NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 21 and 25 – Quantity Below Commercial Threshold – Section 37 Not Applicable – Applicant arrested on 28.03.2025 for alleged recovery of 6.08 grams of heroin from speedometer of his motorcycle – Challan filed – 11 out of 19 witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Multiple prior NDPS cases registered against applicant but no conviction in any – Bail applications earlier dismissed by this Court as withdrawn and by Special Court – Held: Quantity recovered does not fall within commercial quantity and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted – Registration of multiple prior cases without conviction cannot justify indefinite pre-trial custody – Bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment – Pre-trial punishment prohibited under law – No useful purpose served by continued custody – Apprehensions regarding tampering and reoffending can be addressed through conditions – Bail granted [Paras 11-17].

Pre-Trial Detention – Prolonged Custody – Pendency of Trial – Applicant in custody since 28.03.2025 – Trial not likely to conclude in near future given pace of recording of evidence – Prior registration of cases without conviction cannot be a ground to keep accused in judicial custody for indefinite period – State made no effort to seek cancellation of bail in any of the other registered cases – Bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Subject to conditions of regular attendance, non-tampering with evidence, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no travel outside India without prior permission of Court – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions [Paras 17-21].

Criminal Law – Challenge to Remand Order - Production before Magistrate – Article 22(2) – Accused to be produced within 24 hours excluding travel time – Minor delay of 25 minutes beyond 24 hours explained by circumstances – Held: Not fatal and does not vitiate remand [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Arrest – Computation of 24 Hours – Time to be reckoned from official arrest and not mere apprehension – Arrest panchanama showed arrest at 5:00 p.m. – Production at 5:25 p.m. next day – Held: Delay marginal and justified [Paras 7-8]

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Article 22(2) – Allegation of illegal detention – Held: Exclusion of travel time and administrative circumstances permissible – No violation where delay is properly explained [Paras 9-10]

Remand – Validity – Non-production within exact 24 hours – Held: Slight deviation does not ipso facto invalidate remand if explanation is reasonable and no prejudice caused [Paras 10-11]

Bail vs Technical Grounds – Attempt to secure release on procedural irregularity after rejection of bail – Held: Petition under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to indirectly secure bail when no substantive illegality shown [Paras 7, 11]

Criminal Law – Serious Offence (Murder for Supari) – Gravity of offence relevant – Technical plea of delay cannot override substantive prosecution case [Paras 3, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Travel time exclusion – Courts consistently hold that time necessary for journey must be excluded in computing 24 hours [Paras 9.3, 9.5, 9.6]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Remand order upheld – No violation of Article 22(2) – Delay in production held justified – No ground for release of petitioner.

Property Law – Article 300-A – Forcible Dispossession by State – Mandatory Injunction – Right to Compensation – Respondent/plaintiff, title holder of suit land, found that State had constructed National Highway through his land without following due process of law or paying compensation – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction decreed partly by Trial Court directing defendants to acquire portion of suit land and pay due compensation within two years – First Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No person can be forcibly dispossessed of his property without legal sanction and without following due process of law – State being a welfare State governed by rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State produced no document to show consent of respondent for construction of road through his land – Plea of oral consent held unsustainable – Concurrent findings affirmed – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-20].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – State's Plea Rejected – State contended that claim was stale and highly belated and that respondent had orally consented – Held: Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action – Being the owner of the suit property, plaintiff was well within his right to file a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction at any stage until the right is defeated by perfection of title through adverse possession – State cannot shield itself behind delay and laches when it has utilised land of a citizen without adopting due process of law – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice [Paras 14-19].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal unless the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, is in ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, or is perverse – First Appellate Court is the final court of fact – No substantial question of law arises in the present case – No merit in the appeal [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit – Concurrent findings of Courts below upheld – State directed to acquire suit land and pay due compensation in accordance with law [Para 26].

Bail – Undertrial – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Undue Delay – Applicant arrested on 13.12.2023 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act – Bail previously dismissed by this Court on 10.01.2025 – Out of 47 prosecution witnesses, only 3 examined in over two years – Trial progressing at a snail's pace with witnesses being summoned in a piecemeal manner – Next dates fixed in May 2026 for only a further batch of witnesses – Held: Undue delay in trial is writ at large; incarceration without trial amounts to punishment – Applicant entitled to bail on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 [Paras 20–22].

