Bail Application – Criminal Antecedents – Grant of Bail Despite Previous Offenses – The petitioner, the fourth accused in a case involving murder and other serious offenses, sought bail, arguing that he has been in judicial custody for over a year and that all other accused have been granted bail – The Court noted that despite the petitioner's criminal antecedents, he has been acquitted in one of the prior cases and that the remaining crimes involve bailable offenses – Held: The mere existence of criminal antecedents is not sufficient to deny bail, particularly when the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 7, 12].

Judicial Custody – Long Period of Incarceration – Bail as the Rule – The petitioner had been in judicial custody for 326 days, and the investigation was complete – The Court, relying on precedents, emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and pre-conviction incarceration should not be used as punishment – The presumption of innocence must be maintained until proven guilty – The petitioner was released on bail subject to compliance with strict conditions [Paras 8-9, 12].

Presumption of Innocence – Relevance in Bail Decisions – Referring to Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence, and courts should not deny bail as a form of punishment – The fact that the petitioner has been in custody for an extended period without trial commencing justified the granting of bail [Paras 8-9].

Decision: The Court allowed the bail application, granting the petitioner bail on the grounds that he had been in custody for over 326 days, the investigation had been completed, and the charge sheet had been filed. The Court also noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in a prior case and that the other crimes he was charged with were bailable. Following established judicial precedents, the Court held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including weekly reporting to the police, a prohibition on tampering with evidence, and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction [Paras 12-13].
 

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Anticipatory Bail – Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(k), 354(A), 354(B), 354(C), 506 IPC and Section 66E of the IT Act – Petitioner accused of repeated sexual assault on a maid working at his house – Alleged crimes include sexual advances, assault, recording without consent, and threats – Sessions court rejected anticipatory bail, and the High Court upheld the decision, citing prima facie evidence and risk of absconding [Paras 1, 11, 16].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Explanation and Legal Precedents – Petitioner argued that the complaint filed in May 2024 for incidents occurring in 2021-2022 is delayed, rendering it unreliable – Defense referred to precedents where delay in sexual assault complaints led to acquittals – However, the court found the delay explained, as the victim feared societal stigma and her daughter's marriage prospects, and rejected the argument based on prior case law [Paras 5, 9, 14].

Prima Facie Case – Forensic Evidence and Video Recordings – The charge sheet included Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports confirming that videos of the alleged incidents had not been tampered with – Both the petitioner's and victim's voices were matched in the recordings – The court held that the evidence satisfied the ingredients of offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 376(2)(k) (dominance), 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (intent to disrobe), and 354C (voyeurism) IPC [Paras 9, 10].

Risk of Absconding and Witness Tampering – Petitioner stayed in Germany for 35 days, avoiding investigation – Court expressed concern over flight risk and potential threats to witnesses if released – Based on the petitioner’s prior attempts to block circulation of incriminating videos, the court concluded that the petitioner had the propensity to repeat the offense and influence witnesses [Paras 6, 11, 15].

Court's Discretion in Denying Bail – The High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s guidelines for bail in serious offenses, including the gravity of the accusations, severity of punishment, and risk of flight – Citing Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, the court held that the petitioner’s influence and prior conduct made him ineligible for anticipatory bail [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the strong prima facie evidence, and the potential risks associated with releasing the petitioner on bail – Observations made for the purpose of bail will not influence pending proceedings [Paras 15, 16].
 

Service Law – Appointment Denial – Petitioner selected for the post of Fireman, but denied appointment based on alleged suppression of criminal involvement in his application – FIR was registered against the petitioner after submission of the application – Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case due to lack of evidence – Held: There was no suppression of material facts as the FIR and arrest occurred after the application was submitted – Denial of appointment was based on erroneous appreciation of facts and improper application of law – Impugned order quashed [Paras 8.14-8.20].

Criminal Case and Acquittal – Clean Acquittal – Petitioner acquitted due to prosecution’s failure to prove the charges, with key witnesses turning hostile – Court held that the clean acquittal required the appointing authority to objectively reconsider the petitioner’s suitability for the post – Employer’s focus on alleged suppression of facts in the application form was misplaced as the petitioner disclosed the information in the verification roll prior to appointment [Paras 9.8-9.20].

