Bail Application – Denial of Bail by Trial Court – Petitioner seeks release as an undertrial in a case registered under Sections 307, 353, 186, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, following the denial of bail by the trial court. The case pertains to allegations of the petitioner threatening and firing shots at his wife, daughter, and the police. [Para 1]

Allegations and Arrest – Firing and Threatening – The petitioner is accused of threatening his wife and daughter while in an inebriated condition and firing shots towards them and the police. The petitioner was arrested on May 30, 2023, and a .12 bore licensed gun, along with cartridges, was recovered from him. [Para 2]

Defense Arguments – False Implication and No Need for Custodial Interrogation – The defense contends that the FIR was based on a false version by the complainant, who is the petitioner's wife, and argues that there is no need for further custodial interrogation as there is nothing left to be recovered and no indication of tampering with evidence. [Para 3, 3.1, 3.2]

State's Opposition – Serious Allegations and Possibility of Fleeing – The State opposes the bail application, citing serious allegations against the petitioner and concerns about the possibility of him fleeing from trial proceedings. [Para 4]

Court's Observation – Completed Investigation and Slow Trial Progress – The court notes that the investigation against the petitioner has been completed, charges were framed, and the trial is expected to take a long time. The petitioner has been in detention for more than four months. [Para 6]

Grant of Bail – Stable Residence and Clean Antecedents – Considering the overall scenario, the court allows the petition and orders the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds. The court clarifies that any observations made are for the limited purpose of the bail hearing and shall not affect the merits of the case. [Para 8-12]

Quashing of FIR: The petitioner, Ravi Kant, seeks the quashing of FIR No. 2387 dated 12.12.2019, registered under Section 174-A of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Shivaji Nagar Gurugram, following his declaration as a proclaimed person in a case concerning a dishonored cheque [Para 1].

Compromise & Settlement: A compromise was reached between the petitioner and the complainant, leading to the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contends that he was wrongly declared a proclaimed person [Para 1].

Precedents & Legal Position: The court refers to similar cases where FIRs under Section 174-A IPC were quashed after settlements in the main petitions under Section 138 of the Act. The continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is deemed an abuse of the process of law [Para 4-5].

Decision: The court allows the petition, quashing FIR No. 2387 dated 12.12.2019 and all subsequent proceedings arising from it [Para 5].

Land Acquisition Law - Limitation for Reference – Appeal against dismissal on Limitation Grounds – Appeal challenging the dismissal of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act due to limitation – Reference Court found the application filed after three years from the date of knowledge of the award when compensation was received – High Court held that the Reference Court was correct in taking the date of receipt of compensation as the date of knowledge of the award – Appellants failed to prove efforts to obtain the award copy or justify the delay – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Determination of Knowledge and Limitation – Analysis – Held, date of compensation receipt conclusively taken as the date of knowledge of the award – Requirement to file reference within six months from this date – Actual or constructive knowledge of award contents can be established by proving receipt or drawing of compensation – Appellants' plea of no knowledge of essential award contents unsupported by evidence – Admission of compensation receipt deemed sufficient for constructive knowledge. [Paras 5, 10-12]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit – Reference filed after the limitation period prescribed under Section 18(2)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act – No substantial evidence of efforts to obtain the award copy or any justification for the long delay in filing the reference – Limitation period strictly enforced to prevent abuse of process. [Para 18]

Family Law – Maintenance – Wife seeking enhancement of pendente lite maintenance, husband cross-appealing for reduction and setting aside of penalty – Wife holds a B.Sc. degree but is not working; husband is a practicing Advocate. [Para 4-5, 14]

Divorce – Grounds – Husband initially filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. [Para 5]

Financial Status – Wife claimed husband’s annual income to be around Rs.50 lakhs but failed to provide documentary evidence – Husband claims his income is about Rs.25,000/- per month; assertions disputed by court based on discrepancy with stated expenses. [Para 8-9, 15]

Assessment of Income – Principal Judge assessed husband's monthly income at Rs.1 lakh per month – Court finds no reason to interfere with the assessment. [Para 10, 15]

