Criminal Law - Pre-arrest Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Accused No 1 an accountant at Malappuram District Cricket Association was deputed to verify accounts at Kerala Cricket Association Thiruvananthapuram - Allegation that he stole data from the computer and forwarded it to Accused No 2 a member of the Association - Accused No 2 further shared the data with two other office bearers - Prosecution alleged offences of cheating and fraud - Petitioners argued false implication and lack of evidence - Court observed that the data was admittedly not shared with any third party but only within office bearers - Investigating officer already seized the laptop and pen drive used for the alleged act and forwarded them for scientific examination - No criminal antecedents found against the applicants - Held - Custodial interrogation is unnecessary and pre-arrest bail is granted subject to conditions including execution of bond and cooperation with the investigation - [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Law - Information Technology Law - Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 - Sections 43, 66, 66B, 72 and 77B - Bailable Offences - Maximum punishment for offences charged under the IT Act is three years - Section 77B provides that any offence punishable with imprisonment of three years is bailable - Court noted the absence of allegations regarding dishonest mens rea in the First Information Statement - Held - Considering the nature of the offences and progress of recovery the case is fit for grant of pre-arrest bail - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Applications allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted to both applicants – Directions issued for executing bond of Rs 1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties and appearance before the investigating officer every Saturday.

Writ Law - Fraud and Fabrication of Records - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Fabrication of land grant orders and revenue receipts - Private respondents claimed grant of 3 acres each in 1982 based on a proposal for reduction of gomal land - Single Judge allowed writ petition setting aside subsequent allotment to Appellant Mutt - Division Bench found that original writ prayer sought mandamus to conclude proceedings which presupposed no concluded grant existed - Subsequently produced grant orders and receipts were found suspicious as they were never part of official records - FSL report confirmed documents from different offices were typed on the same typewriter - Signatures of officials were found to be missing or mismatched - Held - Fraud and justice never dwell together - The conduct of the petitioners in engineering records and defrauding the Court disentitles them from seeking any relief in equity - Impugned order of Single Judge set aside - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-54].

Writ Law - Scope of Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disputed Questions of Fact - Adjudication of title - Writ court set aside statutory land grant in favour of Mutt by relying on photocopies of alleged 1982 grants produced mid-proceedings - State and Mutt contended documents were fabricated - Division Bench held that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant for adjudication of complex and disputed questions of fact especially when the authenticity of title documents is in serious doubt - Writ court failed to consider the State's evidence regarding the non-existence of such grants in official registers - Held - Court cannot declare private rights of parties where the foundation of such rights is based on deliberate deception and fabrication - [Paras 20-22, 33-44].

Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 45 - FSL Report - Value of forensic findings in writ proceedings - State produced FSL report showing that multiple documents purportedly issued by different departments at different times were typed on a single typewriter - Single Judge discounted the report as the age of the ink could not be scientifically determined - Division Bench held that the similarity in fonts and character alignment across different departmental documents was a conclusive indicator of fabrication - Held - Cumulative facts including lack of possession and absence of original records established that the claim was an afterthought engineered to engulf State property - [Paras 39-44, 47-52].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 30695/2018 is set aside – Writ Petition filed by the private respondents is dismissed – Order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 897/2011 is upheld.

Civil Law - Recovery of Money - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Loan versus reimbursement of expenses - Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs 2 lakhs advanced to the Defendant via two cheques in May 2009 - Defendant admitted receipt and encashment of cheques but claimed the amount was partial discharge of Plaintiff liability towards litigation expenses for ancestral property in Bhatinda - Trial Court found that the Plaintiff proved the loan through bank statements and ITR verification forms for 2010-2011 where the loan was reflected as an asset - Defendant failed to provide particulars of legal proceedings or prove that such litigation expenses were due from the Plaintiff - High Court observed that the Defendant defense was mutually contradictory as the Sale Deed Ex DW1/1 cited by him was executed after his father death and did not reflect the father as a party or mention the alleged litigation debt - Held - Concurrent findings of fact based on cogent evidence do not warrant interference in second appeal - [Paras 1-37].

Civil Law - Additional Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Filling of lacunae - Appellant moved an application to examine three additional witnesses at the appellate stage claiming they were inadvertently not examined before the Trial Court - Record indicated that the Appellant had voluntarily closed his evidence after examining himself and DW2 - High Court held that Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be invoked to fill gaps or lacunae in evidence when the party had the opportunity but chose not to examine witnesses during the trial - Held - Application for additional evidence is a mere attempt to fill lacunae and is liable to be dismissed - [Paras 34-35].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - Appellant challenged the concurrent findings on grounds of shifting onus of proof and closure of evidence - High Court found that the grounds urged by the Appellant were purely factual in nature - The court noted that since the Plaintiff established the loan through bank records and tax filings the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove his specific defense of reimbursement which he failed to do - Held - No substantial question of law arises for consideration and the appeal is dismissed - [Paras 38-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 37 - Bail - Recovery of commercial quantity - Petitioner was intercepted while driving a hired vehicle containing three nylon sacks of Ganja weighing 104.6 kg - Bail sought on grounds of five-day delay in producing inventory before Magistrate under Section 52A - Allegations of using uncertified weighing machine and overwriting in seizure list - Claims of violation of Article 39A due to non-supply of translated statements - State contended search was videographed and independent witnesses were present - Held - To overcome the rigors of Section 37 the court must find reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty - Recovery of commercial quantity and statutory presumption under Section 54 create a prima facie case - Procedural issues regarding inventory delay or seizure list overwriting are matters for trial - Bail application dismissed .

