Anticipatory Bail – Prima Facie Case – Applicability of Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act – The appellant, charged with offences under IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sought anticipatory bail – Court held: The prosecution failed to prima facie establish the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act – No satisfactory explanation was provided for the two-month delay in lodging the FIR, and the parties had prior enmity – Applying the principles from Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, the bar under Section 18 of the Act was not attracted, as no prima facie case was made out [Paras 6-10].

Delay in Filing FIR – Effect on Credibility – The delay of two months in lodging the FIR raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations – The incident took place within the confines of a private residence, and the lack of prompt action by the complainant further weakened the case against the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Principles of Anticipatory Bail – Mala Fide Allegations – Judicial Scrutiny – Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted when the proposed accusation stems from ulterior motives – The appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail, given the absence of any material suggesting malafides or intention to flee from justice [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Criminal appeal allowed – The order dismissing the anticipatory bail was set aside – The appellant was granted anticipatory bail with conditions: to appear before the Investigating Officer and execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two solvent sureties [Paras 14-16].

Termination of Mid-Day Meal Implementing Agency – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner challenged the termination order dated 09.09.2024 issued by the 7th respondent, terminating the petitioner as the Mid-Day-Meal Implementing Agency without assigning any reasons or giving an opportunity of hearing – Court held: The termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a show-cause notice or an opportunity to explain – The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue as the Mid-Day-Meal Implementing Agency unless a proper legal procedure, including issuing a show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner, is followed [Paras 2-4].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, noting that any order affecting the rights of an individual must follow due process, including giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard – Failure to do so amounts to a miscarriage of justice [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Writ petition disposed of – The termination order dated 09.09.2024 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to follow due process by issuing a show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner if they intend to proceed with the termination in the future – No order as to costs .

SARFAESI Act - Assignment of Overdraft Facility – Compliance with RBI Master Directions – Validity of Assignment – The appellants argued that their overdraft facility account was not a “Stressed Loan” as it had not been declared as a Special Mention Account (SMA) under the RBI’s Master Directions – Court held: Continuous breach of the sanctioned overdraft limit for 35 days (SMA-1) and 83 days (SMA-2) justified the classification of the account as a “Stressed Loan” and its assignment to the ARC was valid – No violation of Master Directions by the bank [Paras 8.2, 10, 13].

Remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – Limited Scope – Applicability to ARC – The appellants contended that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would not provide them with an effective remedy, as it applies to "Secured Creditors" and not ARCs – Court held: The appellants had alternative remedies available under Section 17 once their account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) – The writ petition was correctly dismissed by the learned Single Judge [Paras 15-18].

Delay in Challenging the Assignment – Inaction of the Appellants – Despite being informed of the assignment on 2 April 2024, the appellants failed to take timely action – The appellants waited until September 2024 to file the writ petition, by which time the account had already been declared an NPA – Court found the appellants negligent and dismissed the appeal [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The assignment of the overdraft account to the ARC was valid, and the appellants were negligent in challenging the assignment and failed to act in a timely manner – Appellants are directed to seek remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act [Para 27].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Inspection of Seized Documents – Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside orders denying inspection and provision of deficient copies of documents seized by the C.B.I. but not relied upon or filed in the court – Trial court dismissed the application for access, stating that only documents in the final report had been provided, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. – High Court examined whether unrelied documents seized during investigation should be accessible to the accused to ensure a fair trial – Held: Petition dismissed, but petitioner granted liberty to request unrelied documents in line with precedent [Paras 1, 11-15].

Right to Fair Trial – Disclosure of Unrelied Documents – Accused’s right to fair trial argued to include access to all seized documents, even if unrelied by the prosecution – Petitioner relied on Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017 and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court directed that all unrelied documents, material objects, and statements be listed for the accused, allowing them to seek relevant evidence for their defense – High Court affirmed that documents in the final report had been disclosed, satisfying Section 207, and any further request could be pursued in trial court [Paras 2-3, 6-10, 12-13].

Judicial Precedents – Compliance with Disclosure Rules – Referencing the Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, High Court reiterated that unrelied documents should be disclosed to the accused if deemed essential to the defense – Rule mandates one opportunity post-charge for disclosure requests, evaluated by the court on relevance and intent – High Court found no grounds for setting aside the trial court’s orders as the petitioner was already provided with all documents in the final report [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to seek specific unrelied documents per the ruling in CBI v. Surinder Pal Singh (CRM-M-26474-2023), ensuring the petitioner’s right to a fair trial remains preserved – Application disposed of with directions for trial court to assess any further disclosure requests based on relevance to the accused’s defense [Paras 13-16].
 

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Courts under MSMED Act – Application Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The question referred to the Larger Bench was whether the jurisdiction to challenge an award passed under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act is governed by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the original agreement between the parties or the place where the award was passed by the Facilitation Council – Held: The jurisdiction to hear a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is governed by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the original agreement, and not by the place where the Facilitation Council passed the award – Petition maintainable in Mumbai as per the agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause [Paras 1-16, 54].

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Applicability Post Award Under MSMED Act – Clause 5 of the original agreement, conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Mumbai courts, remains applicable even after the arbitration award is passed by the Facilitation Council in Shimla – The MSMED Act does not override the exclusive jurisdiction clause for the purpose of challenging an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 27-30, 44-50].

Seat vs. Venue of Arbitration – Distinction – The court reiterated that the "seat" of arbitration, as agreed upon by the parties in the original agreement, determines the jurisdiction for post-award proceedings, including challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – The "venue" of arbitration, being the location of the Facilitation Council (Shimla), is only for convenience and does not determine jurisdiction for setting aside the award [Paras 31-39].

