Criminal Law – Murder and Common Intention – Sections 341, 302, 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Prosecution’s case that accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Baiju due to a prior altercation – Trial court convicted A1, A2, and A3 while A4 was acquitted – High Court finds evidence insufficient to prove common intention by A2 and A3 – Conviction of A1 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction of A2 and A3 set aside, they are acquitted. [Paras 1-25]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Consistency – PWs 1, 2, and 3 consistently identified A1 as the assailant who inflicted the fatal stab wound – Minor discrepancies in their testimonies regarding ancillary details do not discredit core allegations – Held, evidence credible and reliable in implicating A1 – Insufficient evidence to prove that A2 and A3 shared the common intention to commit the murder. [Paras 10-13, 18-23]

Criminal Law – Motive – Evaluation – Motive for the crime established as an altercation between A1 and the deceased over the former’s conduct of making PW1 consume liquor – Evidence shows A1 had motive – Insufficient evidence to suggest motive or participation of A2 and A3 in the common intention. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Procedure – Juvenile Claim – Evaluation – A3’s claim of being a juvenile at the time of the crime found unnecessary to probe further as he was acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence regarding common intention. [Para 25]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence – Court upholds conviction and life sentence of A1 under Section 302 IPC – A2 and A3 acquitted due to lack of evidence of shared common intention – Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A2 and A3 shared a common intention with A1 to murder Baiju – Appeals by A2 and A3 allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 24-25]

Delay in Deciding Bail Application – Applicant argued undue delay in deciding bail application, alleging 40 listings without decision – Court found majority of delays due to multiple interim applications filed by the applicant for medical relief and treatment – No merit in argument attributing delay to court proceedings [Paras 20-31].

Principles Governing Grant of Bail – Reviewed legal principles for grant of bail, including factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, potential for evidence tampering, and threat to witnesses – Noted seriousness of economic offences and their impact on society [Paras 32-35].

Role of Applicant – Applicant was named in FIR and alleged to be part of criminal conspiracy involving framing and implementation of Excise Policy – Played key role in meetings and transactions facilitating the conspiracy – Issued additional credit notes without manufacturer's authorization, generating illicit funds [Paras 36-52].

Recovery of Incriminating Documents – Confidential documents related to policy formulation found in applicant’s possession during searches – Indicative of involvement in conspiracy [Paras 53-55].

Whistleblower Argument – Applicant claimed to be whistleblower – Court found no evidence supporting this claim – Statements of other witnesses and actions contradict the whistleblower narrative [Paras 56-60].

Triple Test for Bail – Considered flight risk, potential for evidence tampering, and influence on witnesses – Applicant involved in bribery case to influence investigation – Seriousness of allegations and potential impact on investigation justified denial of bail [Paras 61-67].

Decision:Bail application dismissed – Court found sufficient prima facie evidence supporting applicant’s involvement in conspiracy – Concerns over influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence reinforced decision – No grounds for bail at this stage [Paras 69-71].

Anticipatory Bail – Parity Principle – Applicant seeking anticipatory bail on grounds of parity with co-accused granted bail – Co-accused granted bail for similar offenses and under similar circumstances – Trial court failed to provide distinguishing reasons for denial of bail to applicant [Paras 5-8].

Consistency in Judicial Decisions – Judicial Officer’s failure to maintain consistency in orders concerning anticipatory bail – Subsequent orders must align with earlier orders in identical circumstances or provide sufficient reasons for deviation – Inconsistent orders undermine public confidence in judicial process [Paras 24-28, 35-36].

Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Applicability – Applicant not named in the FIR and no specific role assigned – Entitled to anticipatory bail considering absence of criminal antecedents, non-arrest during investigation, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents promoting bail as a matter of course where circumstances permit [Paras 10, 44-46].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Held – Applicant to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial upon fulfilling stipulated conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial processes [Paras 47-49].

Discrepancies in Examination Results – Petitioner alleged that the NTA uploaded two different response sheets and scorecards for her JEE (Mains) exam, with significant differences in scores – High Court examined the validity of the claim and the procedural integrity of NTA's system [Paras 1-2, 14].

Validity of Scorecards – Petitioner claimed the first response sheet and scorecard, showing a 99.8493935 percentile score, were correct – NTA asserted these were fabricated, and the second set, showing a 74.5733907 percentile score, was accurate – High Court scrutinized the consistency and procedural integrity of the examination records [Paras 3-6, 16-19].

Disputed Facts in Writ Jurisdiction – High Court reiterated the principle that disputed questions of fact typically require evidence and are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 – Found no prima facie case to support the petitioner's claim and deemed the issue too factually dense for writ jurisdiction [Paras 22-36].

