Criminal Law - Pre-arrest Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Petitioners A1 to A6 sought anticipatory bail in Crime No 70 of 2025 involving allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 316(5) 318(2) 351(3) and 61(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023 - Allegations stated that accused induced defacto complainant to invest Rs 3 crores through attractive promises but misappropriated funds for personal use and unlawfully mortgaged the complainants land - Petitioners contended the dispute was civil in nature citing pending suits O S No 91 of 2025 and O S No 14 of 2025 - Petitioner No 2 was the wife of A3 and others were relatives with no active role in the business transactions - Prosecution and defacto complainant opposed bail citing A1 as the kingpin and necessity of custodial interrogation - Court observed that while allegations against A1 as the principal accused were serious no substantial grounds existed to justify denial of bail to A2 to A6 - Held - Application partly allowed - Pre-arrest bail granted to A2 to A6 subject to execution of bail bonds of Rs 20000 each and cooperation with investigation - Petition dismissed regarding Petitioner No 1 - [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Law - Civil vs Criminal Liability - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 318(2) - Cheating - Pendency of civil suits regarding same subject matter - Determining entitlement to anticipatory bail for secondary accused - Held - When civil disputes are already pending before competent courts and secondary accused are relatives with no specific roles in alleged business transactions the court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail provided they cooperate with the investigation - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted to Petitioner Nos 2 to 6 (A2 to A6) with conditions – Application dismissed in respect of Petitioner No 1 (A1).

Civil Law - Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Inconsistent Stands and False Statements - Petitioner sought to condone 69 days delay in filing an appeal against an order for removal of obstruction in E.A. No. 4 of 2025 - Petitioner initially assigned the reason of misplacement of case bundle by counsel in an earlier withdrawn application but later shifted the entire blame to counsel’s negligence in a fresh petition - Petitioner falsely claimed he lodged a complaint with the Bar Council before filing the appeal whereas records revealed the complaint was lodged after filing the appeal - Trial Court dismissed the condonation petition finding the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands - Held - A litigant cannot be permitted to improve his case by shifting reasons from stage to stage merely to overcome the law of limitation - Discretionary relief of condonation of delay requires bonafides and a consistent cogent explanation - False statements and misleading conduct disentitle a party to equitable relief - Revision dismissed - [Paras 1-12].

Civil Law - Professional Negligence - Liability of Litigant - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - Petitioner argued that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of the counsel relying on Rafiq vs Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788 - High Court observed that the proposition in Rafiq is not absolute as clarified in Salil Dutta vs T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd (1993) 2 SCC 185 - Held - There is no absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate and seek relief - Litigants owe a duty to be vigilant of their own rights and cannot throw the entire blame on the advocate to seek condonation of long and inordinate delay - Tendency of litigants to blame lawyers for negligence to cover their own lapses deprecated - [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law - Recall of Witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Reopening pre-charge stage - Applicant filed complaint under Sections 406 504 and 506 IPC - Statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC - Finding prima facie case Trial Magistrate summoned accused in 2014 - Evidence under Section 244 CrPC commenced in 2018 - Complainant statement recorded in 2020 - On 04-01-2021 complainant counsel made voluntary written endorsement that no further evidence under Section 244 was to be adduced - Discharge application of accused rejected in 2021 - Formal charges framed on 04-03-2022 - Trial advanced to post-charge stage under Section 246 CrPC - Complainant moved Section 311 application in 2025 to summon witnesses previously examined under Section 202 claiming negligence of former counsel - Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected the plea - High Court held that statutory framework does not permit moving backward to record pre-charge evidence once formal charges exist - Only witnesses examined under Section 244 can be recalled for cross-examination under Section 246 - Held - Permitting party to erase years of formal trial steps by hiring new lawyer would cause collapse of criminal justice system - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-23].

Evidence Law - Scope of Section 311 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Limits of discretionary power - Section 311 confers wide power to summon material witnesses at any stage to ensure just decision - However this expansive power is bounded by settled judicial constraints - Provision cannot be deployed to systematically undo an explicit waiver or fill gaps in a case - Summoning witnesses at a belated stage after evidence was closed long back causes great prejudice to the accused - Held - Power must be exercised sparingly and only when evidence is indispensable for arriving at the truth - [Paras 10-17].

