Bail – Prostitution – PIT Act – Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Accused No. 2 arrested during a raid at a flat in KPHB Colony where prostitution was allegedly being organised by the main accused – Petitioner alleged to be a sub-organizer acting as mediator for customers – Petitioner claimed she visited the premises only to collect money due in connection with her chit fund business and had no connection with the illegal activities of A.1 – Held: No specific material at this stage to show petitioner owned or managed the premises; presence alone without independent material showing active role requires examination during trial; investigation substantially completed and petitioner is a woman; bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties; 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.

Civil Procedure – Commercial Suit – Reopening of Evidence – Recall of Witness – Additional Documents – Plaintiff filed suit for return of 4,100 grams of 22 carat gold or payment of market value of Rs. 1,98,26,124/- along with interest – Pending suit, plaintiff filed applications to receive additional documents (FIR in Crime No. 238 of 2023 registered against the defendant on a complaint of cheating), to reopen evidence on plaintiff's side and to recall PW1 – Trial Court dismissed all applications holding no reasonable cause shown for filing additional documents – Respondent did not file any counter to the applications – Held: Plaintiff must be given an opportunity to prove the conduct of the defendant; dismissal of applications defeats the petitioner's valuable right to establish his case; impugned orders set aside [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Civil revision petitions allowed – IA Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of 2026 allowed – Liberty granted to respondent to cross-examine the witness – Trial Court directed to proceed with the matter – No costs.

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.

Employment – Private Employment under Registered Society – Termination of Fixed Term Engagement – Damages – Appellant appointed as Director of respondent society for fixed term of five years with honorarium of Rs.30,000 per month – Appellant suffered serious illness and remained on prolonged medical leave – Respondents declined further extension of leave and relieved appellant from duties – Trial Court held termination governed by service rules of society and awarded damages equal to three months’ notice pay – Held: Respondent society being a registered society under the Societies Registration Act is not a statutory body and employment is governed purely by contract and service rules – Constitutional protection under Article 311 not applicable – Trial Court rightly limited damages to notice period salary – Appeal dismissed [Paras 11–12, 28–30].

Contract of Employment – Fixed Term Contract – Premature Termination – Appellant contended that since appointment was for a fixed period of five years, termination before expiry was illegal and she was entitled to compensation for remaining tenure – Held: Even fixed-term employment can be terminated earlier for sufficient cause – Prolonged absence due to medical leave affecting functioning of organisation constituted valid justification for termination [Paras 22, 25–26].

Service Rules – Medical Leave – Limits on Leave – Appellant had availed medical leave from February 2013 onwards and sought further extension – Service Rules permitted maximum 90 days medical leave in case of serious illness – Held: Appellant had already exceeded permissible limit and could not claim further extension as a matter of right [Paras 22–24].

Damages for Wrongful Termination – Principle of Notice Period Compensation – In cases of wrongful termination of employment governed by contract, damages are ordinarily limited to salary payable during notice period and not for the entire remaining term of service – Trial Court correctly awarded Rs.90,000/- equivalent to three months’ honorarium as compensation [Para 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld – Appellant entitled only to Rs.90,000/- with interest at 9% per annum representing three months’ notice pay [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Under Section 302 RPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for causing homicidal death of the deceased by assaulting him on the head with a gainti on 30.05.2002, allegedly on suspicion of illicit relations with the appellant's wife – Conviction based primarily on the testimony of PW-2 Shah Begum, the minor daughter of the deceased, as the sole eye-witness – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 19-21].

Evidence – Child Witness – Corroboration – Reliability – PW-2, the sole eye-witness, was a minor daughter of the deceased – Testimony of a child witness requires careful scrutiny and courts must be satisfied that it is free from tutoring – In the present case, PW-2's testimony found no adequate corroboration from material witnesses – PW-1 Bagh Hussain, who first took the injured to the hospital, turned hostile and denied witnessing any assault – Held: Uncorroborated testimony of a child witness, suffering from material discrepancies, cannot safely sustain a conviction [Paras 7, 11].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Recovery of Weapon – Doubtful – Independent witnesses to the alleged disclosure statement and recovery of the gainti, namely PW-4 Sudesh Kumar and PW-5 Rattan Singh, did not support the prosecution – PW-5 specifically deposed that the alleged weapon was lying in the police station and documents of its seizure were prepared there – Held: Recovery of weapon of offence highly doubtful; prosecution case seriously undermined [Paras 8, 9, 12, 13].

Evidence – Material Contradictions – Child Witness – PW-2 stated in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that she along with her father had gone to the appellant for settlement of accounts and that the assault took place then – Before the Court she stated that the deceased was washing clothes outside the room when the appellant came from behind and assaulted him – Held: This is not a minor inconsistency but a material variation going to the root of the prosecution story regarding the manner of occurrence; such contradictions cannot be lightly ignored [Paras 15, 16].

