Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Burden of Proof – Chain of Circumstances Proved – The prosecution established circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage showing the accused with the deceased, the purchase of poisonous pesticides by the accused, and the medical cause of death by poisoning – Disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the motorcycle and mobile phone corroborated the prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras 10-30].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act – Procedural Requirements for Certification – Despite procedural defects in certifying CCTV footage under Section 65-B, corroborating evidence including witness testimony, chemical examination of recovered poison, and the accused’s disclosure statement proved incriminatory links – Procedural defect did not negate substantive evidence [Paras 40-45].

Mens Rea – Evidence of Intent – Use of Poison – Purchase of pesticide and forced administration inferred from circumstantial evidence and witness testimony – Motive established through the accused's grudge against the victim’s relative – Mens rea for murder upheld [Paras 50-60].

Post-mortem Report – Cause of Death by Poisoning – The medical examination confirmed organophosphate poisoning as the cause of death – No evidence of external injury ruled out forcible administration, yet circumstantial evidence and accused’s conduct established the act as murder [Paras 70-80].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was upheld. The acquittal under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act was not appealed by the State and thus attained finality.

Examination Malpractice – Proportionality of Punishment – Regulation 5(a) and Regulation 8 of Panjab University Calendar Volume II, 2007 – Writ dismissed - The petitioner challenged a two-year disqualification imposed for being caught with handwritten notes during the Law of Contract examination – The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate and detrimental to his career – The Court held that the punishment prescribed under the Regulations is clear and mandatory, and no lesser punishment can be substituted – Emphasis was placed on the integrity expected of an LL.B. student, considering the legal profession's ethical standards [Paras 7-8].

Eviction Suit – Nature of Possession – Usufructuary Mortgage vs. Lease Arrangement – The plaintiff filed for eviction and recovery of possession of agricultural land, claiming he allowed the defendant to cultivate the land temporarily under a lease-like arrangement, later terminated. The defendant argued a right to possession under an alleged usufructuary mortgage agreement. Held: Lower courts found no valid mortgage agreement, confirming the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery of possession. The High Court agreed, noting that the defendant’s claims were unsupported by documentary evidence, making eviction proper [Paras 6-7, 10].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, excluding review of factual findings by lower courts. Here, the appellant raised issues primarily factual in nature, involving interpretation of agreements and possession, without identifying any substantial question of law – Held: No substantial question of law arose, rendering the second appeal inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Requirement for Pleading and Proof in Mortgage Claims – The defendant claimed rights under a possessory mortgage yet failed to produce evidence of a formal mortgage agreement. The Court held that in absence of documented mortgage terms, and given that the arrangement resembled a lease with a refundable deposit, the claim of usufructuary mortgage was legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s clear ownership rights thus prevailed over the defendant's possession claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision – The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the judgments of the trial and first appellate courts favoring the plaintiff's right to evict and regain possession. No costs were awarded.
 

Bail Application – Principle of Bail as a Rule, Jail as an Exception – The Court reiterated the principle that bail should be the norm and jail the exception, especially when an accused has been in prolonged custody. The petitioner has been detained since September 2020, and given the stage of the trial and lack of criminal antecedents, extended custody was deemed unwarranted [Paras 40-45].

Consideration of Parity in Bail – The petitioner claimed parity as a ground for bail, highlighting that 20 out of 28 co-accused in the same incident had already been granted bail, including others declared proclaimed offenders. The Court found this an important factor supporting the petitioner’s release on bail [Paras 50-55].

Assessment of Prima Facie Case for Bail – Without delving into the merits, the Court assessed whether continuous detention served any further purpose, finding that prolonged custody with slow trial progress undermines the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21. The Court noted that the petitioner’s alleged presence during the riot, evidenced by CCTV footage, was a matter for trial and did not preclude bail at this stage [Paras 30-35, 47].

Conditions Imposed for Bail – The petitioner was directed to be released on bail, with conditions including surrendering his passport, reporting regularly to the Investigating Officer, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence, contacting witnesses, and changing address without notification – Held: The petitioner to be released on regular bail on conditions designed to mitigate risk of flight and interference with the investigation [Paras 56-60].

Decision – The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, periodic reporting, and restrictions on travel and communication with witnesses.
 

Labour Law - Employment Status of Canteen Workers – Contract Labour Regulation – Sham Contract Alleged – The Industrial Tribunal held that the canteen workers employed through a contractor were in fact employees of HAL, finding the contractual arrangement to be a sham due to HAL’s control over employment terms, wages, and work conditions. However, the High Court, interpreting Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, ruled that this finding was beyond the Tribunal’s authority in the absence of a prohibition notification issued by the Central Government – Held: The Tribunal’s determination of HAL as the true employer was invalid [Paras 76, 112].

Authority and Jurisdiction – Appropriate Government Determination – HAL argued that the Central Government was the ‘appropriate government’ for its operations, thus rendering the Tribunal’s jurisdiction invalid. The Court, however, concluded that the jurisdiction lay with the State Tribunal, following a delegation of authority by the Central Government to the State Government under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as validated by notifications under Section 10(1)(d) – Held: The reference by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal was legally valid [Paras 40-42].

