Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.

Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Offences Against Minor – Repeated Assault and Blackmail – Custodial Interrogation Required – Application Rejected – FIR alleged repeated sexual assault of a minor girl between 2023–2025, facilitated by threats using secretly recorded videos and conspiracy with a co-accused – FIR supported by CDR data, municipal records, and victim’s statements – Applicant sought anticipatory bail citing delay in FIR, alleged consensual adolescent relationship, and alternative age documents – Court held that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant – Allegations of coercion and digital exploitation require thorough custodial investigation – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would hinder investigation and defeat the statutory protection under POCSO [Paras 1–7, 13–15, 18–19].

Minor’s Consent – Irrelevant under POCSO – Age Dispute Must Be Tried at Trial Stage – Court reaffirmed settled position that consent of minor under 18 has no legal relevance under POCSO – Attempt to portray relationship as consensual adolescent interaction rejected – Reliance placed on multiple precedents affirming that courts cannot dilute POCSO rigour at bail stage – Alleged inconsistencies in age documents to be examined during trial – Not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail [Paras 8–12].

Digital Evidence – Disappearing Message Platforms – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation at Nascent Stage – Allegations of blackmail through Snapchat and videos necessitate forensic analysis and metadata extraction – Devices yet to be recovered – Investigation in early stages, with risk of tampering and influence if bail granted – Court found custodial interrogation essential to secure evidence and protect minor victim [Paras 13–14, 21].

Precedents – Protective Approach in POCSO Cases – Anticipatory Bail to Be Exercised Sparingly – Court relied on Varun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Javed v. State, Prince Kumar Sharma v. State, Ram Kumar v. State, and Saiful Khan v. State – Reiterated that anticipatory bail must not be granted routinely in cases involving minors – Granting bail would send harmful societal message and jeopardise investigation [Paras 10–17].

Bail Jurisprudence – Liberty v. Investigation – Custodial Interrogation More Effective – Precedents emphasised that anticipatory bail differs fundamentally from post-arrest bail – Liberty of accused must be balanced against seriousness of offence and need for free, fair investigation – Courts must protect integrity of probe in sensitive POCSO matters [Paras 17, 22].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Court finds no ground to grant pre-arrest bail considering the seriousness of allegations, minor victim’s age, and need for custodial interrogation – Investigation must proceed without interference [Paras 18–19].

POCSO Act - Evidentiary Value - Victim Testimony - Corroboration - Section 29 POCSO Act - The sole testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases, if found consistent, reliable, and trustworthy, can be sufficient for conviction without corroboration- Section 29 of the POCSO Act shifts the burden to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt once fundamental facts are proven by the prosecution-

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - POCSO Act - The appellants, Christian Rajendran, Joy Rajendran, and Salomi Rajendran, challenged their conviction under various sections of the IPC and POCSO Act for sexual and physical abuse of minor girls at an orphanage- The prosecution relied on victim testimonies and medical evidence- The defense argued procedural irregularities under the POCSO Act, non-examination of all victims/boys, and inconsistencies in testimonies- The High Court examined the reliability of victim statements, the impact of procedural lapses, and the application of Section 29 of the POCSO Act- Held: Accused No.1 (Christian Rajendran) conviction for sexual assault and showing pornographic videos is maintained, as victim testimonies were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of pornographic content from his laptop- Accused No.2 (Joy Rajendran) is acquitted due to inconsistencies in victim statements and lack of corroborative evidence, with the possibility of influence from elder victims- Accused No.3 (Salomi Rajendran) conviction under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act for failing to report the offences, despite being informed by victims, is maintained, but her sentence is reduced to the period already undergone- Paras [2-35]

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Procedural Compliance - Investigation - Held: Procedural irregularities during investigation under the POCSO Act, such as delay in lodging FIR or medical examination not strictly in presence of family/appointed woman, do not automatically vitiate the trial or lead to acquittal unless prejudice is shown to the accused- The intent of Section 24 is to protect victims, not to benefit accused from technical lapses- Paras [17, 18, 22]

Criminal Evidence - Reliability of Victim Testimony - "Sterling Witness" - Held: The testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases, if "sterling" in quality, consistent from start to end, and unblemished, can be relied upon without corroboration- However, if there are significant variations or inconsistencies, corroboration may be necessary- The Court must undertake a meaningful examination of the evidence- Paras [15, 16]

POCSO Act - Section 29 - Presumption of Guilt - Burden of Proof - Held: While the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution, Section 29 of the POCSO Act shifts the burden to the accused to rebut the presumption of commission of offence once the prosecution proves the fundamental facts- This presumption was not rebutted by Accused No.1- Paras [15, 28]

POCSO Act - Section 19 read with Section 21 - Failure to Report - Held: Accused No.3, being in charge of the orphanage and informed by victims about sexual assault by Accused No.1, had a statutory obligation to report the offence to the police- Her failure to do so constitutes an offence under Section 19 punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act- Paras [32, 33, 34]

Decision: Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2021 partly allowed- Conviction of Accused No.1 (Christian Rajendran) maintained- Accused No.2 (Joy Rajendran) acquitted from all charges- Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2021 partly allowed- Conviction of Accused No.3 (Salomi Rajendran) maintained, but sentence reduced to period already undergone- Paras [36].

