Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain – Acquittal – Prosecution examined 24 witnesses but failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances — Trial court itself discarded the last seen theory, evidence of PW-4, PW-7 and PW-9, identity of mobile phone by IMEI number, and CDR evidence — only surviving circumstance was recovery of gold chain pledged at a finance company at the instance of the accused — Held: Establishing one or two circumstances beyond reasonable doubt is insufficient to sustain conviction where the chain is otherwise snapped; benefit of doubt must go to the accused — Conviction set aside [Paras 12–15, 35–38].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Presumption Under Section 114 Illustration (a) Indian Evidence Act – Extent of Presumption – Whether Recovery of Stolen Property Alone Can Support Conviction for Murder – Divergent lines of authority in the Supreme Court reconciled — Where murder and robbery form one transaction and stolen property is recovered soon thereafter at the instance of the accused, presumption of guilt for both may be drawn — However, this presumption cannot be mechanically invoked where no other circumstance connects the accused to the crime — Following the three-Judge Bench in Sanwat Khan (AIR 1956 SC 54), Held: Where the only evidence is recovery of stolen property and there is no strong motive, no corroboration, and the defence offers a probable explanation, it is not safe to draw an inference of murder — suspicion cannot take the place of proof [Paras 28–33].

Proof of Documents – Documents Marked as "Article" – Contents Not Proved – Loan transaction documents including receipt, extract of gold loan register, statement of account, light bill and driving licence seized by the IO were merely marked as articles and not exhibited — contents of documents not proved through any witness — Held: When a document is admitted in evidence without objection, waiver of formal proof does not amount to proof of the truth of its contents; independent evidence to support the contents is still required — documents not cogently proved [Para 21].

Burden of Proof – Accused – Standard of Preponderance of Probability – Defence witness (DW-1), sister of the accused, deposed that the gold chain belonged to her and was pledged by her brother on her behalf for arranging money for their ailing mother — prosecution failed to disprove this plea with documentary evidence — Trial court erred in rejecting defence evidence as afterthought when it itself found that no documentary proof of ownership was produced by either side — Held: Accused is required to prove his defence only on preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt; accused succeeded in establishing a probable explanation [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC recorded vide judgment dated 05.03.2012 in Sessions Case No. 356/10 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bond cancelled and sureties discharged – Appellant directed to execute PR Bond of Rs. 25,000/- within one week under Section 481 BNSS [Para 39].

Senior Citizens – Maintenance – Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Right of Appeal Exclusively Available to Senior Citizens and Parents – Petitioner, an 83-year-old widow, obtained maintenance order from Sub-Collector directing one son to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month and the other son to maintain her — aggrieved son (Opposite Party No.3, neither a senior citizen nor a parent) preferred appeal before the Collector under Section 16 of the Act — Collector set aside the maintenance order and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry — petitioner challenged the appellate order — Held: Section 16 of the Act confers the right of appeal exclusively upon a senior citizen or parent aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal — children and relatives have no right of appeal thereunder — appeal filed by the son was not entertainable — appellate order passed without jurisdiction [Paras 10–12].

Beneficial Legislation – Purposive Construction – Object of the Act – The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation enacted to provide social justice to parents and senior citizens — all beneficial legislations must receive liberal and purposive construction in consonance with their objects — the language of Section 16 is plain, clear and unambiguous in restricting the right of appeal to senior citizens and parents — extending the right to any other person would defeat the object of the legislation — Held: No room to import any other interpretation when statutory language is clear and unambiguous [Para 10].

Jurisdiction – Appellate Tribunal – Appeal by Children Not Maintainable – Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore, entertained an appeal under Section 16 of the Act filed by the son of the petitioner and set aside the maintenance order — such entertainment of appeal was without jurisdiction as the son was neither a senior citizen nor a parent — order passed by the Appellate Tribunal without jurisdiction cannot be sustained in law — Held: Impugned appellate order quashed; maintenance order of Sub-Collector confirmed [Paras 12–15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2024 quashed — Order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore in Misc. Case No.49 of 2023 confirmed.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of Market Value – Cut-off Date for "Immediately Preceding Three Years" under Section 26 of the LARR Act, 2013 – NTPC contended that the three-year period should be calculated from 29.04.2016 when fresh application for land acquisition was filed after earlier proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapsed – Claimants contended the cut-off date is 12.06.2019, the date of notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 – Section 26 expressly provides that the date for determination of market value shall be the date of notification under Section 11 – Held: The immediately preceding three years for computing market value would be 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019, and no other date can be taken as the cut-off [Paras 16–22].

