Bail – Foreign National – Forged Passport and Aadhaar – Sections 319, 336(3), 340 BNS – Passport Act and Foreigners Act – Petitioner, a Bangladeshi national, alleged to have illegally entered India, created Aadhaar card with false parentage details and obtained Indian passport – Arrested at airport while attempting to travel to Dubai – Investigation completed and charge sheet filed – Held: Continued detention not warranted when custodial interrogation is no longer required [Paras 3, 8, 9].

Arrest – Non-furnishing of Grounds of Arrest – Violation of Statutory Safeguards – Petitioner contended that grounds of arrest were not furnished and notice under Section 35(1) BNSS was not complied with – Court found substance in the contention that grounds of arrest were not furnished – Such procedural lapse weighed in favour of grant of bail [Paras 3, 7].

Bail Considerations – Nature of Offence and Punishment – Maximum sentence extendable up to eight years – Offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment – No criminal antecedents – Long period of judicial custody since 11.10.2024 – Held: Factors favour grant of bail with stringent conditions [Paras 3, 8, 9].

Flight Risk – Seizure of Passport – Mitigating Circumstance – Though prosecution apprehended that petitioner may abscond being a foreigner – Passport already seized – Court held that seizure of passport sufficiently mitigates flight risk – Bail cannot be denied solely on the ground of nationality [Paras 4, 8].

Parity – Co-accused on Bail – Accused Nos.2 and 3 granted bail – Proceedings against Accused No.3 stayed by High Court – Principle of parity considered while granting bail to petitioner [Para 3].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail in S.C. No.42/2025 (Crime No.199/2024, Bajpe Police Station), subject to execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before Trial Court and Police Station, and other conditions as imposed.

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Allegation of Voyeurism – Section 354C IPC – Ingredients of Offence Not Made Out – Private complaint alleging taking of photograph of complainant while laying clothes for drying – Sworn statement did not disclose that complainant was engaged in a “private act” or that her privacy was violated – No allegation of exposure of private parts or expectation of privacy as contemplated under Section 354C – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–10, 11].

Voyeurism – Meaning of “Private Act” – Explanation to Section 354C IPC – Scope – Act of laying clothes for drying in front of house – No material to show complainant was not properly dressed or engaged in any act reasonably expected to provide privacy – Mere presence of accused or flashing of light insufficient to attract offence – Cognizance taken without foundational facts – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 66E – Violation of Privacy – Capture of Image of Private Area – Essential Requirement – Sworn statement of complainant did not allege photographing of naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts – No prima facie case under Section 66E made out [Para 10].

Protest Complaint – Credibility – Contradictory Versions – Initial complaint, investigation reports and protest complaint disclose material inconsistencies – Two police refer reports finding complaint false – Radical change in version at protest stage – Statements of witnesses inconsistent with complainant’s own version – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in absence of sufficient materials [Paras 3–5, 7, 11].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Accused compelled to face prosecution without sufficient grounds – Held: Ends of justice require interference – Proceedings in C.C No.555/2018 quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara quashed.

Indian Succession Act – Succession Certificate – Christian Intestate – Deceased leaving widow and lineal descendants – Trial Court refused certificate on ground that mother of deceased is also legal heir – Held, erroneous – Under Sections 32 and 33, where intestate is survived by widow and lineal descendants, mother does not inherit – Estate devolves upon widow and children – Refusal of succession certificate unsustainable in law [Paras 6-7].

Indian Succession Act – Distribution of Estate – Section 33 – Intestate leaving widow and lineal descendants – One-third of property to widow and remaining two-thirds to lineal descendants – Mother excluded when direct lineal descendants exist – Trial Court misconstrued statutory scheme – Impugned order liable to be set aside [Paras 6-7].

Succession Certificate – Shares in Company – No nomination – Requirement of certificate by company for transmission – Appellants, being widow and sons of deceased, entitled to seek certificate under Section 372 – Dismissal despite prima facie entitlement improper – Appellate Court directed issuance of certificate within specified time [Paras 3, 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 08.11.2019 in P & S.C. No.532/2018 set aside – Trial Court directed to grant succession certificate in favour of appellants forthwith in accordance with law.

Trade Union Recognition – Statutory Mechanism – West Bengal Amendment Act, 1983 – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Petitioner union sought recognition as constituent of joint bargaining council and derecognition of rival union – Held: Recognition of trade unions and disputes regarding legality of registration are exclusively governed by Sections 28A/28B and Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act – Proper authority is Registrar of Trade Unions – Writ petition dismissed for non-availment of statutory remedy [Paras 20–27].