Criminal Law - Procedural Compliance - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 52A - Inventory Procedure - Delay in production - Petitioner argued that inventory forwarded to Magistrate after five days breached the mandatory requirement of being done forthwith - Held - Delay or non-compliance with the procedure envisaged under Section 52A is at most an irregularity and not an illegality that nullifies the prosecution or entitles the accused to bail - Mere non-compliance does not affect the search and seizure if otherwise established by sufficient material .

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 54 - Possession - Petitioner found in possession of a large quantity of contraband in a vehicle booked through a rental app - Held - Courts are entitled to presume commission of an offence unless the accused rebuts the presumption during trial - Non-compliance with early disposal procedures under Section 52A does not vitiate the trial when possession is found.

Decision: Prayer for bail dismissed – Petitioner to remain in custody.

Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Prolonged Incarceration - Appellant-human rights activist was arrested for allegedly recruiting OGWs for LeT-facilitating contacts with Pakistan-based handlers-collecting data on Indian Army movements and bribing an NIA officer to compromise a separate investigation - Trial Court denied bail holding allegations prima facie true based on approver statements and seized documents - Appellant argued 4.5 years of custody with 197 witnesses yet to be examined violated Article 21 - High Court conducted surface evaluation of evidence noting that documents like the Structures of Violence Report were in public domain and approver testimony was yet to be tested - Court observed that trial was only at the stage of framing charges - Held - Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA must melt down where there is no likelihood of trial completion in reasonable time and incarceration period is substantial - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 may trump statutory bars on bail - Impugned order set aside and bail granted - [Paras 1-76].

Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Interplay with UAPA - Right to speedy trial - High Court reiterated the principle from K.A. Najeeb that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period - Held - Pre-trial incarceration cannot assume the character of punishment through mere passage of time - [Paras 51-58].

Criminal Law - Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 437(1) - Infirmity - Special consideration for disabled accused - Appellant lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004 and uses a prosthetic limb - Prosecution argued infirmity did not hinder his activities - Court held that the appellant is infirm and deserves special consideration under the proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC which applies even to UAPA cases - [Paras 24, 73-74].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Rejection of bail by Trial Court set aside - Appellant released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties and conditions including surrendering passport and reporting to Investigating Officer fortnightly.

Criminal Law - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Discharge - Petitioner a retired Forest Range Officer accused of amassing assets worth 608 percent of known income - FIR registered by ACB under PC Act for disproportionate assets - ED recorded ECIR and filed prosecution complaint - Petitioner sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC and Section 250 BNSS claiming assets belonged to wife and were from legitimate sources including agriculture and dairy farming - Special Judge rejected discharge application - High Court in revision noted total salary was 57.12 lakhs while assets stood at 4.04 crores - Found specific layering of funds through family bank accounts and investment in real estate named Ashirwaad - Held - prima facie case of money laundering established - no error in trial court order - [Paras 1-119].

Criminal Law - Discharge Principles - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 227 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 250 - Scope of judicial mind - Trial court at discharge stage must sift evidence only for limited purpose of finding prima facie case - Not required to conduct mini-trial or evaluate probative value of defense evidence - High Court should exercise self-restraint in revision unless glaring injustice is shown - Held - standard of proof at this stage is ground for presuming commission of offense not ground for conviction - [Paras 46-79].

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 24 - Reverse burden - Prosecution established foundational facts showing huge disproportion between known income and acquired assets - Assets quantified as proceeds of crime - Mandatory statutory presumption arises that such wealth is involved in money laundering - Held - burden shifts to accused to prove funds are untainted during trial - cannot discharge this burden at the stage of framing charges by attaching unverified documents - [Paras 5-99].

Criminal Law - Proceeds of Crime - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 2-1-u - Definition - Explanation added by Act 23 of 2019 - Includes property derived from scheduled offense and property relatable to scheduled offense - Petitioner argued no specific identification of property from criminal activity - Court found cash seizures and construction of residential building from unexplained funds squarely fall under proceeds of crime - Held - wide definition covers properties acquired through misuse of official position - [Paras 31-94].

Criminal Law - Predicate Offence - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 3 - Survival of proceedings - Petitioner argued wife was exonerated in predicate offence final form - Court noted charge sheet against petitioner in scheduled offence is still alive and pending trial - Held - person need not be an accused in scheduled offense to be prosecuted for laundering - decision not to prosecute wife does not legitimize tainted funds parked in her accounts - [Paras 87-97].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Rejection of discharge application by the Special Judge affirmed – Trial to proceed independently on merits.