Land Acquisition – "Year" in Section 26 – Applicability of General Clauses Act, 1897 – NTPC argued that "year" in Explanation 1 to Section 26(1) of the Act of 2013 means "calendar year" as defined under Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 – Held: Reference to calendar year is contrary to the intent and context of Section 26, which mandates determination of market value as on the date of notification under Section 11 – Applying calendar year would exclude sale deeds of 2019 falling prior to 12.06.2019 and is therefore contrary to legislative intent – Argument of NTPC rejected [Para 22(b)].

Land Acquisition – Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – NTPC filed application to adduce 10 sale deeds of village Tarhesa, executed between July 2015 and May 2016 and alleged to have been suppressed by claimant P.W.1 – Held: All the sale deeds sought to be adduced fall outside the relevant period of 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019 and are therefore outside the zone of consideration under Section 26 of the Act of 2013 – Allegation of suppression of material facts rejected – I.A. No. 2329 of 2026 dismissed [Para 25].

Land Acquisition – Computation of Compensation – Explanation 2 to Section 26(1)(b) – Trial Court's Error in Applying Section 26 – Trial court took average of 8 out of all 16 exhibited sale deeds without excluding the two sale deeds of village Tarhesa dated 08.04.2016 and 21.04.2016 which fell outside the relevant period – Correct approach: only 14 sale deeds (Ext. 1/2 to 1/15) of adjoining villages falling within 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019 are eligible – Half of 14 = 7 highest-valued sale deeds to be taken – Rate of residential land converted to agricultural at 50% following circle rate methodology (Exhibit-B) – Average of highest 7 sale deeds = Rs. 15,783/- per decimal [Paras 36].

Land Acquisition – Discretion of Court to Deviate from Statutory Average Rate – Trial court arrived at average rate of Rs. 15,372/- per decimal under Section 26(1)(b) but fixed compensation at the lower figure of Rs. 11,000/- per decimal without assigning cogent reasons – Held: Once the average rate is computed under Section 26(1)(b) and is found to be higher than rates under Sections 26(1)(a) and 26(1)(c), the court has no option but to award such average rate – Fixation of compensation at a figure lower than the statutory average without justification is contrary to the mandate of Section 26 and cannot be sustained [Para 35].

Decision: Appeals by NTPC Limited dismissed – Appeals by claimants allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 11,000/- per decimal to Rs. 15,783/- per decimal – Claimants entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act of 2013 – Executing court directed to account for interim order dated 10.02.2026 and ensure deduction and remittance of court fees in the claimants' appeals.

Contempt of Court – Terms of Settlement – Trademark – Use of "SUPERON" – Territorial Restriction – Geo-Blocking – SM and SDM, brothers and co-directors of Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd., executed a Memorandum of Family Settlement (10.09.2021) dividing the domestic and export business – SM received exclusive rights to use "SUPERON" within India while SDM was conferred rights to use it outside India – Parties subsequently executed Terms of Settlement (TOS) dated 27.04.2023 before the Division Bench – Clause 4 of TOS imposed an unequivocal prohibition on SDM from using "SUPERON" in any manner within the territory of India – Only a limited carve-out under Clause 7 permitted SDM to use "SUPERON" on visiting cards, letters, emails, communications, packaging etc. within India strictly for export purposes and not for retail – Held: Use of a mark on a website or social media handle accessible from India constitutes use of the mark in India – Use of "SUPERON" on social media platforms accessible from India clearly violates Clause 4 – Limited exception under Clause 7 cannot be expanded to permit SDM to proclaim any association with "SUPERON" in the Indian market [Paras 49-58].

Contempt of Court – Geo-Blocking – Websites and Social Media – TOS – Before the Facilitator appointed by the Division Bench, parties agreed in principle to geo-block their respective websites containing "SUPERON" – SDM subsequently sought to resile from this position – Held: Geo-blocking is the only permissible means by which SDM may continue to maintain websites or social media handles incorporating "SUPERON" without violating Clause 4 of TOS – If SDM is not amenable to geo-blocking, it is altogether precluded from maintaining any website or social media platform accessible from India that uses the mark "SUPERON" – Disclaimers on websites do not entitle SDM to use "SUPERON" within India in contravention of Clause 4 [Paras 59-68].

