Criminal Law – Murder – Political Rivalry – Bomb Attack – Unlawful Assembly – Deceased, a CPI(M) activist, was chased by accused allegedly belonging to RSS/BJP group and killed by hurling a country-made bomb on his head – Medical evidence confirmed death due to blast injury resulting in destruction of skull and brain – Ocular evidence of eyewitnesses including injured witnesses found reliable – Held: Prosecution successfully proved that accused formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and committed murder in prosecution of common object – Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC upheld [Paras 7–11, 38–39].

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – PW2 and PW3 sustained injuries in the same incident and their testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and wound certificates – Court reiterated that testimony of injured witnesses carries greater evidentiary weight as it guarantees their presence at the scene and ordinarily they would not falsely implicate innocent persons – Their evidence found consistent and trustworthy despite rigorous cross-examination [Paras 16–19].

Delay in Medical Treatment – Effect on Credibility – Injured witnesses sought medical treatment on the next day of the incident – Defence argued that delay suggested fabrication of injuries – Held: Delay satisfactorily explained as witnesses attended funeral of deceased friend and injuries were comparatively minor – Such delay does not render their testimony unreliable [Paras 20–22].

Witness Conduct – Reaction to Crime – Failure of eyewitnesses to immediately inform police despite police arrival not unnatural – Human reaction to traumatic events varies and fear may prevent immediate disclosure – Evidence cannot be discarded solely because witnesses did not react in a particular manner [Paras 23–27].

Criminal Law – Minor Variations in Eyewitness Testimony – Difference in narration regarding events preceding bomb attack held immaterial – Core fact that the 5th accused hurled bomb at the deceased while he was on verandah remained consistent – Minor discrepancies on peripheral details strengthen authenticity rather than weaken prosecution case [Paras 30–33].

FIR – Delay in Registration – FIR lodged about six hours after incident – Police officer first prioritised taking injured to hospital and preventing escalation of political violence in the locality – Held: Delay satisfactorily explained and not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 34–37].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Although overt act of bomb hurling attributed specifically to accused No.5, all accused liable under Section 149 IPC as members of unlawful assembly acting in prosecution of common object to murder the deceased – Act of hurling explosive bomb aimed at the head clearly indicates intention to cause death [Para 39].

Decision: Criminal Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thalassery in S.C. No.25/2009 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act affirmed – Life imprisonment and other sentences upheld.

Criminal Writ - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Petition filed by father seeking direction to produce minor child and return him to Canada – Child presently residing in Delhi with mother – Held: Custody with biological mother cannot ordinarily be termed illegal detention so as to justify issuance of writ of habeas corpus – Petition not maintainable in such circumstances [Paras 19–21, 26].

Habeas Corpus – Scope in Child Custody Disputes – Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy meant to address illegal or unlawful detention – It is not intended to adjudicate complex custody disputes between parents involving disputed facts – Such matters ordinarily require detailed enquiry under statutory guardianship laws [Paras 20, 23–24].

Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – In custody disputes, welfare and best interest of the child override legal rights of either parent – Courts must independently evaluate the child’s welfare rather than mechanically enforcing parental claims or foreign orders [Paras 21, 34].

Foreign Custody Orders – Limited Enforceability in India – Orders of foreign courts regarding custody are relevant but not conclusive – Indian courts must independently assess whether enforcement of such orders would serve the welfare of the child – Habeas corpus jurisdiction cannot be used as an executing mechanism for foreign decrees [Paras 24–25, 32].

Jurisdiction of Family Court – Guardians and Wards Act – Where guardianship proceedings are already pending before a competent Family Court, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked – Family Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction is the appropriate forum to determine custody issues after detailed examination of evidence [Paras 27–30].

Child Welfare – Stability and Continuity – Minor child residing with mother in Delhi and attending school for a considerable period – Abrupt removal and relocation to another country without detailed enquiry into welfare would not be appropriate – Matter requires full adjudication before Family Court [Paras 33–34].

Parallel Proceedings – Writ Jurisdiction – Entertaining habeas corpus petition when guardianship petition is pending may lead to parallel proceedings and prejudice adjudication before competent court – High Court declined to interfere [Para 35].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No case made out for issuance of writ of habeas corpus – Parties relegated to pursue remedies before the Family Court where guardianship proceedings are pending – Family Court directed to decide the matter expeditiously on its merits.