Right to Medical Treatment – Prisoners' Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Applicant suffering from chronic spinal injury with repeated advice from PGI Chandigarh for physiotherapy, avoidance of travel and physical exertion – Medical treatment repeatedly disrupted due to non-availability of police escort and absence of a permanent Medical Officer in District Jail, Una – Physiotherapy conducted only 8 times over 26 days; hospital admission aborted for want of police guard – Held: Failure to provide timely medical treatment to a prisoner amounts to violation of Article 21 – Even prisoners retain fundamental and human rights including the right to life and dignity – Court directed Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh and Director General of Prisons to submit detailed reports on availability of medical facilities, police escort, and medical staff in jails [Paras 29–39].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to standard conditions – Chief Secretary, H.P. and Director General of Prisons directed to submit detailed reports by next date – Matter listed on 27.04.2026.

Intellectual Property – Passing Off – Prior User – Goodwill – Charitable Trust – Plaintiffs' trust "Kovai Heart Foundation" conducting charitable cardiac care activities since 1992, formally registered in 1996 – Defendants commenced use of name "Kovai Heart Foundation Private Limited" only around 2009 – Trial Court decreed suit restraining defendants by permanent injunction – Held: Plaintiffs established prior user of the name and goodwill attached thereto – Defendants' adoption of the same composite name in the same city and same field of cardiac care is likely to mislead the public into believing defendants are connected with the plaintiffs – Addition of corporate suffix "Private Limited" does not materially distinguish the name – Same constitutes passing off – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19-31].

Passing Off – Incorporation Under Companies Act – No Bar to Suit – Absence of Trade Mark Registration – Irrelevant – Defendants contended that plaintiffs' remedy lay only before the authority concerned with company names and that absence of trade mark registration defeated the suit – Held: The suit is a common law action in passing off and not for rectification of register of companies – Goodwill generated by prior user is protectable even in the absence of registration – Incorporation under the Companies Act does not confer immunity against an action in passing off if the corporate name adopted is likely to invade the goodwill of a prior user – Civil court is not sitting in appeal over the act of incorporation but is examining whether use of the corporate name constitutes actionable misrepresentation [Paras 10-13].

Maintainability – Suit by Charitable Trust – Trust Represented by Trustees – Defendants contended that a trust cannot claim any right in the name – Held: The claim is not that the trust enjoys any statutory monopoly over the name – Goodwill attached to a name used in charitable and related activities can certainly be enforced by those competent to represent the trust, namely its trustees – Suit maintainable [Paras 14-17].

Passing Off – Test of Confusion – Composite Name – Geographical Component – "Kovai" is geographical but the relevant expression is the composite name "Kovai Heart Foundation" – Distinctiveness in passing off law may reside in the totality of the expression and the goodwill it has come to denote – Test of confusion is not meticulous comparison but the impression on a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection – Dominant and essential part of defendants' name identical to that of plaintiffs – Likelihood of confusion accentuated by both parties operating in the same field and the same city – Personal professional reputation of first defendant does not answer the legal objection arising from adoption of a name already associated with the plaintiffs' prior activities – Real and probable likelihood of confusion sufficient in law [Paras 23-30].

Delay and Acquiescence – Mere delay in approaching Court does not defeat a claim for injunction where the complained-of use is continuing and likelihood of deception persists – Acquiescence requires conduct amounting to encouragement or assent, not mere delay – No such case established [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal Suit dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court confirmed – Permanent injunction against defendants upheld – Appellants to pay costs of appeal to respondents [Para 35].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 145 – Affidavit Evidence – Accused Cannot File Evidence-in-Chief by Way of Affidavit – Section 145(1) expressly enables only the complainant to give evidence-in-chief on affidavit in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – The provision uses the word "complainant" and does not extend the same liberty to the accused – Legislature's deliberate omission of the word "accused" from Section 145(1) cannot be supplied by the Court – Section 145(2) is merely a procedural provision enabling the Court to summon and examine any person who has already given evidence on affidavit and does not confer upon the accused a right to adduce evidence-in-chief by affidavit – Held: The accused in a Section 138 proceeding cannot lead defence evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit – Impugned order of the SDJM discarding the affidavit evidence of the defence is consistent with law and calls for no interference [Paras 12, 13, 17, 18].

Precedent – Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore – Scope and Applicability – The Supreme Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. categorically held that Section 145(1) provides for the complainant to give evidence on affidavit and does not extend the same right to the accused – The accused's evidence is in the nature of rebuttal of presumptions and is not necessarily documentary, unlike the complainant's evidence which is largely documentary – Indian Bank Association v. Union of India did not overrule or dissent from Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the reference therein to the earlier decision was only by way of reiteration – Held: The ratio in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. remains good law and governs the field [Paras 14, 15, 16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.07.2025 of the SDJM, Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No. 6557 of 2013 upheld – Interim order, if any, vacated.