Criminal Law - Professional Negligence of Counsel - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Change of counsel - Applicant contended that omission to examine witnesses was due to gross negligence of former counsel and lack of personal legal knowledge - High Court referred to Apex Court ruling in State (NCT of Delhi) v Shiv Kumar Yadav - Competence of a lawyer is subjective and cannot be measured by date of enrolment - Change of counsel is no ground to recall witnesses or seek a retrial - A party is bound by the conscious and deliberate endorsements made by their chosen counsel during trial proceedings - Held - Complainant did not raise any objection or challenge framing of charges for nearly four years - Contention of counsel negligence found meritless - [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Application dismissed – Orders dated 20.12.2025 and 07.04.2026 passed by the lower courts affirmed.

Writ Law - Customs and Foreign Trade - Retrospective application of restrictive import policy - Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act 1992 - Sections 3 and 5 - Petitioner imported Platinum Alloy Jewellery studded with Rubies under Free category - Consignments arrived at Indian ports between 01/04/2026 and early morning of 02/04/2026 - DGFT issued Notification No. 02/2026-27 dated 01/04/2026 changing policy from Free to Restricted - Notification published in e-Gazette only on 02/04/2026 at 20:52:28 hrs - Customs authorities refused clearance citing the new restriction and withdrawal of transitional benefits - Petitioner contended notification cannot apply to goods landed prior to publication - Respondents argued notification had immediate effect irrespective of shipment status and cited alternative remedy - Held - Subordinate legislation becomes enforceable only when published in the manner prescribed to provide notice - In digital era the precise timestamp of e-publication is the point of commencement - Notification was published nearly 20 hours after the arrival of the last consignment - Section 5 of the Act does not empower Central Government to amend policy retrospectively - Goods imported prior to notification coming into force are liable to be cleared under the legal position prevailing at the time of arrival - Writ petition allowed - [Paras 1-31].

Writ Law - Delegated Legislation - Publication and Enforceability - Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act 1992 - Sections 3 and 5 - Requirement of publication in Official Gazette is not an empty formality but a condition precedent for enforceability - Law must be made known to those governed by it to bind them - Subordinate legislation is born only upon publication and rights cannot be curtailed prior to such date - Held - Notification acquired the force of law only from the time of its digital signature and upload in the e-Gazette - Application of notification to goods landed before such timestamp constitutes impermissible retrospective operation - [Paras 21-24].

Writ Law - Statutory Interpretation - Retrospectivity of Subordinate Legislation - Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act 1992 - Section 5 - Power to amend policy - Power to formulate and amend policy under Section 5 does not include the power to amend retrospectively unless expressly authorized by the parent statute - Word amend does not inherently carry retrospective power in the context of delegated legislation - Held - As the parent Act does not vest retrospective rule-making authority the notification cannot affect consignments where the import process reached the stage of arrival in India before publication - [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondents directed to process the release of petitioner's goods immediately without insisting on import authorization under Notification No. 02/2026-27.

Civil Law - Specific Endowment - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 - Sections 6(16) and 6(19) - Religious Charities - Suit property described as M schedule in a 1960 partition deed was dedicated for performing charities at temples and feeding pilgrims - Appellants challenged the sale of this property to the 19th defendant - Trial Court dismissed the suit citing maintainability and limitation - High Court analyzed the nature of the endowment - Held - Property dedicated for charities associated with Hindu festivals or religious character constitutes a specific endowment under Section 6(19) - Statutory definitions and Supreme Court precedents confirm that such endowments fall under the exclusive domain of the HR&CE Act - [Paras 8-10].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Indian Trusts Act 1882 - Section 34 - Coram Non Judice - The parties had previously obtained permission to sell the property from the Principal Sub Court under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act - High Court noted that the Indian Trusts Act is inapplicable to public religious or charitable endowments - Section 108 of the HR&CE Act bars jurisdiction of civil courts when the field is occupied by the HR&CE Act - Held - The order of the Principal Sub Court granting permission for sale was without jurisdiction and coram non judice - Permission for alienation of such property must be obtained from the Commissioner of HR&CE under Section 34 of the HR&CE Act - [Paras 10-11].