Educational Qualification – Mere possession of a B.Sc. degree by the wife does not obligate her to seek employment – No ground made out for enhancement or reduction of interim maintenance. [Para 16-17]

Penalty – Husband challenges imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day for delay in payment of interim maintenance and Rs.550/- per day on litigation cost – Court notes the penalty amounts to more than the interim maintenance itself. [Para 18-19]

Decision – Court upholds maintenance amount set by the Principal Judge, Family Courts – No grounds found for either enhancement or reduction – Court questions the exorbitant penalty for delay in payment but does not specifically set it aside. [Para 15, 17, 19]

Appeal against conviction – Appellants convicted for offenses under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC – Revision petitioners challenged the judgment in appeal – Conviction under Section 498A of IPC not sustainable due to absence of valid marital relationship – Ext.P3 agreement not a substitute for a legally valid marriage – Validity of marriage depends on various factors including age, mental status, religion, consanguinity, and spouse living – In this case, no evidence of a valid marriage – Revision petitioners treated as persons in a live-in relationship – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A of IPC set aside. [Para 16-20]

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 of IPC – Positive act of harassment required to establish abetment – No evidence of harassment by revision petitioners 1 and 4 on the date of the incident – Allegations mainly against revision petitioners 2 and 3 who are no more – Revision petitioners 1 and 4 not charged under Section 34 of IPC – Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC set aside – Revision petitioners 1 and 4 acquitted. [Para 28-31]

Bail Application - Petitioner seeking release as an undertrial in a case under the NDPS Act - Original FIR filed against unknown individuals - Petitioner's counsel contends no substantial link between petitioner and the alleged offense, emphasizing innocence and fabricated FIR - Lack of evidence against the petitioner - Trial anticipated to be lengthy - No useful purpose served in detaining petitioner. [Para 2-3.1]

Opposition by State - Concerns about petitioner fleeing trial proceedings if granted bail - Alleged recovery falls within the category of commercial quantity - Petitioner a habitual offender - Charges framed, investigation complete, and trial in progress - No requirement for custodial interrogation. [Para 4-6]

Court's Observation - Continued preventive custody based on unsubstantiated suspicion of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses - Documentary evidence already filed and not accessible to the accused - No probability of tampering with evidence - Witnesses are official and unlikely to be influenced - Non-violent nature of the offense - No threat to society at large - Reasonable ground to believe petitioner may not be guilty - Responsible family man unlikely to pose flight risk or evade trial proceedings. [Para 7-9]

Decision - Bail granted to the petitioner - Ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court - Prosecution allowed to seek bail cancellation if petitioner gets involved in any offense while on bail - Observations for bail hearing purposes only and should not influence the merits of the case. [Para 10-13]

Criminal Case - Conviction under Section 304(Part-II) of IPC - Appellant convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,000 imposed - Acquittal from the offence under Sections 498A and 341 of the IPC - Appellant's legal fees and expenses quantified at Rs.20,000 to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee - Interim Application No. 3581 of 2022 disposed of. [Para 25-28]

Premature Release Guidelines - Quashing of Order - Classification of Prisoner - Beneficial Guidelines - The petitioner seeks the quashing of an order placing him in a specific category under the premature release guidelines - The incident involved a quarrel between the petitioner and his wife, resulting in her death by fire - Dying declaration by the deceased indicated her husband's involvement in setting her on fire - The Sessions Court's judgment and guidelines from 1992 and 2010 are considered - The court determines that the guidelines beneficial to the convict should be applied - The petitioner should be placed in category 3(a) of the 1992 guidelines, which is more beneficial than the previous classification - The impugned order is quashed, and the petitioner's classification is revised. [Para 3-13]

Criminal Appeal – Bail – Denial of bail by trial Court – Petitioner seeks release as an undertrial – Offense under IPC and Arms Act – Alleged involvement in an old feud – Co-accused granted bail – Insufficient evidence of complicity – No likelihood of tampering with evidence – Lengthy preventive custody – Petitioner's personal circumstances – Grant of bail. [Para 1-13]