Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Whether the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) Should be Tried as an Adult – Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision to not try CCL-SAH as an adult – JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and found that CCL-SAH lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences – Reports relied upon by JJB, including the Preliminary Assessment Report and Social Investigation Report, indicated cognitive immaturity and poor impulse control – Held: JJB’s determination was legally sound and in compliance with Section 15 of the JJ Act – No interference warranted [Paras 31-37].

Age Determination – Reliability of School Records – Whether the Age of CCL-SAH was Correctly Determined – Petitioner questioned the age determination process, citing multiple birth dates in different documents – JJB relied on school records, establishing CCL-SAH’s date of birth as 8th July, 2005, making him a juvenile at the time of the offence – Held: School records are primary evidence for age determination under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 – Petitioner failed to prove any legal infirmity or forgery in school records – Challenge to age determination rejected [Paras 24-30].

Bail under Juvenile Justice Act – Section 12 – Whether Grant of Bail was Justified – JJB granted bail to CCL-SAH, which was upheld by the ASJ – Petitioner argued that the heinous nature of the offence and CCL-SAH’s active role warranted denial of bail – Held: Bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act is mandatory unless the prosecution proves (i) risk of association with criminals, (ii) exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or (iii) that release would defeat the ends of justice – Mere gravity of the offence is not a valid ground for denial of bail – Prosecution failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions – Grant of bail upheld [Paras 38-51].

Right to be Heard – Principles of Natural Justice – Whether Complainant Had a Right to be Heard in Bail Proceedings – Petitioner claimed that the JJB and ASJ violated principles of natural justice by not allowing him to present arguments – Held: JJ Act proceedings are child-centric and not adversarial – No statutory mandate requiring complainant’s hearing at the bail stage – Granting bail is not an order prejudicial to the complainant – Reliance placed on Rajasthan High Court ruling in X v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4209 affirming that complainants have no automatic right to be heard in bail matters under the JJ Act [Paras 52-62].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Whether the ASJ’s Order Suffered from Legal Infirmity – Petitioner sought interference under Section 102 of the JJ Act, arguing that the ASJ mechanically upheld JJB’s findings – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities, not reappreciation of evidence – ASJ’s order was well-reasoned and legally sustainable – No jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice found – Petition dismissed [Paras 63-69].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the ASJ’s order affirming the JJB’s decisions on age determination, preliminary assessment, and bail – No legal infirmity or procedural irregularity found – JJB to proceed uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations [Paras 70-72].
 

Motor Accident Claims – Fraudulent Claims – Fabrication of Accident Story – Compensation Award Set Aside – Claimant sought compensation for the death of her husband, alleging he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that met with an accident – Investigation revealed that the deceased had actually fallen from his own motorcycle due to dizziness – High Court held: Claim was fabricated with the involvement of the vehicle owner, driver, and lawyer – Award of ₹17,49,752/- quashed – Any compensation paid to be refunded to the insurance company with 9% interest [Paras 12-21].

False Evidence – Perjury in Motor Accident Claims – Criminal Prosecution Ordered – Special Investigation Team (SIT) found that claimant, vehicle owner, and driver colluded to create a false accident story – High Court relied on Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that perjury in judicial proceedings undermines the justice system – Directed prosecution under Sections 193, 196, 199, 209 IPC (corresponding to Sections 229, 233, 236, 246 of BNSS, 2023) [Paras 27-32].

Fraudulent Pleadings – Violation of CPC and BNSS – Action Against Lawyer – High Court noted that false pleadings and affidavits were filed to support the claim – Lawyer representing the claimant played a role in manufacturing the fraudulent case – Court directed disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer and prosecution for aiding perjury [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation award set aside – Claimant, vehicle owner, driver, and lawyer to face criminal prosecution – Case referred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, for cognizance – SIT report and evidence to be submitted for further action [Paras 32-33].

Property Law – Usufructuary Mortgage – Automatic Redemption Under MPLRC – Dispute over agricultural land given as security for a loan—Appellant claimed continued possession based on mortgage deed—High Court held: Under Section 165(2)(b) of MPLRC, a usufructuary mortgage cannot exceed six years and is deemed redeemed by law upon expiry—Respondent (plaintiff) entitled to immediate possession [Paras 14-16].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant contended that both Trial and Appellate Courts erred in interpreting mortgage terms—High Court held: Second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to cases involving substantial legal questions—Finding of automatic redemption under MPLRC is a settled legal principle, not warranting further interference [Paras 11-13].