Disability Pension – Armed Forces – Attributability to Military Service – Requirement of Reasoned Opinion by Medical Board – Petitioner, an Indian Air Force Corporal invalided out of service due to Type-I Diabetes assessed at 20% disability for life, was denied disability pension on the ground that the disease was “not connected with service” – Medical Board merely stated that the disease was an endocrine disorder not related to military service without assigning reasons – Held: Recording of reasons by the Medical Board is crucial and mandatory since its opinion forms the basis for pension sanctioning authority – Absence of reasons renders the denial unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to disability pension [Paras 10-13].

Service Law – Presumption of Sound Health at Entry into Service – When a serviceman is enrolled without any medical note regarding pre-existing disease, he is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition – Burden lies on the employer to establish that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service – Soldier cannot be compelled to prove that the disease originated from service conditions [Paras 7, 14].

Disability Pension – Beneficial Interpretation – Pension provisions governing disability benefits for armed forces personnel are beneficial in nature and must be interpreted liberally in favour of the serviceman who is invalided out before completion of tenure – In absence of convincing material displacing presumption of service connection, disability must be treated as attributable to or aggravated by service [Paras 8, 15].

Judicial Review – Opinion of Medical Board – Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with expert medical opinions; however, where such opinion lacks reasons or fails to comply with statutory requirements, judicial review is permissible – A bare conclusion without supporting reasoning cannot form the basis for denial of disability pension [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting disability pension set aside – Respondents directed to issue corrigendum PPO granting disability pension to the petitioner within three months – Failure to comply will render arrears payable with interest at 7% per annum.

document (38)

Probate Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Probate Court – Pendency of Civil Suit Challenging Will – Probate petition filed earlier seeking grant of probate of registered Will dated 31.03.2022 executed by deceased Indra Prakash Gupta – Trial court rejected probate petition solely on ground that a subsequent civil suit seeking cancellation of the same Will was pending – Held: Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine proof and validity of Will and probate petition cannot be rejected merely due to pendency of civil suit – Impugned order set aside and probate petition restored [Paras 16–17].

Indian Succession Act – Section 295 – Procedure in Contentious Probate Proceedings – Once objections are raised to the grant of probate, proceedings are to take the form of a regular civil suit – Questions relating to execution, genuineness and testamentary capacity of the testator can be adjudicated within probate proceedings themselves – Separate civil suit for cancellation of Will not necessary where probate petition is already pending [Paras 10, 16].

Civil Procedure – Consolidation of Proceedings – Probate Petition and Civil Suit Concerning Same Will – Issues in probate case and civil suit substantially overlap – To avoid conflicting findings and in the interest of justice, both proceedings should be tried together – High Court transferred civil suit from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge and ordered consolidation with pending probate petition [Paras 13, 16, 19].

Appeal – Allowance – Erroneous Rejection of Probate Petition – District Judge erred in dismissing probate petition solely due to pendency of separate civil suit – Probate petition restored to original number and civil suit transferred and consolidated – District Judge directed to decide both proceedings together within six months without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 21.07.2025 set aside – Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 restored – Original Suit No.369 of 2025 transferred to District Judge, Firozabad and consolidated with probate proceedings – Both matters directed to be decided together within six months.

Bail – UAPA Offences – Stringent Conditions under Section 43D(5) – Appellant accused of being member of criminal gang involved in terrorist activities, harbouring absconding accused and facilitating supply of arms and ammunition – Recovery of firearms and cartridges from flat where appellant was apprehended – Held: Where accusations appear prima facie true on basis of material in chargesheet, statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) UAPA operates and bail cannot be granted [Paras 41–44, 78].

Terrorism Related Offences – Prima Facie Evidence – Investigation revealed that appellant arranged safe house, harboured absconding accused and facilitated supply of arms to gang members – Arms and ammunition recovered from premises where appellant was present – Court held that such material indicates active involvement in conspiracy and terrorist activities [Paras 33–34, 71–74].

Bail – Successive Bail Applications – Requirement of Change in Circumstances – Earlier bail application of appellant already rejected on merits by coordinate bench – No fresh ground or substantial change in circumstances shown in subsequent appeal – Held: Judicial discipline requires due weight to earlier findings while considering successive bail plea [Paras 45–46].

Delay in Trial – Long Custody – Not Sole Ground in UAPA Cases – Appellant in custody for about four years and seven months – Held: Mere long incarceration or possible delay in trial cannot override statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA where allegations are grave and supported by prima facie material [Paras 47–50].

Parity in Bail – Not Applicable When Role Distinct – Several co-accused granted bail, however allegations against appellant included recovery of arms and active participation in conspiracy – Court held that principle of parity applies only when role and circumstances are identical – Case of appellant found similar to co-accused whose bail was already rejected [Paras 64–67, 75–77].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order rejecting bail affirmed – No interference warranted as accusations against appellant are prima facie true and statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA applies – Observations confined to bail stage and not to affect trial.

