Bail – NDPS Act – Non-Compliance with Section 42 – Allegation of Recovery of 150 Kg Poppy Husk – Petitioner argues non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 42 NDPS Act – Custody since January 5, 2023 – Right to speedy trial emphasized – Custody certificate indicates over 18 months in detention – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-10].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – Reference to Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the right to speedy trial as part of fair and just procedure under Article 21 – Case references: Hussainara Khatoon, Abdul Rehman Antulay – Bail granted considering prolonged custody and delay in trial [Paras 7-8].

Decision: The petition for regular bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate. Conditions include non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, regular court appearance, and non-commission of similar offenses. Breach of any condition will lead to prosecution's liberty to apply for bail cancellation [Paras 6-11]​​.

Criminal Procedure – Interim Maintenance – Challenge to interim maintenance order of Rs. 7,500/- (Rs. 4,000/- to respondent no.2 and Rs. 3,500/- to respondent no.3) granted by Family Judge – Revisionist’s claims of sufficient maintenance already being paid under Domestic Violence Act – Court considered financial obligations and rejected plea of loan repayment as grounds for reduction – Interim order upheld despite lack of detailed reasoning – Revision dismissed in limine [Paras 1-10].

Maintenance Obligations – Assessment of Financial Capacity – Revisionist’s assertion of Rs. 28,000/- salary and existing maintenance payments of Rs. 5,000/- under Domestic Violence Act considered – Court determined interim maintenance amount reasonable, not excessive – Loan obligations not deemed sufficient to reduce maintenance amount [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Held – Order for interim maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- upheld – No interference warranted in the impugned order [Para 10].

Registration of Sale Deed – Legal Requirements and Judicial Review:

Appeals challenging the Single Judge’s decision to set aside the refusal of registration of a sale deed – Registration barred under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 – Requirement of presenting the record of rights – Dispute over title and possession of land – Need for proper adjudication of title issues in civil court – Writ petitions under Article 226 not appropriate for resolving complex factual disputes over title [Paras 1-60].

Alternative Remedy – Section 77 of the Registration Act:

Statutory remedy under Section 77 of the Registration Act provides for filing a suit in civil court against refusal to register – Writ petitions should not bypass statutory remedies – Exceptionally wide powers under Article 226 should be exercised with restraint, especially when statutory remedies are adequate and available [Paras 46-53].

Documentary Evidence and Procedural Compliance:

Importance of fulfilling procedural requirements for registration – Affidavits and supporting documents must adhere to prescribed formats – Registering authority’s duty to verify compliance with legal requisites including correct stamp duty and adjudication of power of attorney [Paras 35-36, 56].

Dispute Resolution – Civil Court Jurisdiction:

Title disputes involving complex facts should be adjudicated by civil courts – Registration authorities cannot conclusively determine title – Observations made in judicial orders should not be construed as final determination of rights or title over disputed property [Paras 53, 58].

Decision:

Impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge set aside – Writ appeals allowed – Parties directed to present fresh instruments for registration upon rectifying deficiencies – No costs [Paras 57-61].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Consideration of Evidence and Custodial Period
Petitioner accused of multiple serious offenses, including attempt to murder police officers, illegal possession of arms, and possession of narcotic substances – Prosecution alleges petitioner fired at police team with intent to kill – Defence argues false implication and fabrication of evidence by police, including the planting of poppy straw – Court notes absence of mention of poppy straw in initial FIR – Applicant in custody for over a year, trial likely to be protracted – Bail granted considering prolonged detention and substantial grounds to challenge prosecution case [Paras 1-8].

Conditions for Bail – Personal Bond and Surety Requirements
Bail granted subject to petitioner furnishing personal bond and surety bonds, providing details of bank accounts, and submitting copies of Aadhar cards and bank passbook front page for penalty recovery under Section 446 Cr.P.C. if needed [Para 8].

Decision:  Bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon fulfilling stipulated conditions [Para 8].
 

Interim Maintenance – Property Ownership Not Determinative – Petitioner, despite owning a gifted two-storied building, lacks independent income – Magistrate erroneously concluded property alone suffices for maintenance – Gifted property does not negate husband’s statutory obligation to provide maintenance if wife lacks her own income – Claim for interim maintenance justified and allowed [Paras 1-6].

Husband’s Income – Liability to Maintain – Opposite party no. 1’s take-home salary considered – Even with existing liabilities, sufficient income demonstrated to grant interim maintenance – Opposite party no. 1 directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to petitioner from the date of application under Section 23(1) – Arrears to be cleared in 40 equal installments [Paras 5-8].

