NDPS Act – Bail – Default Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Conditional Bail Improper – Petitioner arrested based on disclosure statement in a case involving 11 kg Ganja, classified as intermediate quantity – Trial Court granted default bail only till filing of FSL report – Held: It is legally unjustified to limit default bail to the filing of FSL report in cases involving intermediate quantity, where rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply – Bail should continue till conclusion of trial [Paras 5, 6, 9]

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Default Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Once accused earns right to default bail due to non-filing of chargesheet within statutory period, such bail cannot be restricted in duration – Default bail is a right and not subject to limitation like conditional interim bail – Court modifies impugned order to remove restrictive clause [Paras 6, 9]

Regular Bail – Section 439 CrPC – Court invoked its power under Section 439 CrPC, treating revision petition as regular bail petition – Held: Technical requirement of refiling under different provision need not defeat substantive justice, particularly when quantity recovered is not commercial – Bail order treated as absolute and to continue till trial [Paras 8–9]

Judicial Discretion – Bail Orders Must Reflect Proportionality – Petitioner’s alleged role based on disclosure statement – Informer only provided tip-off – No recovery from petitioner – Held: In absence of commercial quantity and no recovery, bail restriction was excessive and unjust – Modified accordingly [Paras 7–9]

Decision: Conditional bail order modified – Clause limiting bail till filing of FSL report struck down – Bail made absolute till conclusion of trial – Petition allowed

NDPS Act – Bail – Joint Bank Account with Accused – Allegation of Financing – Petitioner arrested based on deposits made by her father in joint account, without recovery of contraband or direct involvement in drug trafficking – Held: Mere receipt of proceeds, without evidence of intentional aid or operational financing of illicit drug activity, does not constitute offence under Section 27A NDPS Act – Bail granted [Paras 2, 10-11, 14-15]

NDPS Act – Section 29 – No Prima Facie Case of Abetment – Petitioner alleged to have received proceeds from drug trade – No overt act or instigation attributed – Court held that passive receipt of money without intentional facilitation does not amount to abetment – Application of Section 29 not attracted in absence of active complicity [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Principles Reiterated – Court relied on guidelines laid down in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 and other precedents – Factors including gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, and possibility of tampering with investigation considered – Held: Petitioner entitled to bail due to lack of direct nexus to drug trafficking [Paras 8-9]

Interpretation – ‘Financing’ under NDPS Act – Citing Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2021 CrLJ 248 – Court held that 'financing' must involve conscious and operational monetary support to sustain or promote the illicit drug trade – Mere monetary deposit by another in joint account insufficient to attract Section 27A [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner directed to furnish ₹1,00,000 bail bond with one surety – Subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence, attending trial regularly, and disclosing change of address or contact details – Petition disposed of.

Criminal Law – Section 61(2) r/w 318(3), 316(5), and 112 BNS - Paper Leak – Departmental Examination – Economic Offence – CBI Investigation – Bail Granted – Delay in Trial – Procedural Irregularities – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused railway officials and candidates allegedly conspired to leak the CLI departmental examination paper in exchange for bribes – Leaked paper allegedly handwritten by paper-setter and circulated via intermediaries – Recovered documents and cash used as key evidence – CBI relied on confessions, call intercepts, and seizures – Applicants contended lack of direct recovery, lack of expert opinion, procedural violations under BNSS – Court held that trial unlikely to begin soon due to lack of sanction and large volume of evidence – 16 co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted to all remaining applicants on parity and due to prolonged incarceration without trial [Paras 1–85].

Evidence Law – Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Admissibility – Custodial Statements – Recovery Before Arrest – Handwriting and Voice Analysis Inconclusive – Several recoveries based on pre-arrest disclosures – No expert verification of handwriting or voice samples produced – Statements recorded without magisterial supervision – Held: Statements inadmissible under law and cannot be sole basis for denial of bail [Paras 30–31, 58–61].

Search and Seizure – Section 105 BNSS – Audio-Visual Recording Mandatory – Procedural Non-compliance by CBI – Accused argued seizure proceedings were not fully recorded on video as required under BNSS – Lack of sketch map in some cases – CBI failed to justify procedural lapses – Held: Such deficiencies weaken evidentiary value – Favors bail [Paras 32–33, 52–53].

Bail Principles – Economic Offences – Serious Allegation Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – CBI opposed bail citing economic offence seriousness – Court reiterated principles from Sanjay Chandra, Satender Antil, Dataram Singh, and Manish Sisodia – Held: Bail is rule, jail is exception – Long trial delay, lack of prior criminal history, and co-accused parity are valid considerations for bail [Paras 34–35, 70–78].