Contempt of Court – Physical Hoardings – Interlinking of Marks – SDM using prominent physical hoardings displaying "SUPERON" at factory premises in Gurugram held in violation of Clause 4 of TOS – SM's contention that Clause 6 prohibiting interlinking applies only to electronic/digital interlinking rejected – Held: The expression "either directly or indirectly" in Clause 6 is wide enough to cover physical interlinking and cannot be curtailed to electronic modes alone – Use of the conjunction "OR" negates the plea that the restriction is confined only to social media interlinking – SM required to refrain from conjoint use of "SUPERON" with "STANVAC" in any manner including physical hoardings [Paras 69-82].

Contempt of Court – Use of "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" – Separate Divisions – Industrial Products under "Stanvac Prime" – Clause 4 of TOS and Clause 2 of Agreed Terms dated 12.05.2023 only prohibit SDM from using "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" in the name of the parent company or any new entity in India – No provision in TOS addresses exclusivity, transfer or ownership of "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" – Use of the term "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" by SDM cannot be construed as contemptuous – SDM directed to demarcate parent company operations into three separate divisions (A, B and C) as per Clause 5 of TOS with separate non-interlinked websites – SDM expressly prohibited from manufacturing or marketing industrial products under "Stanvac Prime" brand as per Clause 5(ii) of TOS [Paras 77-76].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Power to Issue Remedial Directions – Apart from punishing contemners, the court has power to issue directions to nullify any advantage secured through contemptuous conduct and to give parties an opportunity to purge contempt – Both parties found to be in wilful disobedience of the TOS – Directions issued to each party to file affidavits of compliance within four weeks – Non-compliance to invite appropriate action [Paras 88-95].

Decision: Both SM and SDM found to be in wilful disobedience of the Terms of Settlement – Directions issued to SDM: (i) to refrain from using "SUPERON" on websites/social media accessible from India unless geo-blocked; (ii) to remove hoardings displaying "SUPERON" from physical premises in India; (iii) to demarcate operations into three divisions per Clause 5; (iv) to ensure separate non-interlinked divisional websites; (v) to refrain from manufacturing/marketing industrial products under "Stanvac Prime" – Directions issued to SM: (i) to refrain from interlinking "SUPERON" with "STANVAC/STARBLAZE" in any manner; (ii) to remove physical hoardings interlinking these marks; (iii) to geo-block its website/social media handles outside India – Both parties to file affidavits of compliance within four weeks – Matter listed for 30.04.2026.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Special Audit – Search and Seizure – Petitioner (Huawei India) challenged notices under Section 148 and directions for special audit under Section 142(2A) for AY 2013-14 and AY 2015-16 issued post search and seizure dated 15.02.2022 – For AY 2013-14, reasons recorded did not allege escapement of income in the form of an "asset" nor referenced the Distribution Agreement or Transfer Pricing Study – For AY 2015-16, reasons recorded specifically identified receivables by way of warranty reimbursement as an asset – Held: Reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 set aside; reassessment and special audit for AY 2015-16 upheld [Paras 135, 165, 166, 179, 181].

Reassessment – Limitation – Fourth Proviso to Section 153A – Asset Test – For reopening assessment beyond three years but within ten years under Section 149(1)(b) read with the fourth proviso to Section 153A, a pre-condition is that income escaping assessment must be represented in the form of an "asset" exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs – Explanation 2 to Section 153A defines "asset" as inclusive and not exhaustive – Held: Receivables in the form of reimbursement of warranty and customer claim provisions, arising out of the Distribution Agreement and FAR Analysis in the Transfer Pricing Report, constitute "assets" within the inclusive definition [Paras 144–151].

Reassessment – AY 2013-14 – No Asset Disclosed in Reasons – Reasons recorded for AY 2013-14 confined to doubting allowability and genuineness of provision for customer claims – No reference to receivables, Distribution Agreement, or Transfer Pricing Study – Issue of disallowance of provision for customer claims was already decided in petitioner's favour by the ITAT and the order attained finality – Assessment cannot be reopened solely to re-verify or re-investigate an already settled issue – Held: Reassessment notice dated 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside for failure to satisfy jurisdictional preconditions under fourth proviso to Section 153A [Paras 154–165].