Writ of Mandamus – Absence of Enforceable Legal Right – Recognition of Trade Union Not a Fundamental or Legal Right Enforceable in Writ Jurisdiction – Employer is a private entity not discharging public duty – Relief seeking direction for recognition by private employer impermissible under Article 226 [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Alternate Remedy – Doctrine of Exhaustion – Petitioner failed to approach Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.5) for recognition or challenge to alleged illegal registration of rival union – Held: When statute provides complete machinery, writ court should not be invoked in the first instance [Paras 21–26].

Trade Unions Act – Section 7 – Identical or Deceptively Similar Names – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Allegation that two unions registered with identical names – Held: Issue squarely falls within powers of Registrar of Trade Unions – High Court declined to adjudicate in writ jurisdiction [Paras 24–25].

Industrial Relations – Inter-union Rivalry – Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – Disputes relating to membership strength, recognition and bargaining rights between rival unions are matters for statutory authorities and industrial adjudication – Not for determination under Article 226 [Paras 15, 18–19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty implied to petitioner to approach Registrar of Trade Unions for appropriate relief under the Trade Unions Act and the West Bengal Amendment Act – Interim orders vacated – Connected applications disposed of.

Bail – Corruption Case – Advocate Accused of Influencing Judiciary – Rejection of Bail – Petitioner, an Advocate practicing before the High Court, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR registered by CBI for demanding ₹30 lakhs as illegal gratification for securing a favourable judicial order in a matrimonial dispute – Allegation that petitioner claimed personal influence over a judicial officer and accepted part bribe through co-accused – Held: Bail declined in view of gravity of allegations and prima facie material [Paras 1–2, 8–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7A – Applicability to Non-Public Servant – Contention that petitioner is not a public servant rejected – Section 7A covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means – Prima facie applicability of provision established at bail stage [Para 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parameters Reiterated – While deciding bail, Court must consider prima facie involvement, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents and impact on administration of justice – Corruption offences, particularly those affecting institutional integrity, require a cautious and stringent approach [Paras 7–8].

Corruption Affecting Judicial Process – Seriousness Emphasised – Allegations of bribery by an advocate to influence judicial outcome strike at the core of public confidence in justice delivery system – Such acts treated as grave threat to sanctity of judiciary – Professional standing or age cannot dilute seriousness of offence [Paras 6, 8, 8.1].

Investigation Completed – Custody Period – Not Sole Ground for Bail – Filing of challan and custody of about 5½ months for offence punishable up to seven years considered but held not decisive – These factors cannot outweigh gravity and societal impact of allegations [Para 8.1].

Medical Grounds – Not Established – Medical assessment did not reveal any condition warranting bail on health grounds – Rejection of bail by Special Judge, CBI, found justified in absence of change in circumstances [Para 8].

Antecedents – Relevant Consideration – Pendency of another FIR under NDPS Act and IPC against petitioner taken into account while declining bail [Para 9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply afresh for regular bail after examination of complainant and victim witnesses – Observations confined to bail adjudication and not to affect merits of trial.

Plaint – Rejection of Plaint – Under-valuation – Advanced Stage of Trial – Application filed after examination of defence witness (DW.4) – Defendant sought rejection of plaint alleging that suit property was undervalued based on evidence of Sub-Registrar official regarding sale value of nearby properties – Trial Court dismissed the application holding that under-valuation was not substantiated and application was belated – Held: Evidence of DW.4 only indicated approximate value including land and building and did not conclusively establish market value of land alone – Valuation of construction varies depending on quality and age of building – No definite conclusion of under-valuation possible on such evidence – Disputed question of fact involved, requiring detailed enquiry – Rejection of plaint at such stage not warranted – No illegality or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 2–7].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Though application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage before disposal of suit – When plea involves disputed facts relating to valuation and requires evidence, plaint cannot be rejected summarily – Proper course is framing of issue and trial on valuation, if sought – Liberty granted to defendant to seek framing of issue on valuation before Trial Court [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply before Trial Court for framing an issue on valuation of plaint – No costs – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction of Public Servant Affirmed – Appellant, Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police, demanded illegal gratification from complainant for not implicating him in criminal case under investigation – Initial demand made at police station followed by reiteration during trap proceedings at Tis Hazari Courts – Acceptance of tainted money through intermediary (Head Constable) pursuant to appellant’s directions – Held: Foundational facts of demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 26–27, 39].

Evidence – Complainant Not an Accomplice – Reliance on Sole Testimony – Complainant’s evidence found cogent, consistent and trustworthy – Law reiterated that complainant in bribery case is not an accomplice and his testimony does not mandatorily require corroboration – Non-examination of some witnesses, including complainant’s son or alleged accomplices, not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 26–27].

Trap Proceedings – Shadow Witness and Independent Witnesses – Shadow witness and independent witnesses supported prosecution in material particulars – Partial hostility of witnesses does not efface prosecution case – Portion of testimony supporting prosecution can be relied upon – Evidence to be weighed, not counted [Paras 28–30].