Bail – Role of Accused – Individual Allegations Considered – Bail Conditions Imposed – Specific roles detailed for each accused: from paper-setter to bribe collector to candidate – Some named in FIR, others only in charge-sheet – Many with no recovery or direct link – All applicants in custody for over 7 months – Bail granted subject to conditions of non-tampering, attendance, and non-intimidation of witnesses [Paras 1–85].

Decision: Bail allowed – All 8 applicants (Sushant Parashar, Ramayan, Ajit Kumar Singh, Niraj Kumar Verma, Raj Narayan Singh Yadav, Surjeet Singh, Rakesh Kumar, and Sanjay Kumar Mishra) granted bail on personal bonds and two sureties each – Conditions imposed to prevent interference with trial or witnesses [Paras 84–86].

Second Appeal – Permanent Injunction – Tenant’s construction – Ownership and Landlordship – Res judicata plea – Suit shop purchased under registered sale deed of 1998 – Concurrent findings that plaintiff is owner/landlord (Sale Deed Ex.P2 proved; appellants failed to rebut) – Defendants’ own plea of “adverse possession” constitutes admission of plaintiff’s ownership – Threat and act of fresh construction without landlord’s consent admitted; injunction rightly granted – Appellants’ reliance on earlier Rent Controller/Appellate Authority findings and Md. Nooman v. Md. Jabed Alam (res judicata) held inapplicable/distinguishable – Regular Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 9-11, 13].

Permanent Injunction – Construction without consent – Tenants admitted raising “fresh construction” citing repairs exceeding Rs. 1 lakh; no prior consent from landlord; injunction to restrain further construction upheld [Paras 3, 10].

Title/Ownership – Registered Sale Deed Ex.P2 executed by Biswhamber Dass in favour of Narinder Nath Mehta; appellants unable to prove otherwise; ownership established [Para 9].

Admission by Party – Plea of adverse possession by appellant (DW1/A, para 4) treated as admission of plaintiff’s title [Para 10].

Res Judicata – Prior rent proceedings (Rent Controller order 23.07.2007; Rent Appeal 18.01.2012) relied upon by appellants – Held: distinguishable; in view of clear sale deed and appellants’ admissions, civil injunction suit maintainable; res judicata plea rejected [Paras 4-5, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent decrees for permanent injunction affirmed – Pending applications, if any, disposed of. [Para 13, 14].

Family Law – Partition Suit – Legal Heirship Disputed – Respondent-plaintiff claimed share in ancestral property as son of Godari Beeraiah through second wife Banamma – Trial court decreed the suit based on declarations and oral evidence – Appellate court found no conclusive proof of legal marriage between Beeraiah and Banamma – Plaintiff failed to produce birth certificate, school records or examine his mother who was alive – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish status as legal heir – Trial court’s decree set aside [Paras 7, 19–31]

Evidence Act – Section 50 and 60 – Relationship by Conduct – Court reiterated that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved by direct evidence under Section 60 – Conduct must relate to person having special means of knowledge – Held: Mere declarations or documents based on self-declaration (Exs.A7–A17) do not constitute conclusive proof – Referred Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra [AIR 1959 SC 914] [Paras 15, 26]

Limitation – Partition Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed suit 13 years after death of alleged father without reasonable explanation for delay – No prior assertion of rights or legal notice issued – Held: Suit barred by limitation and indicates lack of bona fides [Paras 3.1, 30]

Documentary Evidence – Public Documents and Presumptions – Certified copies of voter lists, gas records, and employment documents (Exs.A7–A17) relied on by plaintiff were based on self-declared data – Held: Not sufficient to displace legal burden to prove relationship – Absence of school records, birth certificate, and pedigree registers noted – [Paras 16, 26]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court decree set aside – Respondent-plaintiff’s suit for partition dismissed – No costs – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 31–32]

Civil Law - Succession Law – Revocation of Probate – Section 263 – Illustrative Scope – Division Bench held that the five explanations under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act are illustrative and not exhaustive – Court emphasized that “just cause” is a flexible standard designed to empower courts to intervene in varied situations where revocation may be warranted in the interests of justice – Held: The term “just cause” allows for wider judicial discretion beyond the listed explanations [Paras 29–32, 36–38].

Interpretation – Explanation Clauses – Purpose and Effect – Explanation to Section 263 does not control or restrict the scope of the main provision – Cited authoritative principles of statutory interpretation to affirm that explanations elucidate rather than limit or expand the operative provision – Held: The deeming fiction in the Explanation identifies certain situations as “just cause” but does not preclude other factual scenarios from being so held [Paras 21–28, 30–31].