Reassessment – Reasons for One Year Cannot Justify Reopening of Another Year – Revenue's argument that detailed reasons recorded for AY 2016-17 (separate writ petition) could be read in conjunction with AY 2013-14 since both emanated from same search material, rejected – Each assessment year requires independent recording of reasons correlating the incriminating material to that specific year – Notices for AY 2013-14 and AY 2016-17 were issued separately and neither was styled as a composite or common satisfaction note for the block period – Reliance on Indian National Congress v. DCIT distinguished on facts [Paras 161–164].

Reassessment – AY 2015-16 – Receivables as Assets – Warranty Provisions – Reasons recorded for AY 2015-16 specifically relied on the Distribution Agreement (indemnity and risk allocation clauses) and the FAR Analysis in the Transfer Pricing Study to establish that provisions for warranty created by the petitioner were reimbursable by the Associated Enterprise – Petitioner itself admitted recovery of Rs. 69,81,40,820/- from its Associated Enterprise on account of customer claims during draft assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 – Held: Right to reimbursement arising in the year of provisioning constitutes an asset; reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 upheld as within limitation and jurisdictionally sound [Paras 139–152, 166].

Special Audit – Section 142(2A) – Scope – Reassessment Proceedings – Petitioner's contention that Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked during reassessment proceedings rejected – Section 2(8) of the Act defines "assessment" to include "reassessment" – Once a notice under Section 143(2) is issued, all powers available to the Assessing Officer in regular assessment, including power to direct special audit, are equally available during reassessment – Held: Special audit directions for AY 2015-16 upheld [Paras 172, 179].

Special Audit – AY 2013-14 – Consequential Fate – Special audit directed for AY 2013-14 for the purpose of the reassessment proceedings for that year – Since the reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 itself has been set aside for want of jurisdiction, the special audit direction and notices relatable to AY 2013-14 also do not survive – Held: Special audit direction dated 13.09.2024 and notices dated 10.06.2024 and 05.07.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside [Para 170].

Special Audit – Voluminous and Complex Accounts – Scope of Section 142(2A) Post Finance Act 2013 Amendment – Finance Act, 2013 expanded the jurisdictional triggers for special audit beyond "nature and complexity" to include "volume of accounts, doubts about correctness, multiplicity of transactions and specialised nature of business activity" – ERP data dump comprising lakhs of line items unsegregated into ledgers, admitted duplication and missing entries for two financial years, failure to maintain backup of digital books in servers located in India, and non-provision of physical books of accounts during search – Held: Sufficient grounds existed for Assessing Officer to be satisfied and direct special audit for AY 2015-16 [Paras 173–178].

Decision: W.P.(C) 13553/2024 and W.P.(C) 13572/2024 allowed — Reassessment notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148, notice dated 24.05.2024 under Section 143(2), and satisfaction note dated 29.05.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside — Special audit direction dated 13.09.2024 and notices dated 10.06.2024 and 05.07.2024 for AY 2013-14 also set aside — W.P.(C) 14898/2024 and W.P.(C) 15970/2023 dismissed — Reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 and special audit direction for AY 2015-16 sustained — Interim orders vacated.

Election Law – Election Petition – Maintainability – Concise Statement of Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act mandates that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts constituting the cause of action — Petitioner challenged election of Respondent No. 1 from 129-Vikramgad (S.T.) Assembly Constituency on three grounds: (i) improper acceptance of Nomination Form; (ii) non-reproduction of disclaimer Note-1 to Note-5 below verification in Affidavit in Form-26; and (iii) ineligibility of returned candidate as Government servant — Held: Election Petition is replete with vague and generic allegations devoid of material particulars — Omission of even a single material fact leads to incomplete cause of action — Petition dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12, 13, 21, 22, 35].

Nomination Form – Form-26 – Non-reproduction of Disclaimer Notes – Corrupt Practice – Affidavit in Form-26 is a statutory printed form bearing a distinct identification number, disbursed by the Returning Officer to each candidate — Non-reproduction of disclaimer Note-1 to Note-5 below verification cannot be attributed to the returned candidate — Such omission does not amount to corrupt practice under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), (iv) or 123(4) of the RP Act — Alleged omission does not constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act — Held: This ground fails on the face of record [Paras 13, 22, 28].

