Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Probation – Applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 201 IPC for rash and negligent driving causing injury – Lower courts sentenced him to imprisonment and fine – In revision, convict sought release on probation citing good conduct, family circumstances, and first-offence status – Probation Officer’s report recommended benefit of probation – Held: Offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment; convict is a first offender with good antecedents; long pendency (20 years) justifies a reformatory approach – Hence, petitioner released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond and surety [Paras 6–10, 17, 21–27].

Probation of Offenders Act – Judicial Discretion – Nature of Offence – Courts must consider the expediency of probation having regard to the nature of offence – Reiterated principles from Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82, emphasizing deterrence in Section 304-A cases but allowing judicial discretion in lesser offences – Extended probation benefit to offences under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC following Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185 and State through CBI v. Sanjiv Bhalla, (2015) 13 SCC 444 [Paras 11–17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Reformatory Sentencing – Indian criminal justice system is reformative rather than retributive – Sending a first offender to prison often proves counterproductive; probation provides a constructive opportunity for reformation and social rehabilitation – Court emphasized that punishment should not extend hardship to dependents of the convict [Paras 23–25].

Sentence – Modification – Probation Conditions – Order of sentence modified – Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court to maintain peace and good behaviour for two years – Further directed to deposit ₹5,000 as additional compensation to injured persons, payable through the trial court – In case of breach of bond conditions, sentence to revive automatically [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence modified – Petitioner released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Para 30].

Habeas Corpus – Minor Girl – Detention in Protection Home – Validity – Detenue ‘A’ alleged to have been kidnapped by Petitioner No. 1 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act – FIR stated her age as 14 years – School records (scholar register and transfer certificate) from Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College recorded date of birth as 14.03.2010 – Child Welfare Committee, Deoria, declared her a child and directed lodging in Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Ballia – Held: Order of the Committee proper and in accordance with law; detenue being a minor cannot be released to her husband’s custody [Paras 5–7, 13–15]

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Section 94 JJ Act, 2015 – Priority of Evidence – School record conclusive proof of age – Medical opinion cannot override authentic school certificate – Age determined on basis of transfer certificate accepted; detenue found aged about 15 years 7 months – Held: Determination under Section 94(2)(i) binding; medical test inadmissible when documentary proof exists [Paras 9–13]

POCSO Act – Victim’s Age Determination – Applicability of JJ Act Principles – Held: Rule of age determination applicable to juveniles under JJ Act applies equally to victims of sexual offences – Reliance placed on Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 637 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263 – Victim’s minority conclusively established [Paras 10–11]

Custody and Welfare – Minor Victim’s Right to Protection – Detenue expressed unwillingness to go to parental home and desire to live with her husband – Court held she cannot be released to husband as it would expose her to illegal sexual relations and potential offences under POCSO – Directed continued residence in Protection Home till she attains majority – Court issued detailed directions ensuring medical, emotional, and judicial supervision of detenue’s welfare [Paras 14–17]

Negligence in Protection Home – Infant’s Death – Court took cognizance of detenue’s child’s death allegedly due to negligence of Protection Home staff – Directed judicial and medical oversight to safeguard detenue’s physical and psychological health – Superintendent held personally answerable for compliance [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Detenue to remain housed in Protection Home till 13.03.2028 and released unconditionally thereafter – Chief Medical Officer, Deoria directed to nominate doctor for monthly health checks – District Judge, Deoria to appoint senior lady judicial officer to monitor detenue’s well-being – Protection Home administration bound to comply with directions; any non-compliance to entail personal accountability of Superintendent [Paras 17–18]

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Power to Summon Not Automatic – Petitioner injured in assault named five accused including private respondents in FIR – Police found private respondents innocent and placed them in Column No. 2 – During trial, complainant reiterated same allegations in testimony – No fresh or additional material presented to justify their summoning – Held: Power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly only on strong and cogent evidence indicating likelihood of conviction – Mere repetition of FIR content insufficient [Paras 7–10]

Evidentiary Threshold – Testimony of PW-1 – No Independent Material – Complainant, though injured eyewitness, offered no new material in chief-examination beyond what was recorded in FIR – Hon’ble Court held that evidence must go beyond probable suspicion and create near-certainty of guilt for summoning under Section 319 – Allegations found to be generic and possibly exaggerated [Paras 8–10]

FIR Delay – Doubts on Credibility – Incident dated 07.07.2018 but FIR lodged after 10 days on 17.07.2018 – Trial Court noted unexplained delay, which casts doubt on spontaneity and reliability of accusations – No fresh injuries or medical evidence brought during trial to substantiate the role of private respondents [Para 9]