Conclusion – Court found the petitioner’s first scorecard and response sheet inconsistent with NTA’s records and procedures – Dismissed the petition, stating further investigation would necessitate a detailed factual inquiry inappropriate for writ proceedings [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – High Court did not find sufficient grounds to accept the petitioner’s assertion of two sets of response sheets and scorecards being issued by NTA – No orders as to costs [Para 37].

Juvenile Justice – Bail Application – Applicant was a juvenile at the time of the incident – Challenged denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court – Court highlighted that the gravity of the offense is not a ground to refuse bail under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act – Bail granted [Paras 6-10].

Conditions for Bail under Juvenile Justice Act – Court must ensure that the release of the juvenile does not bring them into association with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Observations from the DPO report and the lack of criminal history supported bail – Court emphasized the need for a reasoned decision aligned with the statutory requirements [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Orders denying bail set aside – Applicant to be released on bail with conditions to ensure compliance and attendance in court [Para 10-11].

Education Law – Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Return of Applications for Special Education Courses – RCI’s Decision – Judicial Review – Writ Petitions Against RCI Circulars

Representation and Reliance - Circulars issued by RCI invited fresh proposals from institutions for conducting special education courses for the academic session 2024-2025, including diploma and degree courses. The petitioners, acting on the representations, invested substantial resources to conform to RCI norms. Subsequently, RCI’s decision to return these proposals, based on a letter from the Ministry, was challenged as arbitrary and lacking legal justification. [Paras 1-23]

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation - Held, RCI’s circulars amounted to a clear representation inducing petitioners to submit proposals and invest resources. The decision to resile from this representation without adequate justification or supervening public equity was not permissible. Petitioners could not restore status quo ante, making the initial representation irrevocable against RCI. [Paras 60-79]

Arbitrariness and Lack of Statutory Basis - The decision to return the proposals was based solely on a ministerial letter without due consideration by the Executive Committee of RCI. No statutory provision or amended regulation justified the return of applications for diploma and degree courses. The ongoing need for special educators further negated any public interest justification for the decision. [Paras 66-74]

NEP 2020 Considerations - The NEP 2020 recognized the urgent need for additional special educators, contradicting the rationale for not considering new proposals. Enhancing seats in existing institutions while refusing new proposals was inconsistent with the stated objectives of NEP 2020. [Paras 80-81]

Decision - The impugned circulars dated 4 January 2024 and 8 March 2024 were quashed to the extent they returned the petitioners’ applications for starting D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. The RCI was directed to process the proposals in accordance with law. The challenge to the circular allowing enhancement of seats in existing institutions was dismissed. [Paras 83-85]

Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Complaint Handling Post Cognizance – Petitioner challenged the order directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Held that once cognizance was taken by recording the statement, the Magistrate could not issue directions for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Such directions can only be issued at a pre-cognizance stage [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that direction under Section 156(3) for FIR registration is not permissible post-cognizance by the Magistrate – Highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance in “M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana” regarding the stages at which FIR directions can be issued [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Quashing of the order and FIR – Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequent FIR quashed – Directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law without requiring pre-process hearing from the accused [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Summoning and Cognizance Orders – Quashing of summoning and cognizance orders along with consequential orders due to lack of application of judicial mind and procedural irregularities – No evidence indicating the applicants intended to cause death or had knowledge their actions would result in death – Demolition leading to accidental death does not meet criteria for culpable homicide [Paras 1-20, 23-26].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applicants wrongfully implicated without substantial evidence – Police presence during incident with no preventive measures taken [Paras 27-38].

Legal Principles – Application of Mind – Magistrate’s duty to apply judicial mind and provide reasons in orders – Summoning orders without detailed reasoning or assessment of prima facie case liable to be quashed – Emphasis on careful scrutiny of allegations and evidence before issuing summons [Paras 29-33].

Decision – Application Allowed – Summoning and cognizance orders dated 30.03.2016, orders dated 11.01.2018 and 11.07.2018, and charge sheet dated 13.07.2015 quashed – Entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16768 of 2016 set aside – Directions for trial court compliance [Paras 37-41].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. –

Allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence – FIR against entire family of husband including those living separately – Specific allegations only against husband and parents – General, vague, and bald allegations against others – No prima facie case against distant relatives – Court cites Supreme Court's caution against roping in distant relatives without specific instances – FIR quashed for distant relatives – Continuance against husband and parents upheld [Paras 1-16].

Procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of process – Emphasis on specific allegations for prosecution – Application of judgments from Supreme Court cases to ensure fair trial – General allegations insufficient to prosecute relatives without details – Court's intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-14].

Decision: FIR quashed against petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 – Petition infructuous for petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 – Investigating Officer to proceed against petitioner No. 3 in accordance with law [Paras 15-16].