Employment Law – Termination due to Concealment of Criminal Case – Appellant challenged the termination of his services by the District Judge, Etah, following police verification revealing a pending criminal case – High Court emphasized the necessity for candidates to disclose pending criminal proceedings honestly – Held that concealment of material facts in an affidavit at the time of employment justified termination – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].
Criminal Law – Affidavit of No Criminal Proceedings – Requirement under recruitment rules for a candidate to furnish an affidavit stating no pending criminal proceedings – Appellant failed to disclose Case Crime No. 392/2022 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC during document verification – Court found appellant's non-disclosure deliberate, constituting valid ground for termination [Paras 4-15].
Judicial Integrity – Requirement for High Moral Character – Court reiterated the necessity for judicial employees to have impeccable integrity and clean antecedents – Emphasized that any concealment of criminal cases undermines trust in the judiciary [Paras 16-18].
Decision: Appeal dismissed – The termination order by the District Judge, Etah, was upheld as just and proper – High Court highlighted the critical importance of transparency and honesty in affidavits related to criminal antecedents for judicial appointments.
 

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Considerations for Grant: Petitioner sought regular bail for offenses under Sections 308, 341, 354B, 506, 509 IPC. The court considered the delay in FIR registration and the gravity of allegations. It highlighted factors such as prima facie case, severity of punishment, and potential to tamper with evidence. The application was dismissed on grounds of severity of charges and apprehension of influencing witnesses [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Tampering – Allegation of Suppression: The petitioner was accused of formatting his mobile phone before seizure, indicating potential evidence tampering. Selective CCTV footage was handed over by the petitioner’s office, raising concerns about evidence suppression. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation [Paras 7-13].

Prima Facie Case – Consideration of Facts: The delay in FIR registration was explained by the complainant’s trauma and position. The court found no motive for false implication. Allegations of unprovoked assault in a high-security area were taken seriously. The court noted the complainant’s status and the petitioner’s influence in the office [Paras 12-14].

Security Breach Report – Investigation Pending: A report by Deepak Dikshit, Assistant Section Officer at the Chief Minister’s residence, about the complainant’s unauthorized entry was not included in the police investigation. The court observed that any serious security breach should have been immediately reported to the police, apart from sending a report to senior officers [Para 13].

Criminal History and Threats: The petitioner had a prior case (FIR No.102/2007 under Section 353 IPC) and was accused of making threatening statements to the complainant. The court considered these factors in denying bail [Para 9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Pending applications disposed of. The court emphasized thorough investigation and protection of witnesses [Para 14].

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Appellants accused of drug smuggling and financing terrorism – Held in custody for nearly four years – High Court granted bail emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Bail granted with strict conditions despite stringent provisions under UAPA and NDPS Act [Paras 1-29].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellants detained for four years without trial – Supreme Court’s precedent cited to reinforce the right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Detention exceeding substantial part of potential sentence considered [Paras 12-15, 26].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 37 of NDPS Act and 43D of UAPA – Twin conditions for bail – Reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offense while on bail – High Court found compliance with these conditions, facilitating bail grant [Paras 17-19, 23].

Case Specifics – Role of Appellants – Charges against appellants varied, with different sets of offenses under IPC, NDPS Act, and UAPA – Detailed examination of charges, role in alleged crimes, and lack of recovery of drugs or proceeds of crime for some appellants [Paras 8-10, 20-22].

Decision – Bail Granted – Held – Appellants directed to be released on bail with stringent conditions – Conditions include furnishing substantial sureties, surrender of passports, regular court appearance, and prohibition from involvement in criminal activities or tampering with evidence [Paras 27-29].

Negligence in Educational Institutes – Medical Facilities – Petition filed alleging negligence resulting in the death of a student due to inadequate medical facilities at Thakur Polytechnic College – Court acknowledges individual tragedy but emphasizes the broader issue of medical infrastructure in educational institutes – Directions issued to State authorities to ensure medical facilities [Paras 1-4].

Writ Jurisdiction – Tort Law – High Court finds it inappropriate to adjudicate on disputed factual issues related to pre-existing conditions and negligence in writ jurisdiction – Petitioner's claim for damages falls within tort law, hence not granted relief for damages [Para 7].

Mandate for Medical Facilities – State Government directed to issue directives ensuring medical facilities in educational institutes – Reference to AICTE guidelines and the need for structured medical infrastructure – Importance of immediate medical aid highlighted – Circular dated July 10, 2024, issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department mandating basic medical facilities in all educational institutes [Paras 8-12].

Government Circular and Compliance – Circular mandates first aid rooms, medical training, insurance for students, and emergency response mechanisms – Need for consequences for non-compliance emphasized – Directions for monitoring and ensuring adherence to medical facility standards – Proposal for a helpline and social media presence for reporting deficiencies [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

Petition partly allowed – Directions issued to State authorities for ensuring medical facilities in educational institutes – Petitioner's individual claim for damages rejected – State Government to issue similar directives within one month – Rule made absolute in specified terms [Paras 14-15].