Public Interest Litigation – Bona Fides of Petitioner – Conflict of Interest – Petitioner filed PIL seeking removal of allegedly illegal weighbridges and royalty nakas on National Highways across Rajasthan – Respondents alleged that petition was a motivated exercise to settle personal and commercial scores – Petitioner's father admitted to be a quarry licence holder engaged in mining business – Family alleged to be associated with weighbridge operations – Petitioner failed to disclose these facts as mandated by Rule 385-F of the High Court Rules – Held: Petitioner prima facie has a discernible personal stake in the matter and is not entitled to prosecute proceedings as a public interest litigant – Petitioner transposed as Respondent No. 17 – Cause converted to suo motu proceedings – Followed: Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. [Paras 8-18, 21].

PIL – Mandatory Disclosure – Rule 385-F – Non-Disclosure – Consequences – Rule 385-F of the Rajasthan High Court Rules mandates that a PIL petitioner must disclose social standing, personal interest in the cause, and history of past or pending litigation – Non-disclosure of petitioner's family's involvement in mining and weighbridge operations constitutes suppression of material facts – Held: Petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, clean heart and clean objective – Petitioner disentitled from instituting any Public Interest Litigation in future – Notice issued to petitioner to show cause why exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs be not imposed [Paras 16-19, 22].

PIL – Conversion to Suo Motu Proceedings – Larger Public Interest – Despite disentitlement of petitioner, issues of road safety and removal of hazardous installations on highways held to be of significant public importance – Proceedings directed to continue as suo motu proceedings – Cause title amended to "In the matter of Safety on the Highways vs. State of Rajasthan and Others" – Amicus curiae appointed to assist the Court – Intervenors/whistle-blowers permitted to participate through amicus curiae [Paras 20-23, 29-30].

Weighbridge – Relocation – Permission to Operate – Respondent No. 12 (M/s Riddhi Siddhi Housing Private Limited), concessionaire of the State, had been directed to relocate weighbridge beyond 75 metres from National Highway – Relocation stated on oath to have been carried out – Position not disputed by NHAI or State authorities – Sanction order dated 07.04.2025 issued by Mining Department in favour of Respondent No. 12 – Held: Respondent No. 12 permitted to continue business operations subject to physical/spot verification of relocation by Mining Department and NHAI – In event relocation found non-compliant, authorities at liberty to seek modification of order [Paras 24-28].

Mining – Royalty Collection – Weighbridges – Regulatory Framework – Mining Department legally empowered to permit and regulate check posts and monitor mineral transportation including E-Ravana and transit/royalty pass mechanism – Legal Metrology Department has jurisdiction over installation and operation of weighbridges – Both functions intrinsically interconnected as royalty collection based on weight of minerals necessarily requires weighbridges – Denial of weighbridge operations would result in illegal mining and loss to State exchequer [Para 26].

Decision: Petitioner transposed as Respondent No. 17 – PIL converted to suo motu proceedings – Petitioner barred from filing any PIL in future – Notice issued for show cause on exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs – Respondent No. 12 permitted to operate weighbridge subject to spot verification – Matter adjourned to 06.04.2026.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 69 BNS – Promise of Marriage – Sexual Exploitation – Pregnancy – Accused, the maternal aunt's son of the complainant, allegedly developed a physical relationship with her under repeated assurances of marriage, took her to an OYO room on 04.06.2025, and had physical relations with her – Complainant became seven months pregnant at the time of filing the complaint and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy on 18.02.2026 – Accused refused to marry her and denied paternity – DNA samples awaited as child had not yet attained the minimum age of two months required for collection – Petitioner in custody since 13.01.2026 – Held: Considering the period of incarceration and the facts and circumstances, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 6].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Petitioner to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier – Petitioner to abide by conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS.

Family Law – DNA Test – Paternity – Children's Rights – Divorce Petition on Desertion – Petitioner filed HMOP No. 45 of 2019 seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion – During pendency, petitioner filed I.A. No. 553 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking DNA testing of two children to prove they were not born out of the wedlock – Trial court dismissed the application holding that DNA test would expose children to social ridicule and cannot be ordered mechanically – High Court upheld dismissal – Held: To prove adultery of wife, petitioner cannot seek DNA testing of children who are not parties to the lis, and the rights and best interests of the child cannot be sacrificed to enable one party to the marriage to have the benefit of fair trial [Paras 3, 9].

DNA Test – Child's Right to Identity – Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Supreme Court's position reiterated that DNA test is an extremely delicate and sensitive matter and courts must be reluctant to direct such tests as they may bastardise an innocent child – Presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate is very strong and blood test cannot be ordered as a matter of course without strong reasons – Child cannot be used as a pawn to establish the mother's alleged adultery – Right to fair trial of one party to a marriage cannot override the child's right to identity [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority within three weeks – Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.