Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Applicant, a lady accused with a two-month-old child, accused of multiple offences including under the Indian Penal Code, Explosives Act, Essential Commodities Act, etc. – Applicant contends no role in the alleged offences and no need for custodial interrogation. [Para 1-2]

Judicial Discretion – The Court emphasizes the importance of exercising judicial discretion cautiously and judiciously. Considers various factors including the applicant’s character, the severity of the alleged offences, risk of the accused fleeing, and influence on witnesses. [Para 4]

Considerations for Granting Bail – The Court considers: (1) applicant is a lady with a two-month-old child; (2) day-to-day affairs managed by the applicant's husband; (3) no recovery or discovery needed from the applicant; (4) applicant willing to cooperate in the investigation. [Para 5]

Decision – The anticipatory bail application is allowed with conditions. The applicant must furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and adhere to specific conditions like cooperating with the investigation, not leaving India without court permission, etc. [Para 6-7]

Subsequent Proceedings – The order does not preclude the Investigating Agency from applying for police remand, and the applicant must be present during such proceedings. [Para 7]

Disposition – Application for anticipatory bail allowed, and rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. [Para 9]

Child Custody - Welfare of the Child - Dispute between parents over the custody of minor child, Master Advik - Parents originally from India, living in various countries due to career prospects - Child's happiness and well-being considered paramount - Extensive interactions with the child revealed his preference to stay with the father in Bangkok - Mother's career priorities in Germany noted - German Family Court's ex-parte order considered, but child's welfare takes precedence - Mother granted visitation rights and phone/video call access to the child - Father to execute bond and provide affidavit to ensure his presence in India if required - Child's residence and custody subject to jurisdictional Family Court's orders. [Para 1-30]

Legal Challenge – Challenging legality and validity of orders passed by respondent authorities regarding payment of premium for land transfer – Group of Special Civil Applications filed – Special Civil Application No. 13748 of 2006 treated as lead matter – Submissions made in lead matter applicable to other petitions in the group. [Para 1-3]

Factual Background – Petitioner's claim regarding land ownership and transfer – Permission to transfer land granted under certain conditions – Petitioner challenges conditions imposed on transfer – Subsequent orders related to premium payment and refund of premium also challenged. [Para 2-4]

Premium Payment Dispute – Petitioner contends that the premium amount paid under protest – Authorities alleged to have acted arbitrarily in imposing conditions and premium – Argument against charging premium twice for land transfer – Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India alleged. [Para 4, 4.1]

Government Policy – Payment of Premium for Conversion of Land Use – Challenge to the demand for payment under Government Resolution – Policy measures framed by the Government not challenged – Dispute regarding the payment made under protest – Petitioner's transfer of land to a third party – Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings – Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Scope of judicial review in policy matters – No apparent arbitrariness or mala fides found in the policy – Court's reluctance to interfere with policy decisions unless manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to statutory directions – Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction should be sparing – Petitions dismissed as devoid of merits. [Para 7-12]

Habeas Corpus - Arrest – Illegal detention of petitioner’s husband – Offences charged were bailable – Offer to furnish bail – Violation of fundamental rights – CCTV footage analysis reveals time discrepancies – Inquiry initiated against errant officials – Unconditional apology tendered by investigating officer – Apology accepted – Order for preservation of CCTV footage – Petitioner's husband detained illegally from around 9:30 p.m. on 17th July 2023 until 1:00 p.m. on 18th July 2023 – Serious allegations of abuse and illegal detention – Fundamental rights violated. [Para 4-20]

Police Detention - Unlawful Arrest and Detention - Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights - Gross violation of Nitin's right guaranteed under Article 21 - Violation of the right to be released on bail in bailable offences - Injustice caused to the petitioner's husband - Compensation and action against errant officers warranted. [Para 21-35]

Right to Life and Dignity - Compensation for unlawful acts of State instrumentalities - Repairing the damage done to the petitioner's husband's rights - Police high-handedness and insensitivity - Lack of knowledge of legal provisions and judgments on granting bail - Trauma suffered by the petitioner's husband. [Para 32-33]

Apology and Assurance - Unconditional apology tendered by police officers - Assurance of no violation of fundamental rights in future - Awarding costs to Nitin for brazen acts of officers. [Para 34]

Orders - Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner's husband within 6 weeks - Appointment of an inquiry officer to investigate the incidents and conduct of police officers - Recovery of compensation from responsible officers after inquiry - Disposal of the petition. [Para 35-36]

Guidelines/Directives - Copy of the judgment to be sent to the Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police to issue appropriate guidelines/directions to Police Stations regarding the grant of bail in bailable offences. [Para 37]

Compliance and Further Action - Stand over for 12 weeks for recording compliance with compensation payment and presentation of the inquiry report - All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment. [Para 38-39]                    

Service Law - Industrial Dispute – Challenge to termination of employee – Termination based on allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment – Inquiry conducted by employer – Legal validity of termination challenged – Matter referred to Labour Court – Labour Court found termination in violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Industrial Court partly upheld the decision but remitted the issue of back wages for further consideration – Employer's right to justify termination before the Tribunal without prior disciplinary inquiry – Court held that even in the absence of a proper inquiry, the employer can adduce evidence to justify termination – Emphasis on evaluating evidence in cases of sexual harassment – Orders quashed and matter remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. [Para 1-29]