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Applicant sought review of judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 4076 of 2025 on grounds that a page containing his EWS certificate was omitted from written instructions - Contended that he secured higher marks than the last selected EWS candidate and was illegally denied reservation - State argued that applicant consciously applied under Unreserved (UR) category in the online form and the EWS certificate produced was not in the prescribed format - High Court summoned original records and found that the allegedly missing pages were identical to existing records and no prejudice was caused - Held - review is maintainable only upon discovery of new matter or an error apparent on the face of the record - omission or misplacement of a document does not automatically render a judgment erroneous unless it results in a patent error or manifest miscarriage of justice - Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or re-hear the matter on merits under the guise of review - applicant having opted for UR category at the initial stage cannot later claim migration to EWS contrary to selection conditions - application dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - Scope of Review - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Principles of Review - Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise - Error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and self-evident without requiring a process of reasoning - Held - a plea requiring elaborate examination and factual adjudication does not satisfy the settled parameters for review - [Paras 6, 17].

Decision: Review Application dismissed - No error apparent on the face of the record found.

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Discord - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner wife of the husband's cousin brother was named as Accused No. 2 in FIR alleging offences under Section 498A IPC - Informant alleged that husband (A1) spent time with Petitioner and engraved her son's name on his hand - Further allegation that Petitioner abused informant at Shirdi - Petitioner contended she was a distant relative and the allegations were baseless - Court perused the FIR and chargesheet noting that allegations were general vague and based on mere suspicion of an extra-marital affair - No specific instances of dowry demand or physical violence were attributed to the Petitioner - Judicial precedents caution against roping in distant relatives in matrimonial disputes without specific roles or active involvement - Held - Allowing the proceeding to continue against the Petitioner would be an abuse of process of law as no prima facie case of cruelty was made out - [Paras 1-16].

Criminal Law - Cruelty - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Extra-marital relationship - Informant alleged mental cruelty due to husband's proximity with the Petitioner - Court analyzed the definition of cruelty under Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A IPC - Ratio Decidendi - Solely because a husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is suspicion in the mind of the wife the same cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract Section 498A IPC - For an extra-marital relationship to constitute cruelty it must be of such a degree that it drives the wife to commit suicide or causes grave injury - Suspicion based on moral notions cannot substitute legal or cogent evidence - Held - The alleged conduct did not meet the statutory threshold of cruelty - [Paras 10-15].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Scope of Quashing - High Court examined the increasing tendency to implicate entire families in matrimonial disputes over trivial issues - Reliance placed on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar - Held - Criminal process is a serious matter and cannot be permitted when allegations are inherently improbable or unsupported by concrete material - Mere casual reference to names of family members in a domestic quarrel does not justify taking cognizance - [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 43/2020 arising out of FIR No. 83/2019 registered with Revdanda Police Station Alibag quashed and set aside as against the Petitioner only – Trial to proceed against other co-accused in accordance with law.

Writ Law - Transfer - Service Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner appointed as LDC Stores in Canteen Stores Department under Ministry of Defence - Transferred from Bathinda to Jaipur on own request in 2023 - Subsequently transferred to Head Office Mumbai in February 2025 - Petitioner challenged transfer before Central Administrative Tribunal CAT on grounds of violation of transfer policy and mala fides - CAT dismissed Original Application holding that transfer policy is not mandatory and administrative exigencies prevail - High Court observed that transfer is an incident of service and employee has no vested right to remain at one station - Record showed transfer was due to functional requirements and staff shortage at Mumbai - Petitioner failed to prove malice in fact or law - Transfer order was not passed in isolation as two other employees were also transferred - Petitioner already served more than two years at Jaipur Depot - Held - Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the challenge as transfer policy constitutes broad guidelines and not enforceable statutory rules - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-35].

Writ Law - Transfer Policy - Guidelines - Constitution of India - Article 226 - CSD Transfer Policy dated 04.10.2011 - Clause 3 xxvi - Longest stayee and choice station formula - Petitioner contended that respondents failed to follow the longest stayee principle and ignored station seniors - Held - Transfer policies are broad guidelines for administrative convenience and do not confer legally enforceable rights - Interference by Courts only warranted in cases of statutory violation or established mala fides - Administration reserves the right to deviate from guidelines based on organizational interest and functional requirements - Suitability of an employee for a post is the sole discretion of the employer - [Paras 20-26].

Writ Law - Mala Fides - Burden of Proof - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner alleged transfer was vindictive action for seeking information under RTI Act and raising bonus issues - Held - To establish mala fide there must be a firm foundation of facts pleaded and established rather than vague insinuations - Issues like non-payment of bonus or working under a junior do not per se suggest personal vendetta or hostile atmosphere - Court cannot interfere with transfer orders issued purely on administrative needs in the absence of evidence of personal malice - [Paras 27-33].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – CAT order upheld – No order as to costs.