Default Bail – NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Investigation Period – Petitioner arrested on 15.05.2025 – Statutory period of 180 days expired on 11.11.2025 – Special Court granted extension of 120 days on 31.10.2025 on report of SPP – Accused neither produced physically nor virtually and no notice given at the time of consideration of extension – Held: Non-production and absence of notice is a gross illegality affecting personal liberty under Article 21 – Extension order unsustainable – Indefeasible right to default bail accrued to the petitioner [Paras 30–32, 45–48, 54–58].

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Section 187 BNSS – Nature of Right – Default bail is a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 21 and not a mere procedural formality – Continued detention beyond statutory period without a valid extension is illegal [Paras 36–41].

NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Time – Mandatory Compliance – Public Prosecutor’s report must indicate progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention – Compliance also requires affording the accused an opportunity to oppose the extension – Failure vitiates the extension order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Notice to Accused – Extension of Custody – Physical or Virtual Production Mandatory – Accused must be informed that application for extension is being considered – Mere production for judicial remand on the same day does not amount to valid notice – Absence of accused is not a curable irregularity but a violation of fair procedure under Article 21 [Paras 46–48, 51–53].

Judicial Custody – Same Day Production – Distinction – Order recording that accused was “in JC” does not establish presence at the time of hearing of extension application – Record must reflect production or participation of accused when extension is considered [Paras 51–53].

Default Bail Application – Erroneous Rejection – Trial Court rejected default bail on ground that extension had already been granted – Held: Since extension itself was illegal, rejection of default bail could not be sustained – Right to default bail revived automatically on expiry of 180 days [Paras 55–57].

Relief – Orders Set Aside – Extension order dated 31.10.2025 and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail quashed – Petitioner held entitled to default/statutory bail – Bail granted on conditions including furnishing of bond and surety – Petition allowed [Paras 58–60].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 31.10.2025 granting extension of investigation and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail set aside – Petitioner granted default/statutory bail subject to conditions.

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Constitution of India – Bail application rejected where commercial quantity of Heroin and Charas were recovered from a vehicle linked to the applicant, and bank transactions indicated involvement in drug trafficking – Applicant sought bail citing prolonged pre-trial detention (over three and a half years) as a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, relying on Supreme Court precedents like Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb and Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha – Court noted that the co-accused, Bashir Ahmed, was granted bail by the trial court despite similar allegations – Prosecution argued that the applicant was involved in criminal conspiracy, acted as a courier for Bashir Ahmed, and had significant bank transactions related to drug trade – Court found sufficient evidence of prima facie involvement in illicit traffic of commercial quantity contraband – Held that the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, and the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail, particularly regarding non-involvement in the offence – The plea of prolonged incarceration was rejected in light of the nature and gravity of the offences and their impact on society – Bail application dismissed. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Speedy Trial – Article 21 Constitution of India – Section 37 NDPS Act – While prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail, especially under Article 21, this principle is not absolute and must be harmonized with statutory restrictions in special statutes like the NDPS Act – The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb held that Section 43D(5) of UAPA (analogous to Section 37 NDPS Act) does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of Article 21 violation, particularly when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – However, the present case involves commercial quantity of contraband, triggering the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act – The Court, relying on Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, emphasized that a finding of non-guilt based on prolonged incarceration must be supported by a careful appraisal of material and cannot be a casual observation – In the absence of material to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37, the plea of prolonged incarceration alone is insufficient to grant bail, especially given the gravity and societal impact of drug trafficking offences – The application for bail was dismissed. [Paras 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Bail application dismissed along with connected application(s) – [Paras 17, 18].

Criminal Law – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Timing – Accused sought production of company records to assist in answering CBI queries during investigation into bank fraud – Records handed over to Resolution Professional during insolvency proceedings – Held: Section 91 can be invoked at investigation stage, but discretion lies with court – Where accused is already being confronted with the documents during interrogation, no necessity for court to direct production – Petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. held premature and misconceived [Paras 26–28, 34, 41–42].

Investigation – Right of Accused – Fairness – Petitioner claimed right to fair investigation under Article 21 – Argued that inability to access documents impaired ability to respond – Held: Accused is only required to cooperate and may state inability to recall facts due to lapse of time – No obligation on prosecution to supply documents before filing charge sheet – IO advised to give sufficient time to peruse old or voluminous records if required [Paras 30, 33, 36, 43].

