Bail application under Section 439 CrPC – Petitioner charged under Section 21 of NDPS Act – Petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the quantity of contraband is less than commercial and rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act do not apply – Criminal antecedents of petitioner – Court to consider role of accused, possibility of fleeing, and other circumstances – Previous criminal history not strictly considered at this stage – Quantity of contraband involved in the case not commercial – Rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act not attracted – Bail conditions to be imposed to prevent repetition of the offense and ensure safety of society. (Para 1, Para 4, Para 8, Para 9, Para 11)

Conditions for granting bail – Personal bond and surety bond – Surrender of weapons – Provision of identification details – Single mobile number linked to Aadhaar card – Prohibition on influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. (Para 16, Para 17, Para 18)

Bail conditions to have nexus to the purpose they serve and be proportional to that purpose – Liberty of accused and necessity of fair trial to be balanced – Conditions causing deprivation of rights and liberties to be avoided. (Para 21)

Bail order not restricting further investigation by police or investigating agency – Notice and opportunity to be given if additional sections added to FIR. (Para 25, Para 26)

Observations made in the order not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case – Trial court not to consider these comments. (Para 27)

FIR quashing - Compromise between parties - Offences under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act - Family dispute - Heinous and serious offences - Habitual offender - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR based on compromise - Specific and grave allegations against the petitioners - Petitioner No.1 fired shots with intent to kill complainant - Recovery of fired cartridges - Held, offences under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act fall under heinous and serious category, being crimes against society - Compromise does not warrant quashing of FIR - Petitioner No.1 a habitual offender with previous cases - Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not invoked - FIR not quashed.( Para No. 5,7, 8, 11, 12)

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Quashing of FIR – Offense punishable under Section 304-A IPC – Allegations of negligence in arranging medical team during sports event leading to the death of the deceased – Direct or proximate cause of death – Absence of direct causal link – Petition allowed, FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings quashed against the petitioners. (Para 8, Para 11)

Section 304-A of IPC – Offense – Rash or negligent act causing death – Mere contravention of rules or regulations does not establish rash or negligent act – Causal connection between act and death required – Allegations of negligence in not arranging medical team – Negligence not the direct or proximate cause of death – No case made out under Section 304-A of IPC. (Para 8, Para 11)

Jurisprudential concept of negligence – Breach of duty – Use of ordinary care or skill – Negligent act must be the direct or proximate cause of death – Indirect factors insufficient to establish guilt – Direct causal link necessary to establish offense under Section 304-A of IPC. (Para 8, Para 11)

Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Guarantee against injustice – High Court invested with powers to pass orders in the interest of justice – Openness in examining allegations – Absurd allegations warrant quashing of FIR – Proper scrutiny required in the interest of justice. (Para 8, Para 11)

Precedents – Apex Court decisions – Interpretation of Section 304-A IPC – Requirement of direct or proximate cause of death – Negligence must be the cause causans, not just causa sine qua non – Indirect factors insufficient to establish guilt – Causal connection necessary to establish offense under Section 304-A of IPC. (Para 8, Para 11)

Specific performance of agreement to sell - Defendants claimed agreement to sell was forged - Handwriting and fingerprint expert report not binding on court - Direct evidence of marginal witness and scribe proved execution of agreement - Discrepancy in payment details attributed to passage of time and human memory - Written contract acknowledged receipt of amount - Agreement executed on non-judicial stamp paper - Concurrent findings of courts below upheld - No grounds to interfere - Appeal dismissed. (Para 1-9)

Criminal Procedure – Quashing - Offense under Section 188 of the IPC – Registration of FIR and filing of final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. – Necessity of written complaint from the concerned public servant – Mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance vitiating prosecution and rendering trial void ab initio – Proceedings initiated solely on the basis of FIR without written complaint impermissible.

Epidemic Diseases Act and Disaster Management Act – Covid-19 pandemic – Extraordinary situation – Prohibition on gatherings without permission – Compliance with government instructions required – Activities subject to permission from concerned District Magistrate and adherence to guidelines.

Precedents – C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Jiwan Kumar vs. State of Punjab, and Jagdish vs. State of Haryana – Support for mandatory nature of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. – Requirement of written complaint by concerned public servant – Non-compliance vitiating prosecution and rendering trial void ab initio.

