Default Bail - Grant of - Indefeasible right of accused - In case of default by investigating agency in presenting report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within stipulated period - Once extension order for presentation of challan is set aside, further detention of accused would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act - Accused entitled to bail.

Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Order-on-default - Accused's right to bail - If police fails to complete investigation and put up challan against accused within prescribed period, an indefeasible right to be enlarged on bail accrues in favor of accused - Obligation on court to decline further remand after expiry of maximum custody period and inform accused of right to be released on bail - Merits of case not to be examined at that stage.

Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Indefeasible right to bail - Bail granted due to default by investigating agency in completing investigation and filing challan within prescribed period - Accused released on bail deemed to be so released under provisions of Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C. for purposes of that Chapter.

Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act - Offences triable by Special Courts - Reference to "ninety days" in sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days" in respect of persons accused of offence punishable under sections 19, 24, 27A, or for offences involving commercial quantity - Special Court empowered to extend period up to one year on report of Public Prosecutor if investigation not completed within one hundred and eighty days.

Compliance with bail conditions - Accused ordered to appear before police station on first Monday of every month and inform in writing that he is not involved in any other crime - FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited and liable to be forfeited in case of accused's absence from trial without sufficient cause.

Bail and Surety Bond Forfeiture – Unwarranted Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants – The trial court's mechanical issuance of non-bailable warrants against the appellant, Major Singh, on account of his single absence on 20.12.2022, challenged – Petitioner contends violation of procedure prescribed under CrPC Sections 73, 82, and 446. [Paras 3, 6-7, 9, 13, 27, 29-30]

Judicial Discretion in Issuing Warrants – Supreme Court’s Guidelines – Non-bailable warrants should not be issued without properly examining facts and applying judicial mind – Importance of personal liberty highlighted by Supreme Court precedents. [Paras 10-11, 17-18]

Requirements for Issuance of Proclamation – Section 82 CrPC – Court must record reasons for belief that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself before issuing proclamation – Such satisfaction not recorded in this case. [Paras 20-21, 23]

Forfeiture of Bonds under Section 446 CrPC – Requirement of showing breach of bail conditions before forfeiture – Merely missing a court appearance insufficient for bail bond forfeiture – Opportunity to show cause essential. [Paras 25-28]

Decision: Petition Allowed – The impugned orders (Annexure P-5 and P-6) dated 20.12.2022 and 03.04.2023 by the trial court set aside – The petitioner directed to appear before the trial court and be admitted to bail upon furnishing fresh bail bonds along with costs. [Para 33]

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Prosecution's Failure to File Challan – Revision petition against denial of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petitioner arrested with 1 kg 800 grams of charas – Investigation not completed within 180 days – Extension of 90 days granted but later set aside – Petitioner entitled to default bail – Revision allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail. [Para 11-12]

Right to Bail – Analysis – Once the extension for presenting the challan was set aside, further detention violated Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – An accused gets an indefeasible right to bail if the prosecution fails to file the challan within the stipulated period – Petitioner's continued detention illegal. [Para 11]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Conditions imposed for periodic appearance and FDR deposit. [Para 12-14]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction – Delay in FIR – Valid reasons for delay in reporting matter to police recorded by Trial Court – Injuries to complainant and parents established by medico-legal reports – Conviction upheld – Appellants ordered to undergo probation for one year due to the long duration of trial. [Para 11-13]

Minor Injuries to Accused – Analysis – Prosecution not obliged to explain minor injuries to accused – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements deemed normal – Ocular and medical evidence corroborated – Judgment of conviction upheld. [Para 12]

Decision – Probation Ordered – Appellants facing trial for 19 years – No purpose served by imprisonment after long trial – Appellants ordered to undergo probation for one year – Fine enhanced to Rs. 50,000 each, to be paid as compensation to victims. [Para 13]

Interpretation of Statutes - Rules of interpretation - Application to Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The statute must be read as a whole and each word used by the legislature is required to be assigned a meaning to give a meaningful definition - Words in a statute are used precisely and not loosely - Intention of the legislation predominates while interpreting the statute - Express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another - General words in a statute must receive a general construction - Penal statutes should be strictly construed/interpreted. [Para 19]

Protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Scope and applicability - Protection provided to public servants with respect to alleged offences relating to recommendations or decisions made in the discharge of their official functions or duties - Conditions of applicability - Pre-existence of the two conditions is pivotal for the applicability of Section 17-A - Allegations of misappropriation of public funds and intentional enrichment not covered under Section 17-A. [Para 21]

Judicial precedents - Relevance of cited judgments - Judgments relied upon by the petitioners not addressing the interpretation of Section 17-A of the 1988 Act - Previous judgments emphasizing the limited scope of Section 17-A and the necessity to fulfill its specific conditions for protection. [Para 22-29]

Panchayati Institutions and transparency in use of public funds - Importance of Panchayati Institutions as institutions of self-government at the grassroots level - Need for checks and balances to ensure proper use of funds - Public servants not entitled to special privileges unless intended by the statute. [Para 31]

