1989), Section 6 declaration (1990), and award (2001) – Court held that petitioner, as subsequent purchaser, could not question validity of completed acquisition [Paras 14–15, 20]

Revenue Records – Patta Mutation – Not Binding on Title – Petitioner relied on patta in her name to assert ownership – Held: Patta mutation behind petitioner’s back had been remitted for reconsideration – But ownership claim could not override completed acquisition process [Para 19]

Common Acquisition Notification – Stay in One Case Binds Others – Relying on Abhey Ram, Om Prakash, and other Supreme Court decisions – Held: Interim stay obtained by some landowners under a common acquisition notification binds authorities from proceeding further, even against other landowners who did not obtain stay – Authorities justified in not passing award during such period [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No lapse of acquisition proceedings – Petitioner, as post-acquisition title holder, cannot claim title against Housing Board – No costs – Connected writ miscellaneous petitions also closed [Paras 20–21]

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Court empowered to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Proceedings against petitioner examined at threshold [Paras 1–3, 10–11].

Section 498A IPC – Scope of “Relative of Husband” – Neighbour or Stranger – Petitioner alleged to be neighbour of complainant’s matrimonial home – No blood relation or relation by marriage – Neighbours do not fall within ambit of “relative” under Section 498A – Penal provision to be construed strictly [Paras 8–10].

Matrimonial Disputes – Roping in Third Parties – Allegation of Instigation Alone Insufficient – Mere allegation that neighbour instigated husband does not attract offence under Section 498A IPC – No specific overt acts constituting cruelty alleged against petitioner [Paras 4, 8].

Charge Sheet – Scrutiny of Allegations – Name of Petitioner Absent from Core Allegations – Charge sheet and complaint do not disclose prima facie case against petitioner – Continuation of proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal process [Paras 8–10].

Precedent – Binding Supreme Court Law – Ramesh Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand – Neighbours cannot be implicated under Section 498A IPC – Reliance placed on Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi and U. Suvetha v. State – Strict interpretation of “relative” reiterated [Para 9].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Criminal Petition Allowed – Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 32092/2021 quashed qua petitioner – Observations confined only to petitioner and not to influence trial against other accused [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law – Withdrawal of Suit – Plaintiff’s Right to Abandon – Dominus Litis – Plaintiffs, having settled with Defendant No. 5, sought to abandon the suit against him and delete Plot No. 73 from the suit – Trial Court rejected the application citing pendency of counter-claim by other defendants – Held: Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiffs have absolute right to unconditionally withdraw suit or part thereof – Court cannot compel plaintiff to continue suit – Rejection of amendment to delete co-defendant and suit plot unsustainable [Paras 14–21, 41].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Maintainability Against Co-Defendant – Abuse of Process – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sought to raise a counter-claim against Defendant No. 5 to recover Rs.1.61 crores under a 2008 agreement – Added declaratory relief against plaintiffs to sustain counter-claim – Held: Under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim must be against plaintiff – Mere inclusion of a relief against plaintiff is insufficient if it is a subterfuge to target a co-defendant – Counter-claim primarily against D5 not maintainable [Paras 25–40].

Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment to Written Statement with Counter-Claim – Liberal Standards Do Not Apply Where Claim Is Legally Impermissible – Trial Court erred in allowing amendment when main intent was to set up a legally barred counter-claim against co-defendant – Liberal standard for amendment of written statement cannot justify permitting unlawful claims [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Common order of Trial Court set aside – Amendment of plaint to delete Defendant No. 5 and suit plot allowed – Amendment of written statement and counter-claim by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 rejected – Rule made absolute [Para 42].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a housing redevelopment project – Petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, misrepresented ownership and control over two flats and induced complainant to invest Rs.1.91 crores – Despite MoUs and arbitral proceedings, FIR disclosed cognizable offences – Custodial interrogation held necessary in light of allegations of forged representations and financial misappropriation – Bail applications dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 7, 20-24]

Cheating – Misrepresentation of Ownership – Petitioners claimed to represent 11 flats before Arbitrator, though they owned only 9 – Two flats allegedly belonged to complainant, who was not party to arbitral proceedings – Petitioners knew complainant paid Rs.1.91 crores, but falsely recorded Rs. 40 lakhs – Allegations of deliberate misrepresentation found plausible at this stage [Paras 6, 15, 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Economic Offences – Supreme Court rulings relied upon to highlight seriousness of economic offences – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioners necessary to trace money trail and examine alleged conspiracy – Protection under anticipatory bail would obstruct further investigation [Paras 22-23]

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Petitioners argued dispute was civil and settlements were executed – Court held such documents do not negate FIR allegations at this stage – Matter involves serious allegations of inducement, fraud, and misuse of investor funds – Civil proceedings do not preclude parallel criminal liability [Paras 10-11, 21]

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Custodial interrogation held necessary in view of serious economic offences and prima facie material suggesting conspiracy, misrepresentation, and financial misappropriation – Observations in judgment confined to bail issue only [Paras 24-26]

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 17B – Payment of Wages During Pendency of Writ – Respondent workman terminated in 2002 – Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages – Writ petition filed by employer, stay granted in 2007 – Workman filed application under Section 17B in 2018, claiming unemployment – Employer failed to rebut affidavit denying gainful employment – Held: Workman entitled to last drawn or minimum wages from date of application (07.05.2018) till date of superannuation in 2023 [Paras 1-3, 10-11, 15-19]

Delay – Effect on 17B Relief – Delay of 12 years in filing 17B application explained as due to financial hardship – Court declined retrospective relief but allowed limited relief from date of application till superannuation – No bar on relief under 17B merely on account of delay where unemployment established and not rebutted [Paras 5, 10, 18-19]

Employer's Burden – Rebutting Affidavit of Unemployment – Once workman filed affidavit of unemployment, burden shifted to employer to prove gainful employment – Mere assertions insufficient – No proof adduced by employer – Held: Workman entitled to protection under Section 17B [Paras 12-14, 16]

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 17B – Court must grant interim relief where statutory conditions are satisfied – Merits of main case not relevant at interim stage – Minimum wages can be awarded in place of last drawn wages in appropriate cases [Paras 17-18]

Decision: Application under Section 17B allowed in part – Respondent entitled to last drawn or minimum wages (whichever is higher) from 07.05.2018 till deemed superannuation in 2023 – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Monthly payment to continue till 2023 as per direction – Writ petition to remain pending [Paras 19-21]