Writ Petition – Maintainability – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners arrested by NIA sought habeas corpus in an earlier writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn – Petitioners filed a fresh writ challenging their arrest and remand orders – NIA raised the plea of constructive res judicata, arguing the present writ was not maintainable – Held: The withdrawal of the earlier petition did not bar the present writ petition as liberty to “agitate the same issues before Competent Court/Forum” was granted by the Division Bench – The principle of constructive res judicata does not apply when liberty has been expressly granted by the court, and issues concerning personal liberty require a liberal approach – Petition maintainable ​.

Habeas Corpus – Challenge to Arrest and Remand – Petitioners contended that their arrest by the NIA and subsequent remand to custody were illegal – The arrest was challenged on the ground of non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. – Held: The petition raised serious issues of personal liberty, including the illegality of the arrest under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution – The matter was admitted for arguments on merits ​.

NIA Act – Appellate Remedies – Petitioners argued that no statutory remedies under the NIA Act were available to challenge the remand orders as they are interlocutory in nature – Held: Section 21 of the NIA Act does not provide for an appeal against interlocutory orders, such as remand orders – Therefore, the petitioners’ only remedy is through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ​.

Res Judicata – Withdrawal of Writ Petition – NIA argued that withdrawal of the earlier writ without specific permission barred the petitioners from filing a fresh writ – Held: The Supreme Court’s decision in Sarguja Transport Service was considered, but it was clarified that personal liberty cases, such as habeas corpus petitions, are outside the strict application of res judicata principles – The earlier withdrawal did not preclude the present writ petition ​.

Decision: Preliminary objection by NIA rejected – Writ petition held maintainable – Matter listed for arguments on merits.

Motor Accident – Negligence and Compensation – Petition Dismissed – The appellant, Harbans Kaur, was injured when a scooter driven by Darshan Lal allegedly struck her leg, causing crush injuries and a blunt head injury – The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed her claim, finding insufficient evidence to link the accident with the scooter driven by Darshan Lal – On appeal, the High Court upheld the MACT's decision, emphasizing the lack of immediate police reporting, delayed complaint, and contradictory statements regarding the transfer of vehicle ownership [Paras 10-15].

Delay in Filing Claim – Adverse Impact – The claim petition was filed more than three years after the accident, raising doubts about the credibility of the incident – The delay in filing, combined with the absence of a timely police report and the eventual registration of a complaint only after the petition was filed, contributed to the Court's decision to dismiss the claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision to deny compensation was upheld.

Specific Performance – Validity of Sale Agreement – Exhibit A1 - The appellants contended that Exhibit A1 (the sale agreement) was forged and fraudulently created using signed blank papers handed over to the plaintiffs as security in a loan transaction – Held: The appellants did not dispute the execution of Exhibit A1 or the receipt of Rs.700,000/- as part of the sale consideration – The alignment of signatures on the agreement suggests that the appellants’ claim of signing blank papers is improbable – Decision: The court found no reason to doubt the validity of Exhibit A1 [Paras 10-15, 18].

Advance Sale Consideration – Plaintiffs' Payment of Rs.5,200,000 - The plaintiffs paid Rs.5,200,000/- as advance consideration towards the purchase of the property, but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract – Held: The plaintiffs’ payments were sufficiently evidenced, and the court dismissed the defendants’ claim that the payments were made for a different transaction – Decision: The payment of Rs.5,200,000/- was valid [Paras 16-19].

Attachment of Property – Sale Deed Execution Refused by Sub-Registrar - The defendants claimed that the sale deed could not be registered due to the property being under attachment – Held: The defendants' appeal against the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register the deed further supports the plaintiffs' case that the sale deed was prepared for valid consideration – Decision: The refusal by the Sub-Registrar does not affect the plaintiffs' claims for the return of advance consideration [Paras 20-22].

Counterclaim Dismissed – Fraudulent Creation of Agreement – Rejected - The defendants’ counterclaim that the sale agreement was fraudulently created was rejected by the trial court, and there was no challenge against this dismissal – The appellate court also found no valid grounds to disturb the trial court's findings – Decision: Counterclaim dismissed, trial court’s judgment upheld [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Long Pre-trial Incarceration – Speedy Trial – The petitioner, charged with offenses under Sections 302, 307, 324, 379, 411, 483, 506, 34, and 120-B of the IPC, sought bail after being in custody for over 4 years. Only 5 out of 21 witnesses had been examined in that period – Held: The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, coupled with the absence of any strong indication that the petitioner would tamper with witnesses, justified the grant of bail. The protracted incarceration without meaningful trial progress was deemed unjustifiable – Bail granted, subject to strict conditions to ensure the petitioner’s attendance at trial and to prevent witness tampering [Paras 6-11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – The right to speedy trial, embedded in Article 21, requires that an accused should not be subjected to indefinite pre-trial detention. Relying on judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court reiterated that prolonged delay without justifiable reasons infringes upon personal liberty. In this case, the petitioner’s long detention of over 4 years warranted his release on bail in the absence of trial progress [Paras 7-9].

Decision:
The bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Stringent conditions, including reporting to the police and restrictions on influencing witnesses, are imposed to ensure the petitioner’s compliance during the trial. The State is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated or if the petitioner engages in further criminal activity [Paras 12-13].
 

Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat – Public Utility Services – Passport Issuance Not Within Ambit – Petition Allowed – The petitioners challenged the orders of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) directing the issuance of passports and imposing penalties for delays – The Court held that issuance of passports is a sovereign function governed by the Passports Act, 1967, and does not fall within the definition of "immigration services" or "public utility services" under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – The Permanent Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders [Paras 16-18].

Sovereign Function – Passport as Property of the Central Government – The Court reiterated that a passport is a sovereign document and remains the property of the Central Government as per Section 17 of the Passports Act, 1967 – The issuance of passports involves scrutiny related to national security and foreign relations, making it a non-commercial, sovereign function [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the awards passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana (dated 20.10.2023) and Sangrur (dated 30.11.2023), were set aside.

Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (PoA) Act – False Implication – Bar Under Section 18 - The appellants sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the charges were filed as a counterblast to an incident involving political rivalry and that they were falsely implicated – Held: Based on the material, including the FIR, the parties were found to be living in inimical terms, raising doubts about the veracity of the complaint – False implication cannot be ruled out, and anticipatory bail granted despite the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 6-8, 12-14].

Custodial Interrogation – No Need Established – Bail Granted - The prosecution did not establish the need for custodial interrogation, and the accused in a connected case were already granted bail – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 9-10, 18].

Evaluation of Prima Facie Case – SC/ST Act – No Bar on Anticipatory Bail - In evaluating whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act existed, the court found insufficient evidence to apply the statutory bar under Section 18, following precedents such as Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Subhash Kashinath Mahajan – Bail granted – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 11, 16-17].

Bail – Robbery and Criminal Trespass – Section 483 of the BNSS – Grant of Bail - The petitioners were charged with committing robbery by breaking into a jewellery shop and stealing silver ornaments and watches worth Rs.1,596,000 – The petitioners claimed innocence, stating they were unaware of the charges until they were arrested – Held: The petitioners had been in judicial custody for over 90 days, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed – Decision: Bail granted.

Previous Criminal Record – Risk of Tampering with Evidence - The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' involvement in similar crimes and the risk of tampering with evidence – Held: Despite the prosecution's concerns, bail was granted on the basis of the petitioners' prolonged judicial custody and completion of the investigation – Decision: Bail granted with conditions.

Principle of Bail – Bail is the Rule, Jail is an Exception - The court reaffirmed the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is an exception," citing precedents such as Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India – Decision: Bail granted in light of established legal principles.

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity of Narcotics – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Rejected - Section 50 Compliance – Non-compliance Alleged – The petitioner, a 71-year-old citizen of Belize, sought bail under Section 439 of CrPC, arguing non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Alleged that he was not informed of his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Petitioner further raised discrepancies in the weight of the recovered contraband (9.950 Kg initially, 9.959 Kg later) and delay in sampling – High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that minor discrepancies in weight were immaterial and non-compliance with procedural guidelines under Section 52-A does not invalidate the trial [Paras 1, 5, 11, 13].

Contraband Recovery – Commercial Quantity – Heroin weighing 9.950 Kg recovered from the petitioner’s bag at the IGI Airport – The petitioner’s claim of false implication due to the presence of a pre-generated case number was rejected by the Court – The Court found no manipulation in the recovery process, holding the contraband seizure to be lawful and sufficient evidence under NDPS Act [Paras 6, 12, 14].

Application of Section 50 NDPS Act – Personal vs Baggage Search – The petitioner argued that Section 50 compliance was necessary, as the contraband was recovered from his baggage – The Court held that Section 50 applies to the search of a person, not baggage, following precedents set by Pawan Kumar vs. State of HP and other cases – No violation of Section 50 was found, as the search was conducted on the petitioner’s baggage in a public place [Paras 13, 18, 19, 23].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity and Bail Conditions – The High Court ruled that the commercial quantity of heroin attracts the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail – The petitioner could not demonstrate that he was not guilty or that he was unlikely to commit the offence if released – The Court emphasized that heroin, a highly addictive opioid, presents a severe threat to public health, further justifying denial of bail [Paras 25, 29, 32].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court held that no grounds were made for granting bail, considering the commercial quantity of heroin and the petitioner's potential flight risk as a foreign national – The trial court was directed to expedite the trial [Paras 33, 34].

Civil Law - Derivative Action – Rights of Shareholders – The appellants, minority shareholders, filed a derivative action challenging the sale of a property owned by the company. They sought injunctions and other reliefs on the ground of mismanagement and under-valuation – Held: A shareholder has no direct right over the assets of the company. However, in derivative suits, shareholders can claim relief if the company's interest is harmed. The sale of the Thane property, conducted without allowing plaintiffs to challenge the valuation report, raised questions of mala fides and arbitrary conduct by the respondents [Paras 10, 15].

Maintainability of Derivative Suit – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The respondents argued that the suit should be dismissed, contending that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the NCLT – Held: While jurisdictional objections can be raised, as this case is at the interlocutory stage, it is premature to decide on maintainability. The trial court is directed to address the issue as a preliminary matter under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC [Paras 30, 45].

Appointment of Special Officer – Supervision of Sale Proceeds – Considering the mala fides in the sale process, the Court appointed Joint Special Officers to inspect the property and supervise future sales or transactions related to the Thane property. The Special Officers are to ensure transparency and report to the Court on developments, protecting the company's interests [Paras 47, 49].

Decision: The appeals are allowed in part. The sale of the Thane property is not set aside but subjected to strict supervision by the appointed Special Officers. Further transactions involving the property are to be disclosed, and the issue of maintainability is left to be decided by the trial court [Paras 30, 47].