Evidence – Motive – Unproved – Prosecution attributed motive of suspicion of illicit relations between the deceased and the appellant's wife – Not a single prosecution witness substantiated this allegation – Held: In a case resting on the testimony of a single witness, absence of cogent material establishing motive further weakens the prosecution case [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Reasonable Doubt – Where evidence on record gives rise to two possible views, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof – Cumulative effect of material inconsistencies in the sole eye-witness testimony, hostile witnesses, doubtful recovery and unproved motive gives rise to reasonable doubt – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18, 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 RPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Discharged from bail bonds – Confirmation Reference No. 7/2010 declined.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Dishonour – Power of Attorney Holder as Witness – Competency – Cheque dated 05.03.2011 for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by accused dishonoured – PW1, Power of Attorney Holder of complainant, examined as witness having direct knowledge of and having witnessed the transaction leading to execution of cheque – Trial court discarded his evidence solely on the ground that his name was not cited in the preliminary witness schedule filed with the complaint – Held: In a private complaint prosecution, omission to cite a witness in the initial witness schedule is not a reason to disbelieve his evidence when he was duly examined and his testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination — trial court's view was hyper-technical and erroneous [Paras 8–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 118 and 139 – Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Burden of Proof – Trial court acquitted accused also on the ground that complainant did not prove his financial capacity to advance Rs. 2,50,000/- – Accused did not raise any challenge during trial as to complainant's financial incapacity – Held: Where accused does not dispute financial capacity of complainant during trial, no burden lies on complainant to prove the same — presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favour of complainant and were not rebutted by accused — finding of trial court on this point also erroneous [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed — acquittal set aside — accused convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act — sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- with default imprisonment of six months — accused directed to appear before trial court on 10.04.2026.

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.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 6 – Conviction Upheld – Accused, the cousin brother and blood relative of the minor victim aged 14 years, subjected her to repeated forcible sexual intercourse from the time she was in 9th standard, taking advantage of the prohibited familial relationship and the victim's vulnerability as her parents were staying away in Coimbatore – Victim became pregnant; accused refused responsibility and directed her to give a false version of kidnap and rape – Held: Prosecution established the foundational facts; testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-40].

POCSO Act – Sole Testimony of Victim – Sterling Witness – Corroboration Not Required – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault if the evidence is found trustworthy and of sterling quality – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies do not constitute grounds to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case – In the instant case, the victim was consistent in her complaint (Ex.P1), Section 164 statement (Ex.P2) and court deposition; withstood rigorous cross-examination; PW4 (independent witness) corroborated her version – Held: Corroboration not required; sole testimony sufficient [Paras 31-34].

POCSO Act – Statutory Presumption – Section 29 – Once foundational facts established that victim is a minor and has been subjected to sexual relationship, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act arises – Accused offered no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence to rebut presumption – Held: Statutory presumption unrebutted; conviction justified [Para 35].

Evidence – Discrepancy – False Version of Kidnap Attributed to Accused's Instructions – Victim initially gave a version of kidnap and rape by one known and three unknown persons but retracted before the doctor stating she did so on the accused's instruction – Held: Discrepancy regarding kidnap and rape, explained by the victim's fear of shame and trauma of prohibited relationship, does not affect the core prosecution case of repeated sexual assault [Paras 34, 37].

POCSO Act – Delay in FIR – Sexual Assault by Blood Relative – Delay in lodging complaint in cases of sexual assault committed by a close blood relative in a prohibited relationship cannot be a ground to discredit the prosecution case, as the minor victim was under fear of shame and social stigma [Para 38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of ten years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Trial Court directed to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining sentence.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal against Acquittal – Trial court acquitted the accused holding that the complainant failed to prove the transaction and financial capacity – Evidence of Power of Attorney holder rejected on the ground that his name was not included in the preliminary witness schedule – Held: Such omission in witness schedule is not a valid reason to discard the testimony of a witness whose evidence is otherwise credible and withstands cross-examination – Trial court adopted a hyper-technical approach [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Testimony of Power of Attorney Holder – Power of Attorney holder who had direct knowledge of the transaction and personally witnessed the loan and issuance of cheque was examined as PW1 – Held: A power of attorney holder is competent to file a complaint and depose on behalf of the complainant provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction – Evidence cannot be rejected merely because he was not initially cited in the witness schedule [Paras 8–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 – Once execution of cheque and transaction are proved, statutory presumptions arise in favour of the complainant – Accused failed to rebut the presumptions by adducing evidence or effective cross-examination – Held: Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the complainant [Para 9].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Burden of Proof – Trial court held that complainant failed to prove financial capacity to lend Rs.2,50,000/- – Held: Where the accused does not challenge the complainant’s financial capacity during trial, the complainant is not required to independently prove the source of funds – Absence of such challenge amounts to acceptance of the complainant’s financial capacity [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of acquittal set aside – Accused convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Sentence: imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.4,00,000/-, with default imprisonment of six months [Paras 11–12].