IBC Proceedings – Consequence of CIRP – Petitioner’s claim that documents were with Resolution Professional post-CIRP under IBC – Held: Petitioner cannot compel production from third parties during investigation where documents already available to investigating agency – Accused may procure documents independently or after filing of charge sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C. [Paras 4, 31–32, 37].

Judicial Discretion – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. lies at court’s discretion – Test is whether document is necessary or desirable at that stage – Special Judge rightly held that production not necessary at present – No perversity or illegality found in impugned order [Paras 27, 42, 44].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Petitioner relied on Om Prakash Sharma, Satish Mehra, and Nitya Dharmananda – Held: These decisions pertain to post-charge sheet stage or discharge proceedings – Not applicable to present case involving ongoing investigation [Paras 39–40].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 upheld – Court holds that Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be used by accused during investigation to compel production of documents already with investigating agency – However, Investigating Officer directed to grant adequate time to accused when confronting him with voluminous or old records, to ensure fair investigation.

Contract Law – Rescission of Railway Contract – Forfeiture of Security Deposit – Petitioner awarded contract for re-spacing of SC sleepers under N.F. Railway – Work halted due to technical variation – Petitioner submitted multiple representations seeking approval of variation and extension of time – Railway issued show-cause notices under Clause 62 of General Conditions of Contract without specifying exact default – Contract rescinded and guarantee forfeited immediately after petitioner informed about readiness to resume work – Held: Authorities acted arbitrarily and failed to consider representations – Principles of natural justice violated – Termination notice and forfeiture orders set aside – Respondents directed to refund security deposit and performance guarantee [Paras 5-7, 16-18].

Natural Justice – Hearing Before Termination – Petitioner’s letters dated 22.11.2021, 29.11.2021 and 19.01.2022 were not responded to – No speaking order passed showing consideration of replies – Held: Decision to rescind contract without addressing representations amounts to violation of natural justice [Paras 16-18].

Alternative Remedy – Arbitration Clause – Clause 64 of Railway Contract provides arbitration except for matters under Clause 62 – Held: Termination under Clause 62 is an “excepted matter” – Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ – Further, violation of natural justice justifies invoking Article 226 despite alternate remedy [Paras 14-16].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary Action – Failure of Railway to consider contractor’s request for variation approval and intent to complete work – No finding recorded on replies – Decision to terminate appears predetermined and one-sided – Held arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Termination notices dated 16.11.2021, 25.11.2021 and rescission order dated 20.01.2022 set aside – Respondents directed to refund the security deposit and performance guarantee within two months [Para 18-19].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Evidence of Eye-witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC for murdering a 13-year-old boy and grievously injuring his father and other family members – Trial Court convicted 3 out of 8 accused – High Court found that all three convicted accused acted with common intention and came armed to assault the deceased and others – Medical and ocular evidence corroborated each other – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies did not affect core of prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction justified and supported by credible eye-witnesses including injured witnesses [Paras 3, 39-41, 48-49]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Attracted – Sudden Fight – Premeditation – Defense Plea Rejected – Appellants argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel arising from a dispute over cattle – Held: Evidence revealed prior threats, premeditated attack, and targeted killing – Deceased was chased, dragged from hiding, and fatally attacked – Injured witnesses consistently testified to intent and brutality – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 42-47]

Witness Testimony – Family Members as Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW.1 (mother), PW.4 & PW.8 (sisters), and PW.11 (father) were injured eye-witnesses – Testimonies corroborated and supported by VDP Secretary (PW.3) and others – Held: Relationship with the deceased does not discredit testimony if otherwise credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve their statements [Paras 36, 39-41]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC confirmed – No grounds for interference.

Civil Law – Right of Way – Agreement to Create Easement – Unregistered Document – Appellant sought injunction against obstruction of a passage allegedly created through an agreement dated 13.03.1988 – Trial court and first appellate court dismissed suit holding the agreement inadmissible for want of registration – High Court upheld that agreement created and extinguished rights in immovable property with specific valuation (Rs. 20,000/- damages clause), thus attracting Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – Held: Since document was unregistered and valuation threshold crossed, it could not be read into evidence – Rights under agreement not enforceable [Paras 20-22].