Criminal Writ Petition – Premature Release – Petitioner seeks direction for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner has completed more than 16.5 years of actual custody – Convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC – Pending Criminal Appeal – Contention that State Government's policy allows her release – State's reluctance based on the life sentence – Reference to relevant judgments regarding the exercise of constitutional power under Article 161 – Mention of petitioner's earlier petition on the same matter. [Para 1-8]

Premature Release of Life Convict - Legal Position - Consideration of Jail Offence - Premature Release Policy Application - The Court notes that the petitioner's conviction under Section 302/120-B IPC does not relate to offenses specified as heinous crimes in the policy. Therefore, her case falls under Column 'C' of the Schedule, which deals with convicts imprisoned for life for offenses where death is one of the punishments but the crimes are not considered heinous. According to this category, a female convict is required to undergo a minimum of 8 years of actual imprisonment and a total of 12 years of imprisonment with remissions before her case can be considered for premature release.

Petitioner's Custody Period - The custody certificate provided by the respondents shows that the petitioner has already served an actual custody period of more than 17 years and 2 months, with a total sentence, including remission, of 22 years and 7 months. This significantly exceeds the required minimum for premature release under the policy.

Premature Release of Life Convict - Legal Position - Consideration of Jail Offence - The judgment discusses the legal aspects regarding the premature release of a life convict and the consideration of jail offences committed by the convict. It highlights that the commission of jail offences should not be a ground to deny premature release, especially when the convict has already been punished for those offences. The judgment cites several legal precedents to support this position. [Para 36-43]

Decision - The judgment allows the petition and directs the authorities to consider the premature release case of the petitioner in accordance with the relevant policy. It also grants interim bail to the petitioner until a decision is made regarding premature release. However, this order is subject to the final outcome of the petitioner's appeal, and if the appellate court finds that the petitioner should undergo life imprisonment until natural death, she must surrender accordingly. [Para 44-45]

Civil Appeal – Termination of service – Grant of back wages – Appellant-State challenges the judgment allowing the respondent's appeal against the termination of his services – Respondent's services were terminated without following proper procedure – Trial Court set aside the termination but declined to grant back wages – First Appellate Court granted back wages – Issue of entitlement to back wages for the period of absence from duty – No illegality or perversity in the First Appellate Court's judgment – No substantial question of law for determination – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-18]

Rowdy Sheet - Legality of keeping rowdy sheet open against the petitioner - Petitioner's challenge to the action of respondents - Allegation of the action being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India - Petition seeks closure of the rowdy sheet. [Para 1-2]

Background - Four criminal cases registered against the petitioner - Two cases resulted in binding over, and two cases are pending trial - Rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner based on the alleged offences - Petitioner claims that this continued surveillance causes inconvenience and hardship in leading a respectable life. [Para 2]

Evaluation - Examination of the petitioner's criminal history - Bound over cases from 2013 and 2015, pending trial cases from 2018 and 2019 - Consideration of the long interval between registration of the cases. [Para 5]

Lack of Allegations - Absence of allegations regarding breach of peace or public tranquility by the petitioner after opening of the rowdy sheet - Basis for opening the sheet is the 2013 and 2015 cases - No conviction in the subsequent cases registered in 2017 and 2019. [Para 7]

Legality of Rowdy Sheet - Discussion on the statutory nature of A.P. Police Standing Orders and their limitations - Emphasis on the serious consequences of opening a rowdy sheet and the protection of the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 8]

Insufficiency of Grounds - Finding that there are insufficient grounds to term the petitioner as a "habitual offender" under Clause (A) of Order 601 of A.P. Police Manual - Lack of specific instances of the petitioner's involvement in offences after the opening of the rowdy sheet. [Para 9]

Closure of Rowdy Sheet - Directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner - Acknowledgment of the possibility of future actions if the petitioner is involved in any crimes. Petition Allowed. [Para 10]

Anticipatory Bail – Suicide Inducement Allegations – Accused seeks anticipatory bail asserting no direct or indirect role in deceased’s suicide – Claims only demanded repayment of invested money – Court examines circumstances and legal principles governing anticipatory bail [Paras 1-3].

Judicial Discretion – Criteria for Bail – High Court considers absence of proximate cause for suicide, lack of evidence under Section 107 IPC, non-severity of alleged offence, and previous release of co-accused on bail – Emphasizes judicious exercise of discretion [Paras 4-6].

Legal Precedents – Citing Apex Court Rulings – High Court references legal standards from cases including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sushila Aggarwal, supporting conditional anticipatory bail in appropriate circumstances [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Application Allowed – Applicant granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount – Conditions imposed include cooperation with investigation, appearance at police station, non-interference with witnesses, and surrender of passport – Clarifies remand procedures and directs trial court to proceed uninfluenced by this order’s observations [Paras 7-10].