Abuse of Process – Over-implication of Accused – Hon’ble Court cautioned against tendency of complainants to amplify number of accused to include peripheral or unrelated persons – Specific finding that attributing individual superficial injuries to each of 5 alleged assailants lacks prudence and may indicate exaggeration – Summoning rejected to prevent misuse of judicial process [Para 10]

Interpretation – Guiding Principles from Hardeep Singh Case – Section 319 CrPC allows summoning of even discharged or not charge-sheeted persons – However, the evidentiary standard required is higher than for framing charge – Satisfaction must be equivalent to prima facie case capable of ending in conviction if unrebutted – Merely naming someone in FIR does not meet this test [Paras 7, 10]

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No error found in Trial Court's dismissal of Section 319 CrPC application – No new evidence beyond FIR narration – Trial Court rightly exercised judicial restraint – Observations not to affect merits of ongoing trial.

Service Law – Anganwadi Selection – Challenge to Selection Process – Appellant alleged denial of marks for experience and bias in interview process – However, no certificates substantiating claims were produced before Selection Committee – No selected candidate was impleaded – Held: Mere general allegations without proof or proper parties cannot vitiate selection process – Writ appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4, 6].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Discretion of Selection Committee – Court reiterated that judicial review of interview marks is limited – Allocation of marks lies within discretion of Selection Committee unless process is palpably arbitrary or mala fide – No such case made out – Held: Courts will not substitute their opinion with that of Selection Committee [Paras 3, 6.1].

Procedural Fairness – Non-Impleadment of Selected Candidates – Appellant sought to set aside appointments without impleading selected candidates as parties – Held: Relief cannot be granted affecting others’ rights in their absence – Petition rightly dismissed on that ground as well [Para 6].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – No infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge – Selection process upheld [Para 6.1].

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 8, 21, 29 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity – Procedural Lapses – Bail Granted – Petitioner arrested on 21.04.2023 for alleged possession of 50 bottles of Myberry (Codeine Phosphate) – Co-accused arrested based on petitioner's disclosure – Final report filed on 17.07.2023 – Trial delayed with less than half of 21 witnesses examined – Held: Petitioner in custody for over 2.5 years with no prior criminal history – Material contradictions in prosecution evidence – Mandatory procedural safeguards under NDPS Act found breached – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 1–9, 20]

Criminal Law – Reasonable Grounds under Section 37 NDPS Act – Interpretation – Court clarified that “reasonable grounds” for believing guilt under Section 37 require more than suspicion but less than proof – Held: No cogent evidence to support prima facie guilt of petitioner – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner stands on parity – No apprehension of tampering with evidence or absconding [Paras 9–10]

Bail Jurisprudence – Constitutional Safeguards – Liberty vs. Public Interest – Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Siddharam Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Court reiterated that bail is the rule, jail the exception – Long incarceration without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment – Denial of bail not justified solely by seriousness of charge in absence of risk of misuse of liberty [Paras 14–19]

Discretion in Grant of Bail – Judicial Principles – Court must consider gravity of offence, likelihood of conviction, potential for interference with justice, and balance individual liberty with societal interest – No blanket rule – Each bail decision must be context-specific and factually grounded [Paras 12–13, 18]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released upon furnishing personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each from relatives – Subject to compliance with conditions: (a) regular appearance at trial, (b) no tampering with evidence or witnesses, (c) no travel outside UT of J&K without court’s permission, (d) no repetition of offence – Trial court empowered to proceed under Sections 491 and 492 BNSS in case of breach of conditions.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Appellants convicted under Sections 120B, 302, 364, 404 & 201 IPC for kidnapping, murdering, dismembering, and disposing of body in river – Trial court imposed concurrent life sentences – On appeal, High Court found major inconsistencies and missing links in chain of circumstantial evidence – Extra-judicial confession (Ex.P3) held doubtful as signatures differed; confession sent belatedly to Magistrate; sole witness (VAO) present at all recoveries – Recovery of van, knives, jewels, and dead body not corroborated by forensic evidence or serology reports – Call records for 18.12.2014 showing deceased’s phone activity ignored by Investigating Officer – No bloodstains recovered from alleged crime vehicle or location – Motive proved but not sufficient for conviction without complete chain of evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 18–49].

Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility – Court found serious doubts regarding voluntariness and authenticity of confession made by A2 before VAO (P.W.4) – Delay in forwarding confession, variance in signatures, and VAO’s continuous presence during all confessions and recoveries reduced reliability – Following Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) 3 SCC 565 – Extra-judicial confession being weak evidence cannot solely sustain conviction [Paras 29–33].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Last Seen Theory – Evidence of witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.11 inconsistent – No identification parade conducted – Time gap between last seen and recovery of body too wide – Call records indicated deceased alive after alleged abduction – Court held that prosecution failed to establish complete and unbroken chain of circumstances [Paras 23–28, 47–48].