Civil Law – Dismissal of Suit for Default – Simultaneous Proceedings – Suit dismissed for non-appearance on 19.10.2016 when plaintiff was attending proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – Appellant had earlier moved an exemption application anticipating scheduling conflict – Held: Plaintiff demonstrated bona fide conduct and presence before Magistrate Court on same day established by records – Sufficient cause shown under Order IX Rule 9 CPC – Dismissal set aside [Paras 3, 5.2, 9, 10, 13]

Limitation – Restoration Application – Delay of One Month – Explanation Offered – Plaintiff sought certified copy after learning of dismissal and approached legal aid – Application filed shortly after limitation period – Held: Delay not inordinate or unexplained – Sufficiently explained and condonable [Paras 11, 12, 13]

Legal Representation – Counsel's Lapse – Effect on Litigant – Plaintiff’s earlier counsel failed to appear – Court held that parties should not be penalised for lapses of counsel when sufficient effort shown – Plaintiff had previously appeared and actively pursued the matter – Restoration directed [Paras 5.2, 13, 14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders dated 19.10.2016 and 28.08.2017 set aside – Suit restored to file – Proceedings to continue on merits – No opinion expressed on merits of the case [Paras 14, 15]

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Attempt to Murder – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Complainant and wife allegedly assaulted by accused using knife and iron pipes – Injuries confirmed by medical officer but contradictions in witness accounts regarding time, identity, mode of assault, and absence of key eyewitness (son) examined – Prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused properly in FIR – Evidence of independent eyewitness Kantibhai found unreliable due to prior connection with complainant – Doctor’s evidence contradicted claim of indoor treatment and severity of injuries – Investigating Officer admitted no seizure of clothes or FSL report of weapons – No proof of caste identity or use of caste-based slurs – Held: Serious inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative gaps justify trial court's acquittal – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court in Acquittal Appeals – Principles Restated – Appellate Court can reappreciate evidence but must exercise caution and respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be reversed only when judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence or leads to manifest miscarriage of justice – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable one based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 7–8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.11.1999 in Atrocity Case No. 89 of 1996 confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Criminal Law – Bail - PMLA – Scheduled Offence – Gambling vs. Cheating – Applicant argued gambling is not a scheduled offence – Held: While gambling is not scheduled, the act of obtaining KYC documents from victims by promising jobs (Cheating - S. 318 BNS) and using them to open bank accounts (Forgery - S. 338, 340 BNS) constitutes scheduled offences – The criminal activity of cheating/forgery was integral to laundering the gambling money – [Paras 10, 11].

Criminal Law – PMLA – Proceeds of Crime – Section 2(1)(u) – Money generated from gambling was deposited in shell accounts opened via scheduled offences (cheating/forgery) – Held: The funds withdrawn from these accounts became "tainted" due to the criminal overlay of forgery/cheating used to process them – Thus, they qualify as proceeds of crime – [Para 11, 12].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 45 PMLA – Strong prima facie case exists against the applicant for active involvement in opening shell accounts and withdrawing cash – Twin conditions for bail not satisfied – Possibility of tampering with evidence – [Para 14].

Decision: Bail Application rejected.

Criminal Law – Murder – Identification of Accused – Acquittal – Appellant Bhola convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly firing at deceased Rakesh Kumar during a late-night assault – FIR did not name Bhola – Appellant identified after two-month delay in test identification parade – Held: Test identification not reliable due to unexplained delay and prior acquaintance between witnesses and accused – Conviction based solely on such identification is unsafe – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 14–29]

Evidence Law – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Appellant arrested 36 days after incident – TIP held two months post-arrest without explanation – Witnesses familiar with accused from nearby village – No corroborating evidence or motive established – Held: Delay vitiates credibility of TIP, making it insufficient for conviction [Paras 18–23, 26–27]

Criminal Trial – Acquittal of Co-accused – No Specific Allegations – Other co-accused named in FIR and against whom motive was alleged were acquitted – Appellant not named, no motive proved – Held: Conviction of appellant alone without consistent or independent proof unsustainable – Trial court erred in relying on doubtful testimony and inconclusive identification [Paras 7–11, 14–16, 28]

Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Applied ratio of Harinath v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14 – Held: Identification of accused known to witnesses, residing in nearby village, after significant delay, without explaining such delay, renders TIP unreliable – Applied in acquitting appellant [Paras 24, 28]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Bhola under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 30–31]