Electronic Evidence – Tape Recorded Conversation – Custody and Transcript – Allegation of improper custody and missing portion of transcript examined – Tape recording opened pursuant to court order and transcript prepared in presence of witnesses – Minor omission in transcript not relating to demand held inconsequential – Even otherwise, prosecution case does not rest solely on tape-recorded evidence [Paras 28–29].

Presumption under Section 20 PC Act – Applicability – Once demand and acceptance of illegal gratification established, statutory presumption arises – Accused failed to rebut presumption by any probable defence – Conviction justified on evidence on record [Paras 13.4–13.6, 39].

Contradictions and Omissions – Appreciation of Evidence – Alleged contradictions regarding visiting card, dialing of phone, crowd, firing incident, handling of currency notes and trap formalities held to be minor and not affecting core prosecution story – Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be used except for contradiction following procedure under Section 145 Evidence Act – No legally proved contradictions established [Paras 31, 35–37].

Investigation Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of advocate to whom bribe was initially directed, non-sending of articles for forensic examination, and alleged violation of CBI Manual not fatal – CBI Manual is administrative and not statutory – Defective investigation by itself cannot result in acquittal when substantive evidence proves guilt [Paras 32, 38].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Evidence of partially hostile witnesses can be relied upon to the extent it supports prosecution – PW3 and PW4 corroborated pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings in material aspects [Paras 28–30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 39–40].

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering – Organized Cyber Frauds – Petitioners alleged to be key operatives in third and second layers of laundering network – Large-scale layering of proceeds of crime through hundreds of mule accounts, conversion to cryptocurrency, and uploading to UAE-based PYYPL platform – ED investigation revealed deep involvement of petitioners in managing over 30 entities and routing ₹65 crore through fraudulent transactions – Custodial interrogation sought by ED – Held: Petitioners played significant role in laundering – Bail denied [Paras 2–3, 5–9]

Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA – Applicability to Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners argued that mere dealing in cryptocurrency is not an offence and relied on parity with co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail cannot be granted unless both twin conditions under Section 45 are satisfied – Plea of parity misplaced as co-accused were granted regular bail post-custody – Section 45 applies fully to anticipatory bail as well – There are no reasonable grounds to believe accused are not guilty or unlikely to commit offences while on bail [Paras 3, 4, 14–15]

Continuing Investigation – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation ongoing with new complaints emerging – Petitioners allegedly wiped digital evidence, assaulted ED officers, and paid bribes to local police – ED requires custody to trace further layering and involvement of banking officials – Held: Court cannot override investigative necessity for effective interrogation and evidence collection – Bail would risk destruction of crucial evidence [Paras 7, 10–13]

Economic Offences – Seriousness – Impact on Public Confidence and National Economy – Money laundering offences viewed as aggravated economic crimes with transnational dimensions – Held: Economic offences constitute a distinct class – Investigation must be allowed full play before grant of bail can be considered [Paras 4.4–4.5, 9.3–9.5]

Constitutional Rights vs. Investigative Interests – Petitioners relied on Article 21 for anticipatory bail – Held: Right to liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against public interest in effective investigation – Article 21 cannot be used to block necessary custodial interrogation [Paras 4.2, 10]

Decision: Both anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA – Custodial interrogation found necessary due to serious nature of allegations and risk of evidence tampering – No protection from arrest granted.

Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Uniformity and Parity – Lands acquired for establishment of Government Cement Factory under TANCEM – Reference Court enhanced compensation from Rs.200/- per cent to Rs.1,200/- per cent – Acquiring authority challenged enhancement as excessive – Held: Subsequent common judgment of High Court in appeals arising from same acquisition fixed market value at Rs.1,500/- per cent – Principle of parity requires uniform compensation to all landowners – Lower rate cannot be sustained [Paras 3, 6–9].

Land Acquisition – Effect of Subsequent Judgments – Binding Nature – Common judgment dated 29.01.2024 in A.S. No.916 of 2019 and connected cases enhanced compensation to Rs.1,500/- per cent – Followed by later orders recording TANCEM’s resolution to uniformly pay compensation at said rate – Held: Issues relating to comparability of sales, belt system and valuation stand concluded and cannot be reopened [Paras 6–9].

Land Acquisition – Development Deduction – Industrial / Mining Purpose – Acquisition not for housing layout but for industrial and mining activity – Subsequent batch decisions fixed flat rate without development deduction – Held: No deduction towards development charges warranted – Any deduction would disturb settled uniformity [Para 10].

Land Acquisition – Statutory Benefits – Entitlement on Enhanced Compensation – Claimant entitled to additional amount, solatium and interest under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced market value – Direction to deposit balance compensation within stipulated time [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on merits – Award of Reference Court modified by enhancing market value from Rs.1,200/- per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent – No deduction towards development charges – Claimant entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquiring authority directed to deposit balance compensation within eight weeks – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.