Bail Application – UAPA – Long Incarceration – Bail Granted – The appellant was accused of harboring co-accused involved in a blast case but was not present at the scene of the crime – The Court noted that no incriminating materials, such as explosives or suspicious financial transactions, were found to link the appellant directly to the crime – Citing the appellant's custody for over two years without significant progress in the trial, the Court granted bail, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial [Paras 5-11].

Custody Duration – Article 21 and Right to Speedy Trial – The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention, especially under stringent laws like UAPA, violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – The Court observed that the trial had made little progress with only 12 of 50 witnesses examined, making further incarceration unjustified [Paras 6-9].

Decision:The appeal was allowed. The appellant was granted bail subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties and compliance with conditions such as surrendering his passport and regular reporting to the police.

Criminal Law – Bail under UAPA – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Granted – The appellant, accused of involvement in a terrorist act and possession of explosives, was in custody for over two years – The Court observed that no substantial evidence beyond the statement of a co-accused was presented to link the appellant to the offences – Held: Given the prolonged custody and lack of material evidence, the appellant was granted bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which safeguards the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial [Paras 5-11].

Delay in Trial – UAPA Cases – Importance of Speedy Trial – The Court reiterated that in cases under UAPA, while stringent bail provisions apply, the right to a speedy trial remains paramount – Prolonged pre-trial detention without significant progress in the case, as only 12 out of 50 prosecution witnesses had been examined, entitled the appellant to bail [Paras 6-9].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail with conditions, including furnishing a bond of Rs. 1 lakh, surrender of passport, and regular reporting to authorities.

Land Acquisition – Illegal Possession – Article 300-A Violation – Compensation Awarded – The petitioner was dispossessed of her land in 1988 for the construction of a road, but no acquisition proceedings or compensation followed – The Court held that the petitioner was illegally deprived of her property in violation of her constitutional rights under Article 300-A – Compensation was awarded for the illegal possession of her land, directing the State to pay Rs.10,000 per month from 1988 until the land is lawfully acquired [Paras 50-55].

Delay in Acquisition – Breach of Due Process – The Court noted that despite multiple orders from the District Court and High Court, the State failed to take any steps for acquisition or return of the land – The prolonged delay of over 36 years in compensating the petitioner was condemned, with the Court emphasizing the importance of protecting property rights under the Constitution [Paras 8-22, 56].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The State was ordered to pay compensation at Rs.10,000 per month from 1988 until the completion of acquisition proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a civil suit for enhancement of compensation.

Civil Procedure – Recall of Ex-Parte Decree – The petitioner sought to recall an ex-parte decree passed by the Sub-Judge under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC – The petitioner argued that the decree was passed without affording him sufficient opportunity to defend his case – The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that judicial orders of civil courts cannot be challenged under Article 226 and are amenable only to the jurisdiction under Article 227 – Writ petition dismissed with direction to convert the petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition [Paras 5-8, 14-18].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 vs Article 227 – The court reiterated that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – The petitioner was directed to file a petition under Article 227 if aggrieved by a judicial order – Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, the court emphasized that Article 227 provides supervisory powers over civil courts, whereas Article 226 cannot be invoked for judicial orders [Paras 9-12, 22-25].

Conversion of Petition – The court granted four weeks' time to the petitioner to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution – Registry was directed to cooperate in ensuring the timely conversion and listing of the case [Paras 19-21, 27].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The court granted the petitioner time to convert the petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227, directing the Registry to prioritize the matter once converted [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Acquittal Upheld – Sections 406, 420, 411, and 120-B IPC – The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused, who were charged with misappropriation of cement bags supplied for government construction work – The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the Appellate Court acquitted them, holding that the prosecution had not established misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court reaffirms that in appeals against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the trial court's findings are illegal or perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-20, 42-44].

Criminal Law – Offences Under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are Antithetical – Conviction Set Aside – Court reiterates that the offences under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) are mutually exclusive – The learned Trial Court's conviction under both sections was erroneous as the necessary mens rea for each is distinct – Appellate Court rightly acquitted the accused, and this was upheld [Paras 24-28, 41].