Back Wages – Entitlement of Retrenched Workers – Lack of Evidence of Alternative Employment – The Court assessed the entitlement of the retrenched canteen employees to back wages, applying the principle established in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324. The Court held that, as HAL failed to establish that the terminated workers were gainfully employed elsewhere, they were entitled to full back wages from the date of termination – Held: Workers were entitled to back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement [Paras 138-140].

Decision: The writ petition by HAL was partially allowed. The Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s findings on the employment status of canteen workers as HAL employees while upholding the Tribunal’s order directing the payment of back wages to the retrenched employees.
 

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings – Liberal Approach and Due Diligence – The trial court permitted the respondent’s amendment application in the suit for cancellation of a document, which the petitioner challenged based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, citing delays and alleging intent to prolong litigation – Held: The High Court supported a liberal approach to amendments, especially where claims of fraud and undue influence were implicated, concluding that the amendment was necessary to clarify the respondent's stance – The proviso to Order VI Rule 17, barring amendments post-trial commencement, did not apply as the trial listing was adjusted due to pending interlocutory applications [Paras 12-16].

Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Applicability Post-Commencement of Trial – The Court affirmed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, which restricts amendments after trial commencement, does not apply when the trial listing is removed to accommodate pending applications. The trial court’s allowance of the amendment was thus appropriate, as the pleadings required comprehensive articulation of alleged fraud [Paras 18-20].

Discretion of Trial Courts in Amendment Applications – The Court noted that trial courts are best positioned to evaluate the necessity and relevance of amendments in pleadings, provided they do not lead to undue delay or unfair surprise – The decision to allow the amendment was found to be within judicial discretion, aligned with the need for a fair hearing [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order allowing the amendment in the plaint. No costs were awarded.
 

Criminal Law – Right to Bail in Extended Detention – Application of Section 480(6) of BNSS – The petitioner was held in custody for over two years, with the trial progressing slowly due to procedural delays – Section 480(6) mandates release if trial for non-bailable offenses triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence – Held: Since only one prosecution witness out of 33 had been examined despite the lapse of statutory 60 days, petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 5-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Extended Custody and Bail Entitlement under BNSS – Petitioner’s trial stalled with minimal progress due to procedural delays – Court emphasized the statutory protection against prolonged detention under BNSS, affirming that extended custody without trial progress infringes on rights of the accused – Held: Bail granted to prevent indefinite detention, with requirements for bond and surety [Paras 9-11].

Decision: The second bail application is allowed. The accused-petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each, subject to conditions of appearance at all court hearings [Paras 12-14].

Bail under NDPS Act – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 Rigors - The applicant, arrested with 46.23 grams of heroin, claimed that the contraband did not fall under "commercial quantity" and hence did not trigger Section 37’s stringent conditions of the NDPS Act – Court held that since the seized quantity was intermediate, the strictures of Section 37 were not applicable, making bail consideration favorable in this context [Paras 6-8, 13].

Previous Acquittal and Presumption of Innocence - Applicant had prior cases registered but was acquitted in one case (FIR No. 31 of 2022), with no conviction recorded in the other – Court reiterated that pending trial, the applicant enjoys the presumption of innocence, thus weakening the argument for continued custody solely based on past charges [Para 15].

Custodial Interrogation Not Required – Investigation Complete - Since the police had filed the final report and no further evidence was needed, the court observed that continued judicial custody would serve no additional purpose – Court noted that the applicant’s co-accused had also been granted bail on parity grounds [Paras 9-10, 16].

Bail Conditions – Prevention of Tampering and Assuring Appearance - Bail was granted under conditions including attendance at all hearings, no tampering with evidence, and prohibition on leaving India without court permission – Court directed compliance monitoring and allowed the state to petition if conditions were violated [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Bail application allowed. Applicant ordered to be released on personal bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with judicial proceedings.

Criminal Law – Proclamation Proceedings – Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation Against Absconder – Procedural Requirements – Quashment of Proclamation – The petitioner challenged the proclamation order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., claiming it was not executed per mandatory requirements – It was argued that no public reading of the proclamation was conducted in a conspicuous place, nor was the proclamation served personally – Held: Non-compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. renders the proclamation and subsequent orders illegal; proclamation quashed [Paras 2-9].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Compliance – Personal Service and Public Reading – High Court highlighted the necessity for prior issuance of warrants and public reading of the proclamation in a visible place in the accused’s village or town as per Section 82 Cr.P.C. – In this case, only affixing of notices was done, without public reading or due diligence in personal service – Held: Non-fulfillment of these requirements invalidates the proclamation [Paras 6-8].

Bail – Allowance to Surrender and Conditional Bail Grant – Despite procedural lapses, the petitioner was instructed to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks, with the Trial Court to consider bail upon surrender – Failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of this petition [Para 10].

Decision:

The proclamation order dated 27.02.2024 is quashed. Petitioner allowed to surrender within six weeks and apply for bail. Non-compliance with the surrender directive will lead to automatic dismissal of this petition [Paras 9-11].