Ex Parte Decision – Opposite party no. 1 failed to appear despite proper service – Case heard and decided ex parte – Petitioner’s entitlement to interim maintenance affirmed [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application allowed – Interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded – Opposite party no. 1 to pay arrears in 40 equal installments – Order by Magistrate set aside, interim order vacated [Paras 6-12].
 

Administrative Law – Concealment of Facts – Abuse of Process – Petitioner challenged resumption order and appellate authority's decision – Previously filed writ petition on the same issue was dismissed on merits – Petitioner failed to disclose this fact in the current petition – Court held non-disclosure amounts to abuse of process and misrepresentation, leading to dismissal with costs [Paras 6, 9, 16-18].

Judicial Ethics – Duty to Disclose – Clean Hands Doctrine – Emphasized that litigants must approach the court with clean hands, full disclosure of facts, and not mislead the court – Petition lacking bona fides and concealing material facts warrants dismissal at the threshold [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner imposed with costs of ₹1 lakh payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which recovery will be enforced [Para 18].

Municipal Law – Suspension of Elected Public Representative – Section 39 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner, elected Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage), challenged suspension on procedural grounds after FIR and charge-sheet under P.C. Act – Court held: Serious corruption allegations with pending judicial inquiry warranted suspension – Principles of natural justice followed—Petitioner’s attempts to raise technical objections like absence of digital signature rejected – Held: Suspension lawful [Paras 1-7, 16-28].

Corruption Allegations – Judicial Scrutiny of Suspension – Role of Public Representatives – Serious Misconduct Justifies Suspension – Court observed: Corruption allegations against public representatives tarnish dignity of office – Public trust paramount – Cited Supreme Court and High Court precedents affirming limited scope for judicial interference in suspension orders—Held: No exceptional circumstance to warrant interference [Paras 38-44].

Procedural Compliance – Non-Supply of Enquiry Officer Appointment Order – Not Mandatory – Court held: Absence of digitally signed notices or non-supply of appointment order of enquiry officer does not vitiate proceedings – Petitioner’s knowledge of proceedings and charges undisputed – Suspension order passed after due consideration and opportunity [Paras 30-33].

Judicial Discipline – Delayed Compliance by State Authorities – Adverse Observation – Court condemned inaction of State Government in not appointing Enquiry Officer for 9 months despite Court direction – Observed prima facie contemptuous conduct of officials but refrained from passing contempt order—Directed expeditious conclusion of inquiry within three months [Paras 35-37, 48].

Service Law Principles Applied to Public Office – Temporary Nature of Suspension – Suspension not Punishment – Court reiterated: Suspension is interim measure, not punitive—To prevent influence on inquiry—Applied established legal position on suspension of public officials to public representatives [Paras 38-40].

Decision – Validity of Suspension Upheld – No Interference – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court refused to interfere with suspension of Mayor—Directed authorities to conclude inquiry within three months ensuring due hearing—Observations not to prejudice merits of inquiry [Paras 45-49].

Defamation – Social Media Posts – Plaintiff, a renowned journalist, alleged Defamation by Defendants via social media – Plaintiff sought injunction for removal of defamatory posts – Court directed Defendants to remove posts and make videos private within seven days [Paras 50-51].

Right to Reputation vs. Free Speech – Court acknowledged higher threshold for public figures but stressed individual dignity – Distinguished between permissible public criticism and defamation [Paras 40-41].

Ex Parte Injunction – Granted under exceptional circumstances – Court emphasized factors for consideration, including irreparable harm and balance of convenience – Noted prima facie case of defamation [Paras 36-49].

Decision – Application for interim injunction allowed – Defendants directed to remove defamatory content and make videos private pending final decision in the suit [Paras 50-51].

Employment Law – Termination due to Concealment of Criminal Case – Appellant challenged the termination of his services by the District Judge, Etah, following police verification revealing a pending criminal case – High Court emphasized the necessity for candidates to disclose pending criminal proceedings honestly – Held that concealment of material facts in an affidavit at the time of employment justified termination – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].
Criminal Law – Affidavit of No Criminal Proceedings – Requirement under recruitment rules for a candidate to furnish an affidavit stating no pending criminal proceedings – Appellant failed to disclose Case Crime No. 392/2022 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC during document verification – Court found appellant's non-disclosure deliberate, constituting valid ground for termination [Paras 4-15].
Judicial Integrity – Requirement for High Moral Character – Court reiterated the necessity for judicial employees to have impeccable integrity and clean antecedents – Emphasized that any concealment of criminal cases undermines trust in the judiciary [Paras 16-18].
Decision: Appeal dismissed – The termination order by the District Judge, Etah, was upheld as just and proper – High Court highlighted the critical importance of transparency and honesty in affidavits related to criminal antecedents for judicial appointments.