Quashing of FIR and final report – Registration of FIR and subsequent proceedings not permitted by law – FIR based solely on information without written complaint from concerned public servant – Quashing ordered.

Termination of services – Writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner sought quashing of order dismissing his appeal against termination of service and reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of arrears of pay and other benefits – Petitioner appointed as Senior Lecturer-Mass Communications at Ansal Institute of Technology – Promoted to Assistant Professor and Assistant Dean (Marketing) – Services terminated on grounds of poor student intake for subject taught – Petitioner claimed termination illegal, alleging post advertised after his termination and termination violated Service Rules and Section 22 of Act of 1988 – Respondents argued termination justified due to post abolition and relied on appointment letter and Service Rules – Court examined arguments, laws, and precedents and held termination illegal. (Para 6-10)

Termination of services without notice or show cause – Violation of Service Rules and Section 22 of Act of 1988 – Petitioner’s services terminated with one month’s notice, contrary to Service Rules requiring three months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof – Section 22 of Act of 1988 provided for show cause notice before termination – Court found termination not in accordance with Service Rules and Section 22, as petitioner was confirmed in service and entitled to protection under Section 22. (Para 12)

Principle of res judicata – Writ petition not barred – Petitioner previously filed civil suit on same matter, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach Educational Tribunal – Principle of res judicata did not apply as civil suit was not decided on any issue – Court held writ petition maintainable. (Para 13)

Reinstatement and arrears of salary – Court directed management of Ansal University to reinstate petitioner with all notional benefits – Allowed respondents to seek information on petitioner’s employment status during proceedings to determine entitlement of arrears of salary – Instructed respondents to complete process regarding arrears of salary expeditiously, preferably within three months. (Para 14)

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Quashing of FIR - Principles governing quashing of FIRs - Exercise of power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of court's process or to secure ends of justice - Lack of precise and inflexible guidelines for exercise of power - Court not finding sufficient grounds to quash FIR at present stage - Case pending before trial court - Victim supporting prosecution's case in statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. - Allegation of forcible physical relations made by victim - Validity of marriage and applicability of POCSO Act to be decided during trial proceedings - Plea for quashing of FIR dismissed. (Para 8-9)

Muslim personal laws - Validity of marriage - Age of victim - Marriage performed under Muslim personal laws - Victim's age and validity of marriage to be considered during trial proceedings - Applicability of POCSO Act also to be decided during trial. (Para 5, 9)

Consent of minor - Minor's consent holding no legal weight in eyes of law - Allegation of forcible physical relations made by victim - Victim's consent not mitigating factor - Trial proceedings to determine veracity of allegations. (Para 7)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 295-A - Quashing of FIR and proceedings - FIR registered against petitioners for allegedly portraying wrong image of Bhagwan Valmiki in the television serial "Ram Siya Ke Luv Kush" - Formation of committee to address grievances and suggest corrective measures - Undertaking by petitioners to comply with guidelines - Resolution reached between stakeholders - Complainant has no objection to quashing of FIR - High Court quashes FIR and all related proceedings. (Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – Revision petition challenging grant of maintenance – Dispute already settled by Family Court’s amendment to divorce decree – Finding of voluntary surrender of right to future maintenance – Impugned order erroneously disregarded the finding of the Family Court – Revision allowed. [Para 17]

2. Value of lump-sum payment towards maintenance – Failure to appreciate principles of economics regarding inflation and devaluation of money – Impugned order failed to consider the impact of time on the value of the payment made in 2005. [Para 8]

3. Settlement of future maintenance through divorce decree – Wife voluntarily relinquished her right to future maintenance – Impugned order incorrectly revived the right to future maintenance, disregarding the prior settlement. [Para 11]

4. Validity of contract restricting the right to maintenance – Public policy considerations under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – No finding of undue influence or coercion affecting the agreement reached by the parties in the divorce proceedings. [Para 9]

5. Need for streamlining multiple maintenance orders – Overlapping jurisdiction and conflicting orders – Simultaneous operation of different enactments – Husband should not be obligated to comply with successive maintenance orders passed under different laws. [Para 15]

6. Importance of considering the findings and decisions of lower courts – Impugned order failed to consider the Family Court’s finding and amendment to the divorce decree, which had settled the issue of future maintenance. [Para 12]