Statutory Construction – Purposive Interpretation – While interpreting Section 263, Court applied the doctrine of purposive construction – Held: Legislative change in phraseology from “just cause is” (in prior Acts) to “just cause shall be deemed to exist” (in 1925 Act) indicates intent to broaden judicial discretion – A restrictive reading would defeat the provision’s purpose of ensuring fair probate proceedings [Paras 17–20, 27–33].

Probate Law – Procedural Lapses and Revocation – Default in removal of office objections by caveator’s counsel led to dismissal of caveat – Petitioner filed for revocation citing suspicious circumstances of death and invalid execution of Will (attestation not in presence of testator) – Held: Even if caveat was dismissed, substantive objections that point to a defective grant can constitute “just cause” under Section 263 – Revocation may be justified if trial is required to examine such allegations [Paras 34–35].

Precedent Overruled – George Anthony Harris v. Millicent Spencer and Sharad Shankarrao Mane v. Ashabai Shripati Mane – Division Bench overruled the restrictive interpretation in these earlier judgments – Held: They do not lay down the correct law on the scope of Section 263 – View of Justice Manish Pitale that explanations are illustrative upheld [Paras 3, 36, 38(C)].

Decision: Reference answered – Explanations to Section 263 are illustrative – Circumstances beyond explanations (a) to (e) may form “just cause” – Earlier decisions taking contrary view overruled – Matter remitted to Single Judge for further proceedings.

Company Law – Misfeasance proceedings under Section 542 of Companies Act – Non-executive nominee directors’ application for deletion at threshold rejected – Interim freezing orders vacated – Matter to proceed to trial [Paras 29–41].

Company Law – Fraudulent Conduct – Section 542 of Companies Act, 1956 – Interim Relief Partially Granted – Non-executive nominee directors Srinivasan and Sreenivasulu sought to strike out their names from misfeasance proceedings, alleging lack of specific pleadings and no evidence of fraudulent participation – Held: Though pleadings lack specificity, presence in board meetings and fiduciary obligations as directors justify trial – Relief under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC declined [Paras 29–32, 38–39].

Nominee Directors – Fiduciary Liability – Directors Cannot Evade Corporate Responsibility – Court held that nominee directors, though non-executive, fall within ambit of persons "knowingly party" under Section 542 and cannot escape scrutiny solely on designation – Absence of express allegations insufficient for rejection at threshold [Paras 20–24, 36–38].

Pleadings in Fraud Cases – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Liberal Approach for Official Liquidator Permitted – Court acknowledged limitations on Official Liquidator's access to internal records and granted permission to file additional affidavit with specific allegations before trial – Leave granted to applicants to reapply for deletion if no evidence is brought during trial [Paras 30–31, 39].

Interim Orders – Freezing of Assets – Interim Orders Vacated – Considering hardship to applicants and lack of prima facie evidence, the Court vacated prior ex parte orders freezing their bank/demat accounts and restraining them from dealing with movable/immovable assets – Balance of convenience not in favour of continuation [Para 40].

Final Decision – Applications Partly Allowed – Interim freezing orders vacated – Misfeasance proceedings to continue – Official Liquidator permitted to amend pleadings with specific charges; applicants allowed to reapply for deletion after evidence stage [Para 41].

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Court Fee – Suit for Damages – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff claimed damages of ₹2 crore in suit for malicious prosecution but affixed only nominal court fee of ₹100 claiming tentative valuation – Held: When a specific amount is claimed, even if termed “tentative,” ad valorem court fee is mandatory under Section 7(i) of Court Fees Act – Trial Court erred in treating suit under Section 7(iv) and allowing provisional fee – Plaintiff directed to affix appropriate court fee within one month failing which plaint to be rejected [Paras 6–8]

Court Fees Act – Section 7(i) vs. Section 7(iv) – Scope Distinguished – Referring to State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, Supreme Court clarified that liberty to value relief under Section 7(iv) is limited to specified categories – For suits involving quantified monetary relief, ad valorem fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory – Present case being a damages suit falls within Section 7(i), hence attracts ad valorem fee [Paras 7–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court wrongly permitted under-valuation of court fee by accepting tentative fee despite specific monetary claim – Discretion misapplied – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 set aside – Plaintiff directed to affix ad valorem court fee on ₹2 crore within one month – Failing which, plaint shall stand rejected