Bail – NDPS and UAPA – Long Incarceration and Delayed Trial – Appellants in custody for nearly four years without conclusion of trial – Allegations of drug smuggling and funding terrorist activities – Stringent bail conditions under NDPS Act and UAPA – Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the need for speedy trial and protection of personal liberty – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-27].

Regular Bail – Conditions Imposed – Bail granted subject to furnishing bond and sureties – Surrender of passports – Mandatory court appearances – No inducement or threats to witnesses – Non-involvement in criminal activities – Prohibition on sale or transfer of property – Undertaking regarding trial attendance [Para 27].

Decision:

Bail granted to appellants Gursant Singh (A-9), Manpreet Singh @ Mann (A-14), Hilal Ahmed Shergoji @ Hilal Ahmed Wagay @ Hilal Ahmad (A-1), and Bikram Singh @ Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky (A-2) subject to conditions including furnishing of bail bonds, non-inducement of witnesses, mandatory court appearances, and prohibition on sale or transfer of property. Hilal Ahmed to be subject to additional conditions by the trial court [Paras 27-28].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Petition for Termination Beyond 24 Weeks – Petitioner, a rape survivor, seeks termination of 25+ weeks pregnancy – Medical Board denied termination citing risks and possibility of live birth – Court considers autonomy, health risks, and viability of the fetus – Directions for re-examination by PGIMER – Conditions imposed if termination not carried out [Paras 1-26].

Reproductive Rights – Autonomy and Mental Health – Petitioner’s autonomy over body and mental trauma of carrying pregnancy from rape considered – Court balances medical risks and ethical considerations – Directions ensure petitioner’s health and child’s welfare post-birth [Paras 13-24].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for re-examination by the Medical Board of PGIMER, Chandigarh. If risks and complications affirm live delivery or require feticide, termination not to be undertaken. If favorable, procedure to be carried out per law. Further directions ensure medical facilities, privacy, and child’s welfare, including potential adoption by Child Welfare Committee, Hisar [Para 26].

Application for Exemption – CPC Section 151 – Applications for various procedural exemptions including filing clearer copies, original documents, and pre-litigation mediation – Exemptions granted with stipulations for filing within specified time frames [Paras 1-10].

Pleadings – Filing Requirements – Directions for filing written statements, affidavits, and replications within prescribed periods – Emphasis on adherence to procedures to avoid rejection [Paras 11-15].

Interim Injunction – Copyright Infringement – Plaintiff seeks interim relief to prevent defendant from using copyrighted sound recordings – Plaintiff owns rights through assignments under Section 18 of the Copyright Act – Court finds prima facie case for interim injunction, emphasizing the need to protect copyright and prevent irreparable damage to plaintiff [Paras 16-37].

License Fee Dispute – Section 31 of Copyright Act – Plaintiff alleges defendant’s unwillingness to pay standard license fee – Defendant claims unreasonableness of fees – Court directs that the defendant may negotiate with plaintiff but must adhere to demanded fees for license issuance [Paras 38-41].

Decision: Applications for various exemptions and interim relief granted – Directions issued for compliance with procedural requirements – Interim injunction imposed to prevent copyright infringement pending final resolution – Case listed for further proceedings.
 

Excess Payment Recovery – After Retirement – Petitioner challenged the reduction of pay and recovery of excess payments post-retirement – No show cause notice or personal hearing was provided – Court held recovery without hearing violated principles of natural justice – Cited Supreme Court precedent against recovering excess payments from retired employees, especially when not due to fraud or misrepresentation by the employee [Paras 1-10].

Natural Justice – Lack of Notice – Recovery of excess payments made without issuing show cause notice or granting personal hearing – Court emphasized adherence to natural justice principles – Recovery orders set aside and directions given for refund with interest [Paras 9-10].

Supreme Court Guidelines – Applicability – Court referenced guidelines from Rafiq Masih case prohibiting recovery from Class III employees post-retirement – Applied guidelines to protect petitioner from recovery of mistakenly granted increments [Para 11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Impugned recovery orders quashed – Respondents directed to refund recovered amounts with interest within three months [Paras 12].

Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellant challenged trial court’s acquittal of respondent in cheque dishonour case – Court upheld acquittal noting lack of evidence of goods delivery and accused’s liability – Emphasized need for concrete proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2-6, 12-14].

Presumption and Evidence – Section 138 and 139 NI Act – Court highlighted requirement to prove debt or liability for cheque dishonour cases – Noted failure to provide delivery proof, invoices without acknowledgment, and absence of business records corroborating transaction – Accused’s claim of misplaced cheque book substantiated by timely police report [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reappreciation of Evidence – Reiterated principles of limited interference in acquittal appeals – Emphasized prejudice in favour of acquitted accused and necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conviction [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Trial court’s judgment well-reasoned and evidence-based – No grounds to interfere with acquittal – Leave to appeal denied [Para 14].