Judicial Precedent – Appellate Court’s Findings Binding Unless Perverse – Appellant argued that mortgage deed Ex.P/3 should be treated as a shareholding agreement—High Court relied on Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar to hold that appellate findings, if based on proper evidence and reasoning, should not be disturbed in a second appeal [Para 13].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed—Trial Court’s conditional redemption order modified by First Appellate Court upheld—Appellant directed to vacate the suit land—No costs awarded [Paras 16-17].
 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases – Stringent Conditions Imposed – Petitioner was arrested for transporting 731.075 kg of Ganja—Trial court denied bail, citing the presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner argued prolonged judicial custody and procedural delays – High Court held: While Section 37 restricts bail in commercial quantity cases, prolonged detention without trial is a valid ground for bail – Bail granted with strict conditions to ensure attendance at trial [Paras 6-10, 13].

Delay in Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Granted Despite Stringent NDPS Bail Restrictions – Charge sheet filed on 03.05.2024, but trial had not commenced even after ten months – Petitioner in custody since 07.11.2023 – High Court relied on Achint Navinbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India to hold that prolonged incarceration without trial is a valid ground for bail, even in NDPS cases [Paras 11-12].

Bail Conditions – Ensuring Attendance of Accused – Technological Supervision – To prevent absconding, petitioner’s elder brother, a sepoy in the Indian Army, gave an affidavit guaranteeing the petitioner’s appearance – High Court imposed conditions, including real-time mobile phone tracking paired with the investigating officer’s device – Directed that notice to petitioner’s counsel be treated as notice to petitioner, ensuring his presence at trial [Paras 8, 14].

Decision – Bail granted with strict conditions – Petitioner to furnish a bond of ₹75,000 with two sureties, one from Andhra Pradesh and one being his elder brother – Passport to be surrendered – Petitioner to remain available for tracking via mobile phone – Violation of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 14-15].

Bail - Money Laundering – Large-Scale Illegal Betting Syndicate – Prima Facie Evidence Against Applicant – Bail Rejected – The ED alleged that the applicant was involved in handling and transferring illegal funds generated from Mahadev Online Book, an unlawful betting operation – ₹5.39 crores in cash was seized from his possession – The investigation revealed the applicant’s connections with key perpetrators, his travel to Dubai for fund-related transactions, and his role in distributing proceeds to influential persons – Held: Economic offences are of grave nature, requiring a different approach in bail matters – The court found sufficient material to establish the applicant's prima facie involvement in money laundering – Bail denied [Paras 10-12, 16-17].

Economic Offences – Stringent Bail Conditions Under PMLA – Section 45 of PMLA Applied – The court reiterated that economic offences require stricter scrutiny while considering bail applications – The applicant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 45 of PMLA that he was not guilty of the offence – The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India emphasized the need for stringent bail conditions in PMLA cases – Held: Given the organized nature of the crime and the applicant’s role in layering proceeds of crime, he does not qualify for bail under PMLA [Paras 6-8, 13].

Delay in Trial – Not a Sole Ground for Bail in Economic Offences – The applicant contended that he had been in custody since 03.11.2023 and that trial delays should entitle him to bail – The court observed that mere delay in trial is not an absolute ground for bail in cases of large-scale financial frauds and money laundering – The gravity of the offence, its impact on the economy, and the applicant’s potential to tamper with evidence were considered – Held: Economic offences need to be treated with greater caution, and pre-trial detention is justified in such cases – Bail application dismissed [Paras 9, 14-15].

Decision: The bail application is rejected. The court found sufficient prima facie material establishing the applicant's involvement in money laundering activities associated with Mahadev Online Book. The stringent conditions under Section 45 of PMLA were not satisfied, and the gravity of the offence warranted continued judicial custody.
 

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Rejection of Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) – Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Compliance – Petitioners, rice millers supplying Fortified Rice under the Public Distribution System (PDS), challenged the rejection of their deliveries due to alleged failure in blending ratio – Government conducted surprise inspections and found stocks exceeding the permissible Fortified Rice Kernel (FRK) blending ratio of 0.9% to 1.2% – Petitioners argued that no prior notice was issued, and rejection violated principles of natural justice – Held: Surprise inspections are permitted under the SOP, and no prior notice is required – Rejection of BRL stocks upheld, and petitioners directed to replace the stocks [Paras 15-17].

Food Safety – Fortified Rice – Quality Control – Testing and Inspections – The Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) conducted surprise inspections as per Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) norms – Random sampling found FRK blending levels outside permissible limits – Petitioners argued that initial inspections cleared their stocks and subsequent rejection was arbitrary – Held: Testing process followed prescribed guidelines, and the petitioners' arguments were not tenable – Fortified Rice meant for PDS requires strict quality control, and stocks declared BRL must be replaced [Paras 16-20].

