Criminal Law – Successive Bail Application – Rejection of Bail Based on Lack of Change in Circumstances – The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, after the rejection of the earlier bail application by the High Court and its dismissal by the Supreme Court. The case involved charges under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506(2), and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued for bail on grounds of parity and delay in the trial. However, the court rejected the application, citing the absence of significant changes in circumstances and the seriousness of the economic offences involved [Paras 1-23]. 

Economic Offences – Higher Scrutiny in Bail Matters – The court reiterated the principle that economic offences, due to their grave impact on the economy and public interest, require a stricter approach when considering bail applications. The applicant was accused of defrauding multiple victims of over ₹5 crore by using a fraudulent business scheme. The court stressed that economic offences pose a threat to the financial health of the country and warrant denial of bail where serious allegations are supported by substantial evidence [Paras 14, 17-22]. 

Successive Bail Applications – Requirements for Changed Circumstances – The court emphasized that successive bail applications are permissible only when there is a substantial change in circumstances that impacts the earlier decision. Cosmetic changes or repeated arguments without new grounds do not justify the granting of bail. The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any such change, leading to the rejection of the application [Paras 12-15, 23]. 

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Held, the successive bail application was dismissed due to the lack of significant new circumstances and the severity of the charges. The court noted that there was a strong apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence and that the trial was already in progress. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings [Para 23]. 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, 148, and 147 IPC – Acquittal - Appeal against judgment by Additional Sessions Judge – Appellants convicted for murder and unlawful assembly, sentenced to life imprisonment – Appellants challenged conviction, claiming false implication and reliance on weak prosecution evidence – Dying declaration only mentioned one accused (Gorelal) with no enmity, while others were added by the first informant due to personal animosity – Post-mortem report indicated injuries from a single firearm, contradicting the prosecution’s case that multiple accused fired shots – Court found prosecution witnesses unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence – Appeal allowed for three appellants, acquittal granted [Paras 1-18].

Dying Declaration – Sole accused mentioned in dying declaration – Prosecution did not rely on the dying declaration during the trial, but defense brought it in as evidence – The Court found no mention of co-accused in the declaration, weakening the prosecution's case – Prosecution failed to prove the involvement of other accused beyond reasonable doubt – Dying declaration recorded by a doctor before the death of the injured showed no enmity between the deceased and the accused [Paras 7-9, 17].

Evidence Evaluation – Post-mortem showed injuries consistent with a single firearm – Prosecution failed to prove that multiple accused fired – Witness testimonies conflicted with initial reports and each other, further weakening the prosecution's case – Witnesses introduced by the prosecution were deemed unreliable due to contradictions in their statements and non-production of key eyewitnesses at trial [Paras 11-14, 17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Acquittal of appellants No. 2, 6, and 7 due to lack of evidence corroborating the prosecution’s case – The appeal vis-à-vis appellants No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 had already abated – Bail bonds of appellants No. 2, 6, and 7 were discharged [Paras 18].

Public Interest Litigation – Challenge against Police Transfer Orders – Bombay High Court – Petition challenging the validity of the transfer orders issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Administration), Mumbai, transferring certain police officers within the Mumbai Police Commissionerate contrary to the mandates of Section 22N of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, as amended. The petitioner contends these transfers violate statutory provisions stipulating normal tenure limits. The Court examines whether the impugned transfer orders contravene Section 22N, particularly in regard to normal tenures prescribed for police officers within different commissionerates [Paras 1-3, 4-6].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 22N of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – Discussion on the interpretation of Section 22N, which stipulates normal tenures for police officers to safeguard them from frequent transfers and ensure continuity in police work within specific jurisdictions. The Court considers the scope of 'normal tenure' and the exceptions for mid-term transfers due to administrative exigencies or public interest, finding that the provision aims to protect police personnel's tenure without necessarily mandating transfers out of commissionerates upon tenure completion [Paras 7-12].

Judicial Review – Dismissal of PIL – The Court holds that the impugned transfer orders do not contravene the Maharashtra Police Act's provisions. It emphasizes the discretionary power of competent authorities to effectuate transfers based on administrative needs, dismissing the PIL for lack of contravention against statutory provisions. The Court also clarifies the interpretation of 'General Transfer' and 'Mid-term Transfer' within the Act, affirming the broad discretion in administrative transfer decisions [Paras 13-16].

Decision – The PIL is dismissed, and the rule issued is discharged. The Court does not find the transfer orders in violation of the statutory provisions cited and emphasizes the discretionary administrative power in effecting police transfers [Paras 16-18].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Powers of the ED – Communication to Third Parties – Judicial Review – The Court examined the scope of ED’s authority under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. The petitioner contended that ED overstepped its statutory powers by coercing the petitioner’s customers to file criminal complaints through a questionnaire. However, the Court held that the ED was within its rights to gather information in furtherance of its investigation into proceeds of crime, and such actions were not violative of statutory or constitutional provisions. The communication merely sought to gather material relevant to the investigation [Paras 1.2, 3.13-3.18].