Government Servant – Eligibility to Contest Election – Ashram Shala Sanhita – Returned candidate serving as Headmaster in Arvind Prathamik Ashramshala governed by Ashram Shala Sanhita 2019 published by Adivasi Vikas Vibhag — Provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 not applicable — Returned candidate applied for and obtained written permission from the Trust on 26.10.2024 under Clause 4.3.13 of Ashram Shala Sanhita before contesting the election — Permission uploaded on ECI website — Petitioner suppressed this fact in the Election Petition — Held: Ground of ineligibility not sustainable [Paras 15, 30, 32].

Election Petition – Material Effect on Result – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – For invoking Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election Petitioner must specifically plead and prove that result of election was materially affected by non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or RP Act — Mere violation or non-compliance per se does not render election void — No averment that result was materially affected was made with material particulars — Held: Non-pleading of material facts amounts to non-disclosure of cause of action warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 17, 18, 19, 27, 29].

Non-Disclosure in Form-26 – Section 125A – While disclosure in Form-26 is mandatory, non-disclosure or partial disclosure constitutes an irregularity attracting Section 125A of the RP Act and cannot independently be a ground for setting aside the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) — No material facts disclosed in Petition as to how the alleged omission had material bearing on the Election result — Held: Principal ground of challenge unsustainable [Para 28].

EVMs – Release of Ballot Units and Control Units – Application (L) No. 24590 of 2025 by Chief Electoral Officer — Held: 358 Ballot Units and 358 Control Units in custody of District Election Officer not necessary for adjudication — District Election Officer directed to release the same within two weeks from date of uploading of order [Para 39].

Decision: Application (L) No. 9497 of 2025 allowed — Election Petition No. 19 of 2025 rejected and dismissed — Application No. 6 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous — Application (L) No. 24590 of 2025 allowed — District Election Officer directed to release 358 Ballot Units and 358 Control Units within two weeks — No costs.

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Mandatory Requirements – Duty of First Appellate Court – Plaintiff's suit for recovery of compensation for land acquired for SEZ was dismissed by the trial Court after framing seven issues and deciding on merits – First Appellate Court, without framing points for determination, without independently assessing evidence, and without giving any reasons, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court on account of interlocutory applications filed at the appellate stage – Held: The judgment of the First Appellate Court was cryptic and unsatisfactory; the Court failed to discharge its obligation as a final Court of facts; Order XLI Rule 31 CPC mandates that the appellate Court state points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons therefor; non-compliance renders the judgment unsustainable [Paras 17–26].

Amendment of Plaint at Appellate Stage – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Proviso – Application for amendment of plaint adding new properties to schedules filed before First Appellate Court vide I.A.No.573 of 2023 – First Appellate Court allowed the application without assigning reasons and without recording satisfaction that the amendment could not have been introduced before commencement of trial despite due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Held: Such allowance of amendment without reasons is unsustainable; the First Appellate Court was required to decide this application on merits [Paras 21, 26].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Appellate Court's Power – Exception to General Principle – General principle is that an appellate Court should not travel outside the trial Court record and cannot take fresh evidence – Exception under Order XLI Rule 27 permits production of additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances – First Appellate Court allowed I.A.No.267 of 2023 permitting additional evidence without following the prescribed procedure and without assigning reasons – Held: Such allowance without reasons and without following the procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 is not proper; the application must be decided on merits [Paras 22, 26].