Procedural Fairness – Appeal Mechanism – Limited Scope for Challenge – Petitioners claimed that they were not given an opportunity to challenge the rejection – Respondents contended that the appeal mechanism under the SOP applies only at the initial acceptance stage and not for surprise inspections – Held: There is no provision for appeal against subsequent inspections, and the petitioners failed to establish any procedural violations – Judicial intervention not warranted [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Rejection of BRL stocks upheld – Petitioners directed to replace rejected stocks with fresh supply as per SOP – No costs awarded [Paras 29-30].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Transferee Pendente Lite – Not Maintainable – Petitioner purchased suit property during pendency of litigation – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Executing court should have dismissed the application under Rule 97 CPC at the threshold in view of bar under Rule 102 CPC – Revisional court erred in dismissing the application outright rather than remanding the matter for preliminary determination of res judicata [Paras 22–30, 35–36].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Transferee During Suit – Rights Subordinate to Decree – Petitioner’s purchase in 2001 was during pendency of Original Suits No. 33/1991 and 151/1991 – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that such transfers do not affect rights under decree – Transferee bound by outcome of litigation irrespective of notice – Held: Petitioner cannot resist execution of decree passed in 2003 [Paras 18–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Revisional Court Cannot Assume Role of Executing Court – Revisional court should have remanded matter instead of rejecting the execution application – Observed: Supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Revisional court exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating on merits where trial court had not decided the matter finally [Paras 31–34].

Execution Delay – Directions for Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Mandate for Timely Execution – Relying on Periyammal (2025) and Rahul S. Shah (2021), Court reminded executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months – Expressed concern over 10-year pendency of application filed in 2014 – Direction issued to dispose matter within one month [Paras 30, 36–37].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded to Executing Court – High Court set aside both revisional and trial court orders – Directed executing court to decide application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC afresh in light of law on lis pendens and Order XXI Rule 102 CPC within one month [Para 37].

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest without FIR or Grounds of Arrest – Detention Declared Illegal – The detenu was picked up without any FIR or communication of reasons for arrest – FIR was registered hours later, only after a Warrant Officer’s intervention – Held: Arrest violated Articles 21 and 22 and Section 47 of BNSS – Detention declared void ab initio [Paras 1–6, 16–17].

BNSS Compliance – Section 35 and 47 – No Notice or Written Grounds of Arrest – Procedural Safeguards Violated – No notice under Section 35(3) issued – Grounds of arrest not communicated forthwith – Arrest held contrary to statutory and constitutional safeguards – Mere post-facto FIR registration cannot cure illegality [Paras 4, 17].

Judicial Interpretation – Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar – Written Communication of Grounds Mandatory – Court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 – Held: Failure to inform arrestee of arrest grounds in writing vitiates custody – Procedural compliance essential to protect liberty under Articles 21 & 22 [Paras 14–15].

Custodial Dignity – Routine Arrest Without Justification Not Permissible – Citing Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and D.K. Basu, Court reiterated that power to arrest must be exercised with caution and justification – Custodial action impacts reputation and liberty and must conform to due process [Paras 7, 10–11].

Role of Warrant Officer – Ministerial Capacity Only – Overstepping Jurisdiction Deprecated – Court clarified that a Warrant Officer cannot adjudicate legality of arrest – Findings in Warrant Officer’s report regarding legality were beyond mandate and disapproved by the Court [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Detention declared illegal – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Arrest and remand declared void due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards [Paras 21–22].

Bail - NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Heroin – Bail Rejected – 290g Heroin Recovery – Petitioner was apprehended with two co-accused after being allegedly caught red-handed with 290 grams of heroin in a Bolero vehicle – Held: Quantity recovered falls within commercial threshold – Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Bail denied [Paras 1–4, 6–7].

Mandatory Compliance – Section 50 NDPS Act – Procedural

Compliance on Record – SHO recorded offer to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and consent obtained – Notices and memos prepared on spot – Prima facie no violation shown at this stage to justify bail [Para 2].

Prior Involvement and Custody – Habitual Offender – Court considered petitioner’s prior FIRs and disclosure of stolen transformer oil – Held: Petitioner is not a first-time offender and is involved in repeated offences of serious nature – Custody of nearly two years insufficient to outweigh seriousness [Para 3].

Social Context – Narcotic Menace in Punjab – Court Denounces Systemic Impact – Justice Moudgil emphasized broader social decay caused by narcotics and likened it to termite eroding youth – Courts must act firmly against drug trafficking to preserve public health and societal integrity [Paras 6–8].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Negative Burden on Accused – Bail Conditional on Proving Innocence – Court reiterated that bail under NDPS for commercial quantity can only be granted when both limbs of Section 37 are satisfied – Petitioner failed to discharge burden to prove prima facie innocence [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Regular bail denied – Observations made limited to bail proceedings and shall not influence merits during trial [Paras 5, 9].