Civil Law - Sale by Trustees - Validity - Non-joinder of all trustees - Suit property belonged to a trust where the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 18 were descendants/trustees - Sale deed was executed only by a few defendants - Ratio Decidendi - When a document is executed on behalf of a trust - all trustees must join in the transaction unless delegation is proved - Held - Non-joining of the plaintiffs as signatories to the sale transaction renders the sale void - Sale process was further vitiated by fraud and irregularities in the auction - [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 94 - Suit to set aside transfer of immovable property comprised in a religious or charitable endowment - Sale took place in 2010 and the suit was filed in 2015 - Held - Article 94 provides a 12-year limitation period from the date the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff - Suit was filed well within the limitation period - [Para 14].

Civil Law - Maintainability - Recovery of Possession - Possession follows title - Respondents argued suit was not maintainable as plaintiffs did not pray for recovery of possession despite 19th defendant being in possession - Property was vacant land - Held - In cases of vacant land possession follows title - Since the sale was vitiated by fraud and the purchaser had no valid title - he cannot be in legal possession - Plaintiffs as co-trustees are deemed to be in joint possession - Relief of declaration and injunction was sufficient - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal suit allowed - Judgment and decree of the Trial Court set aside - Suit decreed as prayed for - Sale deed dated 28.06.2010 declared null and void - 19th defendant permitted to withdraw the deposited sale consideration with accrued interest - No costs.

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Simple Injury - Petitioner convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment by the trial court - Lower appellate court admitted the appeal but rejected the petition for suspension of sentence - High Court noted that the petitioner had remained in incarceration for more than six and a half months in the present case - Medical evidence from the doctor PW7 established that the victim sustained only a lacerated injury which was classified as simple in nature - Court emphasized the duration of custody already undergone and the nature of the injury in exercising its discretion - Held - Substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal - [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Law - Bail and Criminal History - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Custody Period - Prosecution opposed the grant of bail citing thirteen cases in the petitioner history - Petitioner demonstrated that he was acquitted in three cases and granted bail on appeal in a POCSO case conviction - High Court considered the incarceration period of over six months and the medical evidence characterizing the injury as simple - Court determined that the petitioner is entitled to bail pending the outcome of the appeal - Held - Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail upon executing a bond for five thousand rupees with two sureties - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Substantive sentence of imprisonment suspended until disposal of C.A. No. 44 of 2026 – Petitioner enlarged on bail with specific conditions including appearance before the lower appellate court – Liberty granted to file application under Section 317 CrPC for absence.

Sports Law - Election of State Association - National Sports Development Code 2011 - Applicability - Appellant state sports association challenged the refusal of Respondent No 1 National Federation to recognize its Executive Committee elected under the supervision of a court appointed Returning Officer - Elections were conducted under Model Election Guidelines instead of the National Sports Development Code based on a non-existent order of the Orissa High Court cited before the Returning Officer - Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition noting that six elected office bearers were ineligible government employees under the Code and the post of Chairman was unauthorized - Appellant argued that the judgment in Rahul Mehra v Union of India was delivered after the elections and could not be applied retrospectively - Court found that the Code was always applicable to constituents of National Sports Federations and subsequent judgments were only clarificatory - Held - No infirmity in the judgment of the Single Judge as elections were in breach of the Code and based on a non-existent order - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-33].

Writ Law - Judicial Precedent - Retrospective Application - Clarificatory Nature - Appellant contended that the legal position regarding the applicability of the Sports Code to state associations changed after their elections were concluded - Court observed that the decisions in Rahul Mehra and KP Rao were clarificatory and merely explained existing law rather than creating new law from a specific date - Held - The Sports Code was always applicable to the Appellant and no issue of retrospective application arises - [Paras 20-23].

Evidence Law - Fraud and Misrepresentation - Reliance on non-existent order - Returning Officer proceeded on the premise that the Sports Code was inapplicable based on a purported order of the High Court of Orissa which was later discovered to be fabricated - Respondent No 1 challenged the electoral process upon discovery of the discrepancy - Held - Reliance on a non-existent order vitiated the electoral process from its inception and the Returning Officer was precluded from examining candidate eligibility on the touchstone of the Sports Code - [Paras 26-30].