Second Appeal – Maintainability – Order of Remand – Respondent contended that since the impugned order was one of remand, only a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC was maintainable – Held: Since the First Appellate Court set aside the total judgment and decree of the trial Court by substituting its own judgment, and not merely remanded on a limited point, a second appeal is maintainable – Distinction between a mere order of remand and substitution of the trial Court's judgment recognised [Paras 15–16, 23].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024 in A.S.No.126 of 2023 of the XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi, set aside – Matter remanded to the First Appellate Court with five specific points for determination framed by the High Court, including questions regarding the extent of land purchased by defendant No.5, his possession pursuant to statutory obligations with APIIC, the plaintiff's entitlement to recover the suit amount, entitlement to amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 at the appellate stage, and permission to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – First Appellate Court directed to decide on merits without being influenced by earlier findings – Exercise to be completed within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 29–30].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Anticipatory Bail – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Applicability – Accused daughter of late MD of PACL/PGFL, which allegedly collected over Rs. 48,000 crore through fraudulent investment schemes – ECIR registered in 2016 – Accused a Director in two Australian companies and in M/s Maurya Healthcare (P) Ltd., which received and diverted proceeds of crime – Rs. 657.18 crore siphoned through PIPL to Australian companies and used to purchase immovable properties now attached – Held: Twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA apply to anticipatory bail applications as much as to regular bail; once an anticipatory bail prayer is made in connection with a PMLA offence, the underlying rigors of Section 45 must get triggered; court to satisfy itself as regards existence of prima facie case on broad probabilities and likelihood of accused committing any offence while on bail – Judicial trend of dilution of twin conditions on account of prolonged incarceration pertains to regular bail and not anticipatory bail, especially where custodial interrogation is required [Paras 6-7].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Anticipatory Bail – Evasive Conduct – Obstruction of Investigation – Proviso to Section 45 – Accused not named in initial chargesheet or ECIR – Claimed benefit of proviso to Section 45 being a woman – However, during interrogation under protection from arrest, accused refused to disclose companies in which she was Director, refused to provide documents, feigned ignorance about sale of immovable properties and gave answers contrary to statements on oath – Filed affidavit before court with facts contrary to those stated on oath before interrogator – During search proceedings, instructed associate over video call to ensure no incriminating material was discovered by raiding team – Non-bailable warrants obtained due to non-response to notices – Held: Even ignoring the twin conditions, the above described conduct does not justify grant of anticipatory bail – Evasive and obstructive conduct in response to investigation constitutes a material circumstance weighing against anticipatory bail; giving false answers to interrogator goes beyond "smart answers" – Requirement of custodial interrogation successfully established by DoE [Paras 8-14].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application and pending application dismissed – DoE to act in accordance with law.

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3H(4) – Reference to Principal Civil Court – Apportionment of Compensation – "Person Interested" – Land of the estate holder Abdul Ahad Ganie acquired for widening of Baramulla-Kupwara National Highway – Award passed in favour of Respondent No.5 as sole owner on the basis of Mutation No.1066 recorded exclusively in her name for over seven decades – Petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased co-sharer Mst. Malla Begum, sought reference of apportionment dispute under Section 3H(4) – Application rejected by Competent Authority – Held: Section 3H(4) uses mandatory language requiring reference once a dispute as to apportionment arises; however, such dispute must be one that the competent authority cannot decide without adjudication, assessed from the perspective of the competent authority and not merely from the perspective of the person challenging – Merely because a third party could raise a challenge, the competent authority is not bound to refer the dispute to civil court – In the present case, petitioners' claim of co-heirship under Muslim Personal Law remains unestablished before any competent forum; no declaratory decree or adjudicated right in the property exists; neither the petitioners nor their deceased mother was ever recorded as owner or tenant in available revenue records – Petitioners failed to file objections during acquisition proceedings within the statutory notice period – On these facts, petitioners do not qualify as "persons interested" and no legally cognizable apportionment dispute exists to mandate reference [Paras 22-33].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3H(4) – Distinction between Apportionment Dispute and Title Dispute – Revenue Entries – Mutation – The ratio of Vinod Kumar and Others v. District Magistrate, Mau and Others (2023) 19 SCC 126 presupposes the existence of competing legally recognizable interests in the property and applies where parties are co-sharers whose shares require apportionment; it does not apply where the very title of the claimant remains in dispute and is yet to be established by a civil court – Revenue entries and mutations do not confer title; however, where Respondent No.5 has been able to establish right, title, interest and ownership, and petitioners have failed to do so, they are strangers to the acquisition and cannot invoke Section 3H(4) – Remedy available to the petitioners is to challenge the title of Respondent No.5 before the civil court independent of acquisition proceedings [Paras 27-37].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No illegality or perversity found in the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 of the District Collector, Baramulla – Dismissal shall not come in the way of petitioners pursuing the civil suit and revision petition pending before competent courts – Respondent No. 5 directed to be released compensation in terms of Award dated 31.07.2024 subject to her furnishing an undertaking that in the event petitioners succeed in the civil suit or revision petition, she and her legal heirs shall duly compensate the petitioners to the extent of their adjudicated share.