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]

Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in the context of a conspiracy related to unprovoked firing upon peaceful protesters – Similar facts and common prayer in multiple petitions – Present order addressing six petitions with similar facts for brevity. [Para 1]

Background of the Case – Petitioners apprehending arrest for their alleged involvement in a conspiracy related to firing on protesters – Previous bail applications dismissed – Nature of the case and conspiracy outlined. [Para 2-3]

Historical Context – Incidents leading to the FIR, including a religious congregation, an FIR in 2007, and subsequent developments – Deepening resentment and sacrilege incidents explained. [Para 4-5]

Investigation and Findings – Overview of the SIT’s investigation, which implicated various individuals, including the petitioners – Specific actions attributed to each accused. [Para 13]

Reasons for Anticipatory Bail – Court’s reasoning for granting anticipatory bail – Emphasis on lack of custodial interrogation need, the impact of the crime, and the evidence collected – Conditions imposed on petitioners to prevent interference with witnesses or the investigation. [Para 16-23]

Legal Precedent – Reference to legal precedents, such as Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, Sidharth v. State of UP, and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, in support of the decision. [Para 20-21]

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].
 

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Enhancement – Appellant dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s award – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,80,000 for future loss of income and additional amounts under various heads – Appellant sustained multiple fractures and 80% permanent disablement – High Court enhanced the compensation considering prospective income and increased award for pain, shock, and suffering [Paras 1-11].

Quantum of Compensation – Future Prospects – Tribunal’s determination of Rs. 1,000 monthly income deemed low – High Court revised monthly income to Rs. 1,500 with 40% addition for future prospects, calculating future economic loss as Rs. 3,52,800 [Para 9].

Pain and Suffering – Inadequate Compensation – Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000 for loss of amenities – High Court enhanced total amount to Rs. 1,00,000 considering 100% disablement [Para 10].

Interest Rate – Enhanced Compensation – High Court ordered enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,200 with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition – Directed Insurance Company to deposit the amount within two months [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Total enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,200 awarded – Interest at 6% from the date of claim petition – Insurance Company to deposit the amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse the entire amount without further investment in FDRs [Para 11].
 

Copyright Infringement – Unauthorized distribution of Plaintiff’s educational course materials on various digital platforms – Prima facie case established – Balance of convenience favors Plaintiff – Irreparable harm if infringing activity continues – Injunction granted against Defendants [Para 42-44]

Digital Platforms – Challenge of widespread copyright infringement on digital platforms – Defendants using various techniques to disseminate Plaintiff’s courses – Channels and groups on Telegram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Google Drive, and other platforms involved – Copyright infringement in digital and electronic form [Para 41]

Injunction Orders – Defendants restrained from downloading, uploading, storing, sharing, transmitting, selling, or utilizing Plaintiff’s course material – Specific actions required by digital platform providers (e.g., Telegram, Google LLC, GoDaddy.com, WhatsApp) to block infringing content and disclose details of infringers [Para 44-51]

Compliance – Plaintiff directed to ensure compliance with the court’s orders through various digital communication channels (e-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram) [Para 55]

Next Court Date – Case scheduled to be listed before the Court on 22^nd March 2024 [Para 56]

Criminal Law - Framing of Charges - Petition seeking to set aside the order on charge - Charges framed against the Revisionist under various sections of the IPC - Allegation of beating leading to the death of the deceased - Disputed facts and varying statements by witnesses - Defense argument based on the lack of intent to cause severe bodily injury - Citing precedent cases to support the contention that a single injury, where the intent to cause that injury is in doubt, may not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC. [Para 1-13]

Criminal Case – Framing of Charges – Examination of evidence at the stage of framing charges – Scope of the Revision Court's inquiry – Prima facie view of the matter to be seen – Sifting and weighing of evidence without conducting a mini-trial – Charges framed against the Revisionist upheld. [Para 23-30

Witness Statements – Discrepancies in witness statements – Sole witness' statements consistent on essential elements – Minor discrepancies do not undermine prosecution's case at the stage of framing charges – Charges can be framed based on the statements. [Para 25-28]

Medical Assistance – Rendering medical aid to the victim – Not relevant at the stage of framing charges – Detailed examination of medical aid to be considered during trial – Prima facie opinion of doctors and witness statements sufficient for framing charges. [Para 31]

Nature of Injury – Single blow causing death – Vitality of the injury site – Sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Medical opinion supports framing of charges under Section 302 IPC. [Para 32-34]

Medical Opinion – Discrepancy between post-mortem report and AIIMS Medical Board Expert Opinion – Opportunity for cross-examination during trial – No grounds to deny framing charges. [Para 34]

Definition of Murder – Ingredients of Section 300 IPC – Presence of bodily injury, intention or knowledge of injury likely to cause death, and sufficient injury in the ordinary course of nature – Fulfilment of criteria for framing charges. [Para 38-41]

Official Duty – Revisionist's duty ended upon presentation of Identity Card – No sanction required for prosecution – Beyond official duties in the present case. [Para 42]

Decision – Special Judge correctly appreciated facts and law – No interference with the order on framing charges – Revision Petition dismissed. [Para 44-46]

Bail Application – Offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of the IPC – Allegations of cheating and fraud against the applicant – Prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence established – Applicant's use of forged identity documents – Flight risk – 34 cases registered against the applicant across India – Bail application dismissed. [Para 13-16]

Forgery – Use of forged identity documents – Multiple documents with different dates of birth – Fortifies the prosecution's apprehension that the applicant is a flight risk – Adds to the reasons for denying bail. [Para 15]