Maintenance — Minor Child — Section 125 CrPC — Both Parents in Government Service — Father's Obligation Absolute — Interim Maintenance of ₹8,000/- Per Month Upheld — Revisionist-father serving in CRPF challenged the order of Family Court awarding interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to the minor daughter on the ground that the mother is also employed in CISF and the entire burden ought not to fall on him alone, and that his loan repayments and other liabilities substantially reduce his net take-home salary — Held: The statutory obligation of the father to maintain his minor child under Section 125 CrPC is absolute — The fact that the mother is also earning does not ipso facto absolve the father of his obligation — While the income of both parents is a relevant consideration for quantum, the father cannot avoid responsibility merely because the mother is employed — Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation to be interpreted liberally in favour of dependents — Revision dismissed [Paras 21–24, 28].

Maintenance — Quantum — Loan Repayments and Voluntary Liabilities — Aged Parents and Siblings — Cannot Override Child's Right — Revisionist contended that loan deductions of ₹6,454/- and ₹18,640/- and responsibility towards aged parents and siblings substantially reduced his capacity — Held: Voluntary liabilities such as loan repayments cannot override the paramount right of a minor child to maintenance unless such liabilities are shown to be unavoidable and compelling — Responsibility towards parents and siblings does not eclipse the statutory obligation towards a minor child — Duty to maintain a minor child stands on a higher pedestal — ₹8,000/- per month is reasonable considering inflation, rising cost of living, educational, nutritional and medical needs of a growing child [Paras 26–28].

Maintenance — Date of Award — From Date of Application — Discretion of Court — The discretion to grant maintenance from the date of application or from the date of order is statutorily vested in the Court — No perversity or misapplication of law demonstrated in granting maintenance from the date of filing of application [Para 29].

Revisional Jurisdiction — Sections 397/401 CrPC — Supervisory, Not Appellate — Interference Only on Manifest Illegality or Gross Perversity — Interim maintenance is provisional and subject to final adjudication — Revisionist will have adequate opportunity during trial to establish his contentions regarding income, liabilities and proportionate responsibility of the mother — No patent illegality or perversity made out [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed — Impugned order dated 24.07.2023 of learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee affirmed — Revisionist directed to continue paying interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Transfer of Investigation – Allegations of custodial assault against ED officers – FIR lodged by accused in money laundering case – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR or transfer of investigation to CBI – Court found that informant was accused in siphoning of ₹23 crores public funds and ED was investigating several high-profile cases involving senior political and bureaucratic officials – State police treated ED office as crime scene soon after FIR – Held: Considering allegations against central agency officers and apparent haste by State police, exceptional circumstances existed warranting transfer of investigation to CBI to ensure fair and impartial probe – FIR not quashed but investigation transferred [Paras 45-47, 61-62].

Quashing of FIR – Scope of judicial interference – Allegation that informant sustained injury after allegedly hitting his head with a water jug while interacting with ED officers – Informant alleged custodial assault – Medical record indicated superficial injury and noted it as self-inflicted – Held: At the stage of investigation, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated – Allegations in FIR did not fall within parameters of Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing – FIR cannot be quashed merely because defence version appears plausible – Matter requires investigation [Paras 57-58].

Transfer of Investigation to CBI – Principles governing exercise of power under Article 226 – Court reiterated that direction for CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances – Such power may be invoked where investigation by State police may lack credibility or where circumstances indicate bias or influence – In present case ED officers were investigating sensitive cases involving high-ranking State officials and FIR was lodged by accused in those investigations – State police acted with unusual haste – Held: To maintain public confidence and ensure impartial investigation, case transferred to CBI [Paras 51-52, 61-62].

Fair Investigation – Importance in criminal justice system – Investigation must be impartial, unbiased and free from external influence – If investigation appears to be carried out with object of helping a particular party or undermining rule of law, Court can intervene – Fair investigation is essential both for accused and victim and forms backbone of rule of law [Paras 46-49].

Protection to Public Servants under PMLA – Scope of Section 67 PMLA – Provision grants protection against prosecution or proceedings for acts done in good faith under the Act – Whether act was done in good faith is a matter that can only be determined after proper investigation – Therefore issue cannot be conclusively determined at threshold stage [Paras 53-54].