No Quashing of ECIR or Communication – Lawful Investigation Powers – The petitioner's plea for quashing the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and the communication was dismissed. The Court observed that ongoing investigations were justified, given that one of the original FIRs remained pending, and the ECIR could include subsequent related complaints. Moreover, ED’s actions to solicit information and share it with other enforcement agencies, such as the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), were permissible under the PMLA [Paras 3.9, 3.8-3.13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The communication by ED was found to be lawful, and no grounds were established to quash the ECIR or restrict ED’s investigation methods under the PMLA. The Court upheld the ED’s powers to investigate and gather information regarding money laundering [Paras 3.17-3.18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Madras High Court quashes the criminal complaint against Sumathi, accused of selling drugs without a pharmacist's supervision – Allegations stem from an inspection on 30/09/2021 at M/s Pradhan Mandri Bharthiya Janaushadhi Kendra by the Drug Inspector, which resulted in a complaint against both the proprietor, Kalidass, and his wife, Sumathi (A-2) – Petitioner argued lack of involvement in the shop's daily operations, claiming she was only temporarily managing the shop in her husband's absence – High Court finds no substantial evidence against Sumathi, noting that mere presence during inspection is insufficient for prosecution under Section 18(c) r/w Rule 65(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Paras 2-11].

Evidence – Insufficiency of Evidence – High Court emphasizes lack of direct evidence linking Sumathi to the alleged drug sales – Inspector's presumption of Sumathi's involvement due to her presence during the inspection deemed inadequate without corroborating evidence of her direct involvement in the sales – Court highlights procedural lapse in not conducting a test purchase to verify the complaint, leading to the conclusion that the complaint against Sumathi lacks prima facie merit [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Quashing of Complaint – Held – The complaint against Sumathi (A-2) is quashed due to insufficient evidence demonstrating her active management or involvement in the contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Case against her in C.C. No.599/2024 dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Parole – Premature Release – Constitutional Law – Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – Request for Premature Release – Petitioner challenges the failure of the Life Convicts Premature Release Committee to act in compliance with notification Annex-A, seeking a mandamus for his premature release after serving over 17 years in jail for life imprisonment under IPC sections 347, 364(A), 120(B), 397 [Para 1].

Judicial Custody and Release – Eligibility and Procedure for Premature Release – Petitioner's case recommended by Advisory Committee, still pending before the Release Committee. Reference made to similar cases and Supreme Court directives in RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH for implementing policies allowing premature release without the necessity of an application by the convict [Paras 3-5].

High Court Directions – Mandamus Issued for Timely Meeting of Release Committee – High Court orders Karnataka State Government to ensure the Life Convicts Release Committee meets bi-monthly, addressing backlogs and procedural delays in considering premature release applications. Petitioner granted general parole until committee review, with specific conditions for behavior and possible extension of parole [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Grant of Parole and Directive for Systematic Review – Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to release petitioner on a 90-day parole with strict conditions against unlawful activities, ensuring systematic review of premature release cases in compliance with apex court directions and state policies [Paras 8-9].

Dowry Harassment – Quashing of FIR – The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations were vague and lacked specific details – The Court observed that the allegations made against the petitioners, who are the informant's parents-in-law, were general and did not meet the threshold for constituting cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – Held that vague statements without specific allegations or details do not constitute a valid case for prosecution under the said sections​.

Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC – The Court emphasized that continuing proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as there were no specific accusations of cruelty or harassment directed against them – Quashing of the FIR ordered​.

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR No. 8 of 2022 and consequent proceedings quashed​.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Section 66 – Sharing of Information – Whether the ED exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 66(2) by sending a questionnaire to customers and compelling them to file complaints – Held, the ED's action of soliciting information was within its powers under the PMLA, and the questionnaire aimed to gather information about the proceeds of crime – No coercion or illegal pressure was exerted on the customers – [Paras 2.2, 3.2].

Money Laundering – Predicate Offence and ECIR – The petitioner argued that since 31 out of 32 FIRs had been quashed or settled, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) should be quashed – The Court held that the proceedings could continue as long as there was one FIR still pending – The ECIR could include any subsequent FIRs under Section 44 of the PMLA – [Paras 3.2, 3.25].

Scope of Investigation – Section 50 of PMLA – The Court emphasized that the ED had the power to summon individuals, request documents, and gather information under Section 50 of the PMLA – The collection of information through a questionnaire was part of the investigation process and did not violate any statutory provision – [Paras 3.28, 4.1].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference in Investigation – The Court noted that the scope of judicial review in matters of investigation is limited and the courts should not interfere unless there is a clear abuse of power – In this case, the ED acted within its legal mandate, and there was no basis to quash the proceedings – [Paras 3.22, 3.24].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the ED acted within the framework of the law in its investigation and there was no basis for quashing the ECIR or the communication sent to the customers – [Paras 4.1, 4.2].

Fair Trial – Right to Legible Copy of Section 164 Statement – The accused sought a legible copy of the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as the copy provided was illegible – The Special Judge denied the request, suggesting the Magistrate could be summoned to explain the contents during trial – Held: The refusal to provide a legible copy of the 164 statement undermines the accused's right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Constitution – The accused has a statutory right to use the 164 statement for contradiction during cross-examination – Ensuring a readable copy is crucial for the accused’s defense [Paras 1-5].

Procedure – Issuance of Legible Copy of Section 164 Statement – The court found that the only just course is to provide the accused with a readable copy of the 164 statement before the commencement of the trial – The Special Judge is directed to issue a legible copy, with assistance from the staff of the Magistrate Court if necessary – The trial can then proceed with the assurance that the accused's rights are protected [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Order Set Aside – The impugned order refusing to provide a readable copy of the 164 statement is set aside – The Special Judge is instructed to issue a legible copy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order – The case is disposed of with these directions to ensure a fair trial [Para 8].