Forensic Evidence – Failure of Investigation – No effort to collect or analyze blood samples from van, rock, or knives; absence of FSL and serology reports weakened prosecution case – Forensic corroboration crucial in circumstantial cases – Investigation held perfunctory [Paras 35–37, 47].

Motive – Land Dispute – Double-Edged Factor – Prior enmity and civil dispute between deceased and A1 established – But motive alone cannot establish guilt when chain of evidence incomplete – Citing Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma v. State of Bihar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2623) and Subhash Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025) 8 SCC 440 [Paras 22, 45–46].

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal Revision Petition for enhancement dismissed [Para 50].

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashment – FIR under Section 64 of BNS registered against petitioner based on allegation of rape after withdrawal of consent during intercourse – Parties met on dating app and were in regular contact over a year – Chats and prior interactions not considered in chargesheet – Held: The relationship was consensual and complaint appears to be an afterthought – Allowing prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process [Paras 2-9].

Social Media & Consent – Dating App Interactions – Nature of Consent – Petitioner and complainant met via Bumble and stayed in hotel voluntarily – Complainant alleged consent withdrawn midway but subsequent actions (returning home with petitioner, late complaint) weakened the case – Held: Where parties were in long-standing mutual virtual interaction and physical intimacy arose voluntarily, criminal proceedings cannot be sustained merely on belated claims of non-consent [Paras 2-7].

Inherent Powers – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – High Court can quash criminal proceedings where factual background, admitted communications, and evidence negate criminal intent or offence – Held: Present prosecution based on personal regret post consensual act and cannot form basis for rape charge [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR in Crime No. 306/2024 and proceedings in C.C. No. 34011/2024 pending before XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru quashed – Writ Petition disposed of accordingly [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 N.I. Act – Acquittal – Complainant alleged that accused issued cheque for ₹50,000/- in discharge of a debt – Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Trial court acquitted accused holding presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted – On appeal, High Court found that the accused successfully raised a probable defence questioning the financial capacity of the complainant and the existence of any consideration – Held: Trial court’s view was reasonable and supported by DW1's evidence and Exhibit D1 – Acquittal upheld [Paras 2-5, 10, 13, 19] –

Negotiable Instruments Act – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Section 139 N.I. Act – Accused not required to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Rebuttal by preponderance of probabilities sufficient – Held: Evidence showing lack of financial transaction in mutual exchange deed and inconsistencies in complainant’s account established a probable defence – Statutory presumption rebutted [Paras 8, 10, 12-14, 15] –

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court – Appeal against Acquittal – Principles reaffirmed from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Double presumption in favour of acquitted accused – If two views possible, appellate court should not interfere – Held: Trial court’s finding being a possible view, interference unwarranted [Para 18] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted by appellate court [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B – Deceased woman committed suicide within two years of marriage – Evidence by father, mother, brother, and village elder established harassment for dowry of gold and cash – Elders mediated but harassment continued – Held: Death occurred soon after continued cruelty and demand – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act attracted – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC upheld [Paras 19–29, 32].

Dowry Prohibition – Indirect Demand – Sections 3 & 4 – Accused demanded dowry of half tola of gold and Rs. 50,000 through deceased – Demand relayed by deceased to parents and village elders – Held: Demand was proved through credible oral evidence – Conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act sustained – Demand need not be direct, can be communicated indirectly [Paras 33–36].

Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Harassment for dowry constitutes cruelty – Threat by husband to remarry unless dowry fulfilled – Willful conduct of such nature falls within statutory definition of cruelty – Held: Conduct likely to drive deceased to suicide – Conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC affirmed [Paras 37–40].

Victim Compensation – Dependent Child – Interpretation of ‘Victim’ under CrPC and Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme – Minor child of deceased held to be dependent victim – Court invoked Section 357-A CrPC and recommended compensation by DLSA – Rs. 3,00,000 deposited by accused treated as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Further compensation under Scheme not adjustable – To be held in fixed deposit till child attains majority [Paras 41–54].

Appellate Review – Scope and Confirmation – Conviction based on consistent and corroborated evidence – No perversity in findings – No merit in appeal – Trial Court's conclusion confirmed in full [Paras 10–32, 55–56].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of 7 years' imprisonment confirmed – Rs. 3,00,000 treated as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Additional compensation to be awarded by District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi, under Section 357-A CrPC – Accused directed to surrender within 14 days.