Judicial Discipline – Recusal and roster objections – Objection raised by State regarding lack of roster for the Bench to hear the matter – Court held that roster clearly included criminal writ petitions relating to CBI and PC Act – Recusal cannot be forced by litigants to choose a Bench and courts should not succumb to attempts at forum hunting – Objection rejected [Paras 13-19].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – FIR not quashed – Investigation in Airport P.S. Case No. 5 of 2026 transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation – Jharkhand Police directed to hand over entire case records to CBI – CBI directed to register case and investigate in accordance with law.

Railways Act – Compensation for Untoward Incident – Bona Fide Passenger – Appellant claimed that he fell from an overcrowded passenger train while travelling from Taj Nagar to Rewari and sustained grievous injuries including amputation of the left leg – Tribunal rejected claim noting discrepancy in journey ticket which, upon verification, was issued a day prior to the alleged incident and valid only for a limited duration – Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancy – Held: Appellant could not be regarded as a bona fide passenger and claim for compensation was rightly rejected [Paras 7, 11].

Railway Accident Claims – Proof of Untoward Incident – Absence of Eye-Witness and Railway Record – Appellant relied on GRP entry and medical records to support the claim of accidental fall from the train – Railway officials including the ticket vending official and train guard stated that no such incident was reported and no entry existed in the Guard Memo Book – Held: Mere recording of GRP information regarding an injured person and subsequent medical treatment is insufficient to establish that the injuries were caused due to an accidental fall from a train in the absence of corroborative evidence [Paras 5, 8].

Railways Act – Section 124-A – No-Fault Liability – Requirement of Passenger Status – Compensation under the no-fault liability regime for “untoward incidents” under the Railways Act is contingent upon the victim being a passenger with a valid ticket – Where the claimant fails to establish that he was a bona fide passenger, the claim for compensation cannot succeed [Paras 10, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal upheld – Appellant held not to be a bona fide passenger and alleged incident not proved to be an “untoward incident”.

NDPS – Conviction under Section 21(c) – Recovery of Codeine-Containing Cough Syrup – Commercial Quantity – Four accused intercepted at a public place on the basis of secret information — 175 bottles of Codeine-containing cough syrup recovered from bags, plastic sacks and a ladies purse in their possession — FSL report confirmed presence of Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate — Trial Court convicted all four accused and sentenced each to 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- — All three appeals dismissed and conviction affirmed [Paras 5-9].

"Public Place, Public Seizure" – Sections 42 and 43, NDPS Act – Applicability – Recovery effected at a place accessible to the public while accused were in transit — Held: Provisions of Section 42 apply to search of buildings, conveyances or enclosed places based on prior secret information; where recovery is made from a public place or during transit, Section 43 governs the situation and compliance with Section 42 is not required — Contention of non-compliance with Section 42 misconceived and rejected [Paras 44-55].

"Search of Bag Is Not Search of Body" – Section 50, NDPS Act – Personal Search Distinguished from Search of Baggage – Contraband recovered from bags and ladies purse carried by accused — Held: Section 50 is attracted only when the body of the accused is searched — Search of bag, briefcase, purse, container or article carried by accused does not amount to personal search — Contention of non-compliance with Section 50(4) regarding search of female accused also rejected on the same principle — Provisions of Section 50 not attracted [Paras 56-71].

Conscious Possession – Statutory Presumptions – Sections 35 and 54, NDPS Act – Accused found carrying bags containing contraband — Members of raiding party and Investigating Officer consistently deposed regarding recovery — Accused made only bald denial in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence — Held: Once possession established, burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption of conscious possession — Appellants failed to discharge said burden — Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 72-79].

Informant as Investigating Officer – No Per Se Bias – PW-10 was both informant and Investigating Officer — Held: Following Constitutional Bench in Mukesh Singh (supra), merely because informant and investigator are the same person does not vitiate investigation or trial — Question of bias depends on facts of each case — No material placed by appellants showing actual prejudice or motive for false implication [Paras 19, 29, 74-75].

Delay in Forwarding Samples – Safe Custody Established – Sealed samples initially forwarded to Drug Inspector, then resealed and forwarded to FSL — Seals found intact on receipt at FSL — Defence did not cross-examine PW-10 on delay or tampering — Held: Delay in routing samples through another authority does not vitiate prosecution case when chain of custody and link evidence are duly established — Contention of non-compliance with Rule 13 of NDPS Rules, 2022 raised for first time in appeal without cross-examination, not sustainable [Paras 81-86].

Decision: All three criminal appeals dismissed — Conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- affirmed — Appellants to serve remaining sentence — Registry directed to transmit copy of judgment to Superintendent of Jail and to inform appellants of their right to appeal before the Supreme Court and availability of free legal aid [Paras 92-97].