Writ Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Enquiry - Disaffiliation - Appellant alleged that it was unlawfully disaffiliated based on a fraudulent communication and alleged mala fides by Respondent No 1 in constituting a parallel body - Held - These issues necessitate an elaborate evidentiary enquiry which cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction - Appellant granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law - [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Single Judge judgment affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies regarding issues of disaffiliation and alleged fraud requiring evidentiary enquiry.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Punjab Excise Act 1914 - Section 61 - Withdrawal of interim protection - Petitioner sought anticipatory bail regarding recovery of 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor - Additional Sessions Judge initially granted interim bail and directed petitioner to join investigation - Petitioner joined investigation and recovery was completed - Sessions Court subsequently withdrew interim protection and dismissed application on ground that custodial interrogation was required to ascertain whereabouts of suppliers and buyers - High Court found that inability of investigating agency to trace identities of third parties cannot constitute valid ground for withdrawal of discretionary relief when recovery is complete and petitioner joined investigation - Court observed custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as means to employ coercive methods for extracting information - High Court invoked revisional jurisdiction to set aside order of Sessions Court - Held - Concluding part of Sessions Court order withdrawing interim protection found unsustainable in law - Order set aside - Interim bail made absolute - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 442 - Suo Motu Exercise - High Court while dealing with anticipatory bail petition noted that challenging findings of Sessions Court required invocation of revisional jurisdiction - State counsel submitted that such power can be exercised suo motu for examining legality or correctness of subordinate court orders - Held - High Court deemed it appropriate to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC corresponding to Section 442 BNSS to examine and set aside the findings recorded by the Court of Sessions - [Paras 4-11].

Criminal Law - Custodial Interrogation - Investigation Procedure - Investigating officer sought custody to trace sources of instruments and intended buyers of illicit liquor - Petitioner had already joined investigation and recovery stood effected - Held - Once recovery is effected the plea for custodial interrogation merely to elicit further information could not by itself justify cancellation of interim anticipatory bail - It is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct fair investigation utilizing professional expertise rather than coercive methods - [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Sessions Court order withdrawing protection set aside – Interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner made absolute – Petitioner directed to continue joining investigation as required under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Criminal Law - Summoning of Witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Reopening of pre-charge stage - Applicant filed a complaint against opposite parties under Sections 406 504 and 506 IPC - Statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC - Accused summoned in 2014 - Complainant's statement under Section 244 CrPC recorded in 2020 - Counsel for complainant made a specific written endorsement in 2021 stating no further evidence would be adduced under Section 244 - Discharge application rejected and formal charges framed in March 2022 - Applicant moved application under Section 311 CrPC in December 2025 seeking to examine witnesses under Section 244 stage citing negligence of previous counsel - Trial Court rejected application as being filed long after pre-charge stage was closed - Sessions Judge affirmed rejection in revision - High Court observed that while Section 311 confers wide discretionary power it cannot be used to undo an explicit waiver or alter the statutory structure of trial to the prejudice of the opposite party - Held - Criminal trial cannot move backward to record pre-charge evidence once formal charges exist on record - Allowing such plea after four years would collapse the criminal justice system into endless delays - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Warrant Trial Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 244 and 246 - Admissibility of pre-summoning evidence - Complainant sought to examine witnesses under Section 311 CrPC who were previously examined only under Section 202 CrPC - Held - Only those witnesses who were duly subjected to examination-in-chief under Section 244 before framing of charges can be recalled for cross-examination under Section 246 - Witnesses recorded at pre-summoning stage under Section 202 do not automatically become substantive trial evidence - If complainant fails to examine them under Section 244 they cannot be directly cross-examined under Section 246 - Fairness of trial must be seen from the perspective of the accused and society and not just the victim - Competence of a lawyer is subjective and change of counsel is no ground to seek a de novo trial or reopen closed stages - [Paras 8-21].

Decision: Application dismissed – Orders of the Trial Court dated 20.12.2025 and Revisional Court dated 07.04.2026 affirmed.