Dismissal of writ petitions - Liberty granted to petitioners to raise objections before the Vigilance Bureau or trial court - No requirement to note the facts of each individual case due to the decision on a larger issue. [Para 32]

Motor Vehicles Act – Claim Petition – Standard of Proof – Claim petition dismissed by Tribunal holding rash and negligent driving not proved – Death of deceased in accident fully established by evidence – Strict rules of evidence and standard of proof under CrPC not applicable to claim proceedings – Tribunal's dismissal on negligence grounds erroneous – Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs. 12,69,000 awarded. [Para 8-9]

Establishment of Accident and Death – Analysis – Evidence showed respondent responsible for the accident – Respondent did not deny accident or appear as a witness – Investigating agency had no reason to falsely implicate the respondent – Tribunal’s reliance on strict proof standards incorrect. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation awarded based on established facts of the accident and death – Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt not applicable in claim proceedings – Compensation redetermined with interest. [Para 12-17]

Civil Procedure – Unsoundness of Mind – Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC – Petition to take plaint off the record on grounds of plaintiff's alleged unsoundness of mind – Court held that before taking the plaint off the record, there must be a pre-existing adjudication or declaration by a Court regarding the unsoundness of mind of the plaintiff – Petition dismissed with costs. [Para 4]

Protection of Interests – Duty of Trial Court – Even if the plaintiff is adjudged to be of unsound mind, the trial court is duty-bound to appoint or assign a next friend as per the provisions of Order XXXII Rules 1 to 14 CPC to protect the interests of such a plaintiff – Plaintiff duly filed the plaint and supporting affidavits without a next friend – Defendant has no entitlement to seek plaintiff's declaration of unsound mind. [Para 5]

Decision – Frivolous and Mischievous Petition – The petition and application were found to be frivolous and mischievous efforts to demoralize the plaintiff – Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff – Costs recoverable as arrears of land revenue if not paid within specified period. [Para 7-8]

1. relief must come with clean hands – Petitioners had no title or right to the land they Discretionary relief – Clean hands doctrine – A person seeking discretionary occupied – Court cannot protect or advance an illegality – Petitioners were rank trespassers over government land. [Para 4]

2. Adverse possession – Applicability – Adverse possession cannot be claimed over public land – Public has an interest in public land for public use – Petitioners’ occupation of government land cannot be considered hostile possession. [Para 6]

3. Trustee’s duty to protect public assets – Public functionaries act as trustees of public assets – Inaction of public functionaries does not negate the public’s right over public property – Breach of trust by the trustee cannot harm the beneficiary. [Para 8]

4. Dismissal of petition – Petition challenging eviction notification by Indian Railways – Petitioners occupying railway land without legal rights – Lack of adverse possession claim – Petitioners’ claim not applicable to public land – Dismissal of petition and stay application. [Para 9-10]

Scheduled Castes (SC) Certificate - Validity - Petitioner, belonging to Muslim community, obtained an SC certificate and secured appointment as a Lecturer under the Self-Financing Scheme (SFS) - Respondent-University initiated disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the petitioner on the ground that he obtained the appointment on the basis of a forged caste certificate - Court examined whether the SC certificate obtained by the petitioner was valid, considering the requirement that a person to be treated as belonging to a Scheduled Caste must profess Hinduism or Sikhism - Court held that the petitioner, being a Muslim, could not be considered as belonging to the Scheduled Caste - Supreme Court precedents emphasized the need for the person to profess Hinduism or one of the specified religions to have the status of a Scheduled Caste - Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the SC certificate. [Para 9]

Misrepresentation and Benefit of Reservation - The petitioner argued that he did not misrepresent his caste and was appointed under the general category, not the reserved category - Court found that the petitioner had mentioned his category as SC (A) in the application form and was treated as an SC candidate throughout the selection process - The court rejected the petitioner's argument and held that he had sought the benefit of reservation by mentioning his category as SC in the application form - Court concluded that the petitioner, despite any possible procedural lapses, obtained the benefit of reservation under the SC category. [Para 8, 11]

Length of Service - The petitioner contended that his length of service should be considered while deciding the case - Court held that since the appointment of the petitioner based on the SC certificate, to which he was not entitled, was void ab initio, he cannot claim the benefit of length of service for which he was not eligible - Court cited a Supreme Court judgment stating that when a person secures appointment based on a false certificate, they cannot retain the benefit of the wrongful appointment. [Para 12]

Dismissal from Service - Considering that the petitioner obtained the benefit of reservation through an invalid SC certificate, the court held that he cannot be allowed to continue in service - Court ordered the dismissal of the writ petition and directed the petitioner to vacate any government accommodation within two months - The court clarified that the salary and other emoluments paid to the petitioner would not be recovered - petitioner must vacate any government accommodation held by him [Para 13, 14]

Writ petition disposed of accordingly. [Para 15]