Appreciation of Evidence – Prosecution's Failure to Prove Misappropriation – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecution failed to establish the misappropriation of cement bags with certainty – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses did not conclusively show the exact dates of delivery and consumption of cement bags – Appellate Court's finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges was reasonable, and no interference was required [Paras 29-32, 44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Appellate Court acquitting the accused is upheld – No order as to costs

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Rape under POCSO Act – The applicant, aged 71 years, sought bail in a case involving gang rape and blackmail of a 12-year-old victim. The victim alleged that the applicant, along with a co-accused, had formed physical relations with her against her consent on multiple occasions, leading to her pregnancy, and blackmailed her with videos – Held: Bail application rejected [Paras 1-5, 18].

Victim’s Statement – Delay in FIR – Political Conspiracy Argument – The applicant argued political conspiracy and delay in filing the FIR, questioning the credibility of the prosecution. However, the court observed that the delay was justified given the victim’s minor age, social pressure, and fear of the accused – Held: Delay not fatal to prosecution, allegations substantial [Paras 7, 10, 14].

POCSO Act – Presumption under Section 29 – The court noted that the POCSO Act places the burden on the accused to prove innocence, given the gravity of the offence. Despite the FSL report confirming the co-accused as the father of the aborted fetus, the court held that this does not exonerate the applicant – Held: Prima facie case against the applicant, bail denied [Paras 15, 18].

Medical Condition and Age of Accused – Not Grounds for Bail – The applicant's age and alleged physical incapacity to commit the crime were rejected as grounds for bail, with the court citing medical jurisprudence that advanced age does not preclude sexual activity – Held: Age no bar to sexual offences [Paras 7, 9].

Service Law - Age Relaxation – Experience as Anganwadi Worker – Validity of Certificates – The respondent, having applied for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female), claimed age relaxation based on her experience as an Anganwadi Worker – Her candidature was rejected by DSSSB on the ground of over-age due to conflicting certificates of experience – The Tribunal held that the certificates were valid, as the respondent had worked for both the Department of Women and Child Development and an NGO simultaneously – Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the rejection of her candidature was arbitrary and directed verification of the certificates [Paras 2-4].

Concurrent Employment – No Conflict in Experience – The Court accepted that the respondent’s employment as an Anganwadi Worker did not preclude her from working part-time with an NGO – This concurrent employment did not invalidate her experience as an Anganwadi Worker for the purpose of age relaxation [Para 6].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Tribunal’s order directing the petitioners to verify the respondent’s Anganwadi Worker certificate and to offer her appointment if found valid was upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [Paras 8-10].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Internal Disputes Between Private Clubs – Article 226 Not Applicable - The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman of the HCA, asserting that the dispute involved inter se issues between private clubs. The Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for disputes concerning private clubs governed by the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. The role of the Ombudsman is akin to that of an arbitrator in such disputes, and recourse must be sought through civil courts [Paras 12-13, 16-18].

Delay and Laches – Petitioner’s Long Silence – Bar to Relief - The Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches, observing that the petitioner had remained silent for nearly 13 years before making a claim in 2024. The Court relied on precedents where a delay in asserting rights led to the dismissal of claims, reinforcing that equity does not favor those who sleep over their rights [Paras 22-23].

Res Judicata – Effect of Previous Orders – No Grounds for Reconsideration - The petitioner’s claim was further weakened by the fact that earlier orders of the Ombudsman (2018) had attained finality, which restrained the petitioner from representing the Nalgonda District Cricket Association. The Ethics Officer and Ombudsman were correct in relying on these unchallenged orders, and the petitioner's attempt to unsettle these established facts was rejected [Paras 21, 29-31].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference with Ombudsman’s Order - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Ombudsman’s decision that recognized the 2nd respondent as the legitimate representative of the Nalgonda District Cricket Association. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims of fraud or violation of procedural fairness [Paras 32-33].
 

Partition Suit – Will and Estoppel – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit seeking partition of the family property, contending that her brothers constructed buildings on the property without her consent – The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had no share in the property as her father had executed a Will in 1997 bequeathing the entire property to her brothers – The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff, having signed the development agreement and received compensation for relinquishing her rights, was estopped from seeking a share in the property [Paras 12-20].

Undated Will – Validity Not Affected – The appellant argued that the Will was undated, casting suspicion on its validity – The Court held that the absence of a date on a Will does not automatically invalidate it, especially when the plaintiff herself admitted the existence of the Will during cross-examination [Paras 17-18].

Suppressing Material Facts – The plaintiff was aware of the Will and development agreement but did not disclose these facts in her plaint – The Court held that this suppression of material facts further weakened her case for partition [Paras 13-16].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court's judgment was upheld, confirming that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights over the suit property.