Judicial Review – Quashing of Administrative Orders – The Court held that the Director General of Police had failed to apply judicious discretion when rejecting the petitioner’s appointment – The Court set aside the rejection and directed the authority to reconsider the petitioner's application based on facts and law [Paras 9.1-9.20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2020 quashed – Director General of Police to reconsider the petitioner’s representation and issue a fresh decision within eight weeks.

Domestic Violence – Right of Residence – Shared Household – The petitioner, who married the second respondent, claimed her right to reside in the shared household under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Magistrate’s earlier order protecting her right to stay in the shared household was recalled on the grounds that the property was owned by her father-in-law, respondent No. 3 – Held: The property, though owned by the father-in-law, was a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act since the petitioner resided there after marriage – However, the petitioner does not have an absolute right to continue residing there – The Court balanced her right by directing the husband to provide alternate accommodation [Paras 19-22].

Civil Suit for Possession – Right to Evict Under Law – Balance of Interests – The respondents, including the father-in-law, had filed a civil suit for possession of the shared household – Held: The filing of a civil suit is in accordance with law, and Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act allows eviction, provided alternate accommodation is arranged for the petitioner – The Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the petitioner and the father-in-law’s right to peaceful living [Paras 20, 23].

Income of Petitioner – Recall of Maintenance Order – The petitioner’s interim maintenance was recalled after it was revealed that she was employed and earning Rs. 40,000 per month – Held: The recall of the maintenance order is justified given her financial independence [Para 16].

Judicial Precedents – Shared Household and Eviction – The petitioner relied on earlier cases such as Hiral P. Harsora and Sarika Mahendra Sureka, but the Court found that the precedents applied only to certain facts – In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, the Supreme Court held that while the daughter-in-law has a right to residence, she may be evicted from the shared household following due process of law [Paras 9, 11, 20].

Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s right to reside in the shared household is not absolute. The father-in-law, as the owner of the property, has a right to seek possession through legal means. The learned Magistrate’s order, directing the husband to provide alternate accommodation, was upheld as a reasonable balance between the parties’ rights. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction Quashed – The applicant, a bus driver, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC for causing the death of a pedestrian in a road accident – He was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs.1,000 – Held: The conviction was not sustainable as there was no evidence of rash or negligent driving – The testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW-1) did not indicate that the applicant was driving at high speed or negligently – The absence of brake marks, and no testimony suggesting signal-breaking or emergency braking further weakened the prosecution's case – Conviction set aside, and applicant acquitted [Paras 10-17].

Contributory Negligence – Criminal Jurisprudence – Applicability – The Court noted that the principle of contributory negligence, though typically a civil law doctrine, may apply in criminal cases involving road accidents – The deceased's possible negligence in attempting to cross the road at the time of the accident could not be ruled out – Both lower courts failed to consider the aspect of contributory negligence [Paras 12-16].

Revision Jurisdiction – Powers of the Court – The Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, emphasized its duty to correct procedural errors or miscarriages of justice – It held that the judgments of the lower courts were not based on a proper appreciation of evidence and that the applicant’s conviction was unwarranted [Paras 9, 17].

Decision – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was quashed – The applicant was acquitted, and bail bonds discharged – If the applicant was suspended or dismissed from service, he was to be reinstated with full back wages, or if retired, his retirement benefits were to be disbursed [Paras 17-19].

Contempt of Court – Alleged Violation of Court Orders – Demolition of Structures – The 1st respondent filed a contempt petition alleging that the appellants violated a court order by demolishing structures on his land without following due process – The learned Single Judge convicted the appellants under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, directing imprisonment and fines – Held: The conviction was based solely on the respondent's affidavit and lacked corroborating evidence – The appellants denied involvement in the demolition, and the court found that the burden of proof was not discharged by the respondent – In contempt proceedings, where penal consequences are involved, the evidence must be sufficient to support the conviction, which was absent in this case [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Contempt – Burden of Proof – The court emphasized that in criminal contempt proceedings, the burden of proving the allegations lies with the party alleging contempt – Without substantial evidence, it is unsafe to convict individuals of contempt charges, especially where the allegations are denied and not substantiated beyond the respondent’s affidavit [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The conviction and sentencing order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2024 is set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of contempt charges [Para 16].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance with Section 52A – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were convicted under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act for possessing and trafficking Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires the presence of a Magistrate during the inventory, sampling, and certification process of seized contraband. Since the samples were drawn and seized without the Magistrate's supervision, the trial was held to be vitiated – Held: Conviction set aside, appellants acquitted [Paras 12-16].