Decision: The petition is maintainable before the Bombay High Court as per the original agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause, which remains unaffected by the MSMED Act – The case is referred back to the learned Single Judge for further consideration – Rule is made absolute [Paras 50-54].
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Based on Last Seen Together and Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC and causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC – The court discussed the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of last seen together – The appellant was allegedly last seen with the deceased before the murder, and certain articles were recovered from his possession – However, discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of reliable evidence on last seen together, coupled with forensic findings (no blood detected on the recovered articles), led the court to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The court set aside the trial court’s conviction and acquitted the appellant [Paras 10, 12, 20, 25, 27, 40-45, 58].

Recovery of Articles – Seizure of Alleged Murder Weapon and Other Items – An iron "tangi" (axe), blood-stained clothes, socks, and shoes were recovered based on the appellant's disclosure – FSL report found no blood on the recovered items – Court held that the recovery of these items did not constitute incriminating evidence against the appellant – The failure of forensic evidence weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 30, 33, 40-42].

Acquittal – Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove the chain of circumstances conclusively – In this case, the evidence of last seen together was weak, and the recovered articles did not establish a strong link between the accused and the crime – The court acquitted the appellant due to lack of reliable evidence [Paras 58-60].
 

Land Acquisition – Religious Structure – Quashing of Notifications – The petitioner in CWP-14168-1999 sought to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that a religious structure, Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib, was constructed before the acquisition – Held: The acquisition was valid, as the land vested in the Union Territory after the award under Section 11A was announced – The petitioner's application for release of the land was filed after the acquisition was complete, and no objections were filed within the prescribed period – The claim lacked merit and was dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Failure to Serve Personal Notice – No Vitiation of Acquisition – The petitioner argued that personal notices under Sections 4, 6, and 9 were not served – Held: There is no legal requirement for personal notice under Sections 4 and 6 – Publication in the Official Gazette and newspapers suffices – Failure to serve notice under Section 9 does not vitiate the acquisition once the land vests with the government [Para 6].

Release of Land – Hostile Discrimination Not Proven – The petitioner claimed that other parcels of land were released – Held: The petitioner’s land fell within the alignment of a major road, and no discrimination was proven – The claim was rejected [Para 7].

Public Interest – Rotary Construction – Mandamus Issued – In CWP-23369-2017, the petitioner sought a mandamus to complete the construction of a rotary near Model Jail Burail, which was delayed due to an interim order protecting the religious structure – Held: The interim order was vacated, and the respondents were directed to remove the structure and complete the rotary in public interest [Para 8].

Decision – CWP-14168-1999 was dismissed, and CWP-23369-2017 was disposed of with directions to complete the rotary construction [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law - Death Penalty – Rare and Exceptional Circumstances – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence and DNA Report – Sentence Modified – The appellants were convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor, with the trial court awarding the death penalty based on DNA evidence linking one appellant to the crime – The High Court considered whether the case fell under the "rarest of rare" category to justify the death sentence – The mitigating circumstances, including the socio-economic background, age of the appellant, and his acceptance of guilt during trial, weighed against the aggravating factors of the crime's brutality – The court modified the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission [Paras 20-25, 40-45, 60-70].

Proof of Age – Inconsistent Evidence – Victim's Age Above 12 Years – The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the victim was below 12 years of age, with contradictory testimonies from family members and school records – Following the Supreme Court's guidance in Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, the High Court held that the age could not be established beyond reasonable doubt, influencing the sentencing decision [Paras 15-20].

Chain of Circumstances – Failure to Prove Guilt of Co-Accused – The court acquitted appellant Banshilal Ahirwar due to lack of sufficient evidence directly implicating him in the crime – The DNA profile did not match, and the presence of the victim's blood on his clothing was reasonably explained by his role in handling the body post-mortem – Conviction set aside for appellant No. 2 [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The conviction of appellant No. 1 Ram Prasad Ahirwar under Sections 363, 366, 201, and 302 of the IPC is maintained. However, his sentence of death penalty is modified to life imprisonment without remission, and his conviction under Section 376(DB) is altered to Section 376(3), with 25 years of imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 Banshilal Ahirwar is acquitted of all charges. Criminal Reference No. 1/2021 is answered accordingly, and Criminal Appeal No. 885/2021 is allowed in part for Ram Prasad Ahirwar and fully for Banshilal Ahirwar.

Labour Law – Termination of Services – Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Section 25F of ID Act – Illegal Termination – The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages for the workman Manoj Kumar, who was engaged on an ad-hoc basis as a sweeper and terminated without following the proper procedure under Section 25F of the ID Act – Held: The termination violated Section 25F, but reinstatement is not automatic. The High Court set aside the reinstatement and instead awarded monetary compensation of ₹2,50,000 in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages [Paras 50-64].

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Jurisprudence on Relief for Procedural Defects – While reinstatement generally follows a finding of illegal termination, courts have increasingly awarded monetary compensation where reinstatement is deemed inappropriate, especially for casual or ad-hoc workers – Manoj Kumar’s appointment as an ad-hoc worker and the violation of Section 25F warranted monetary compensation rather than reinstatement [Paras 53-64].

Regularization of Services – Non-Entitlement – The Labour Court denied regularization as Manoj Kumar was not appointed through due process, and there was no sanctioned post for the position – The High Court upheld this decision, citing that mere continuation in service for 1553 days does not confer a right to regularization under the principles laid out in Uma Devi – Further, there were no grounds to claim discrimination as the other regularized employees were either seniors or in different circumstances [Paras 65-93].

Decision:

The writ petition filed by Punjab National Bank is allowed – Reinstatement with full back wages set aside – Compensation of ₹2,50,000 awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement – The writ petition filed by the workman for regularization is dismissed.