Search and Seizure – Lack of Independent Witnesses – Prosecution Case Doubtful – The search and seizure operation was conducted by the police without ensuring the presence of independent witnesses, as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The entire operation relied solely on police witnesses, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case, particularly given the absence of any justification for not securing independent witnesses – Held: Non-compliance with procedural safeguards further weakens the prosecution's case [Paras 7-8, 17-18].

Delay in Sending Samples to FSL – Tampering Suspected – The Court noted that the samples of the contraband were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) with significant delay, violating the guidelines that require dispatch within 72 hours of seizure. The delay in sending the samples created a strong suspicion of tampering, further undermining the reliability of the prosecution's evidence – Held: Delay in sending samples raises doubts about the integrity of the contraband [Para 20].

Violation of Legal Safeguards – Trial Vitiated – The prosecution failed to ensure compliance with key provisions under the NDPS Act, such as Section 52A, and procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The failure to follow these safeguards undermined the fairness of the trial – Held: Trial vitiated due to procedural lapses; conviction quashed [Paras 19-20].

Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants, having already served 4.5 years in jail, were ordered to be released immediately on the execution of bonds [Paras 21-22].
 

Civil Procedure – Grant of Leave Under Section 92 CPC – Judicial or Administrative Order – The petitioners challenged the grant of leave by the Principal District Judge for filing a suit under Section 92 of CPC, arguing that the respondents failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the trust – Held: The court examined the nature of orders under Section 92 CPC and held that such orders are judicial, not administrative, as they affect substantive rights – Consequently, such orders are subject to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC or Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 2-5, 15].

Necessary Parties – Failure to Implead the Trust – The petitioners argued that the suit was defective as the Madha Trust, the subject of the litigation, had not been made a party – Held: The failure to implead the trust is a fundamental flaw, as the trust is a necessary party in suits concerning its administration – The grant of leave was therefore erroneous [Paras 2-14].

Revision Jurisdiction – Maintainability – The court distinguished earlier decisions which treated the grant of leave as an administrative order and noted that such decisions have been impliedly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court judgments – Held: The revision petition is maintainable, and the order granting leave is set aside [Paras 9-16].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – The impugned order of the Principal District Judge granting leave under Section 92 CPC is set aside – Connected miscellaneous petition is closed [Para 16].

Green Card System – Unauthorized Issuance – Prima Facie Case – Articles of Association – The issuance of Green Cards to overage dependents violated Articles 13(3a) and 13(3b) of the Delhi Gymkhana Club’s AoA – The Green Card system was an informal practice introduced without legal sanction, lacking recognition in the AoA – Held: The Green Cards issued in 2019 were illegal and void ab initio, and the termination of these privileges was justified [Paras 14-20].

Historical Practices – No Legal Rights – Custom and AoA – Plaintiffs sought to claim Green Card privileges based on past practices of the Club – Held: Historical practices that contradict the express terms of the AoA cannot confer enforceable legal rights – The issuance of Green Cards was ultra vires and unenforceable under the AoA, despite past practices [Paras 22-29].

Natural Justice – Principles of Fairness – No Notice or Hearing – Plaintiffs argued that the suspension and termination of Green Card privileges without notice violated the principles of natural justice – Held: Given the broader corrective context following the Naidu Committee Report and NCLT directives, procedural infirmities were not substantial enough to invalidate the termination of illegal privileges [Paras 46-48].

Contractual Rights – No Membership Status for Green Card Holders – Plaintiffs claimed contractual rights under Company Law and the AoA – Held: Green Card holders were not recognized as members under the AoA and could not claim the same rights or protections as formal members – The Green Card arrangement was a discretionary policy without legal standing [Paras 34-40].

Interim Injunction – Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm – Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief, as the Green Cards were issued outside the scope of the AoA – The balance of convenience did not favor the Plaintiffs, and the offer of refunds mitigated potential financial harm – Interim injunction denied [Paras 49-55].

Decision: The applications for interim injunction are dismissed. The termination of Green Card privileges is upheld, and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to interim relief.