Registration Act – Section 17(1)(b) – Test of Valuation – High Court applied twin conditions for compulsory registration: whether rights in immovable property were created/limited/extinguished, and whether the value exceeded ₹100 – Held: Agreement created reciprocal rights of passage and imposed a ₹20,000 compensation clause for breach – Thus, value of rights created was determinable and above threshold – Registration was mandatory – Ex.P1 inadmissible [Paras 14-22].

Limitation – Mandatory Injunction – Suit Not Barred – Trial court had dismissed suit as barred by limitation – High Court reversed this finding – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction, though not governed by specific article, falls within residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Limitation is 3 years from accrual of cause – Since alleged encroachment occurred in 2001 and suit filed within months, suit was within limitation [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Presumption of Truth – Appellant relied on jamabandis and khasra girdawaris showing ‘rasta’ entries – Court noted revenue entries do carry presumption of correctness – However, presumption rebutted by absence of action to enforce rights, conflicting witness depositions, and lack of other corroborative evidence – Held: Concurrent findings that agreement was not acted upon not interfered with – Conduct of plaintiff (e.g., inaction against co-party Iqbal Singh who blocked path) weighed against claim [Paras 26-30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Punjab Courts Act – High Court reiterated that second appeals in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh are governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, allowing reappreciation of evidence where lower courts’ findings are perverse or based on misreading – However, findings in this case found to be reasonable and supported by record [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Agreement held compulsorily registrable and inadmissible – Suit not barred by limitation, but failed on merits – Concurrent findings upheld – Pending applications also disposed of.

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – Quantum of Compensation – Appeal against award granting Rs.1,73,100/- for death of deceased aged 50 years – Claimants sought enhancement on ground of incorrect assessment of income and non-application of settled principles – Held: Award liable to be modified applying correct minimum wages, future prospects, multiplier and conventional heads [Paras 1, 9–10, 18–19].

Income Assessment – Skilled Worker – Mason – Minimum Wages – Tribunal erred in treating deceased as unskilled labour – Mason held to be skilled worker – Monthly income reassessed at Rs.10,000/- on basis of prevailing minimum wages – Reassessment justified [Para 9].

Future Prospects – Addition Mandatory – Deceased aged 50 years – As per Pranay Sethi, 25% addition applicable – Tribunal erred in granting no future prospects – Correction made [Para 10].

Deduction towards Personal Expenses – Dependents – Only sons as claimants – Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure held appropriate – Tribunal erred in making no deduction [Para 17].

Multiplier – Age of Deceased – Non-Application by Tribunal – Deceased aged 50 years – Multiplier of 13 applicable as per Sarla Verma – Tribunal’s failure corrected by appellate court [Para 18].

Consortium – Parental Consortium – Major and Married Sons – Entitlement – Tribunal erred in denying compensation to major sons – Held: Major, married and even earning sons are legal representatives entitled to compensation – Reliance placed on Birender, Magma General Insurance, Jitender Kumar and Seema Rani – Parental consortium of Rs.48,400/- each granted to three sons [Paras 11–16, 19].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses – Standardisation – Loss of estate reduced to Rs.18,150/- – Funeral expenses enhanced to Rs.18,150/- in line with Pranay Sethi escalation principle [Para 18–19].

Interest – Enhanced Compensation – Rate – Interest awarded @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Delay period excluded – Reliance placed on Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara and R. Valli [Para 20].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 8 days condoned – Claimants gave up interest for delayed period – Application under Section 5 Limitation Act allowed [CM Order Paras 1–3].

Relief – Award Modified – Total compensation reassessed at Rs.14,81,448/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.13,08,348/- awarded over and above Tribunal award – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount with interest within two months – Appeal allowed [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 08.02.2019 modified – Compensation enhanced to Rs.14,81,448/- with interest @ 9% p.a. – Directions issued for deposit and disbursement.

Succession Law – Probate – Will proved genuine but probate denied – Xerox copy of Will dated 22.01.1996 propounded by husband of testatrix – Allegation that original Will was stolen by appellant – Trial court accepted genuineness of Will based on attesting witness testimony and consistent evidence – However, probate dismissed due to concealment of fact that property had already been sold by original petitioner – Substituted petitioner did not challenge dismissal – Held: Execution of Will proved, but no interference warranted with dismissal of probate due to suppression of material facts [Paras 1, 8, 13–18]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Section 65(c) – Requirements for admissibility of copy of lost Will – Petitioner alleged original Will was stolen by son – No direct proof of theft produced, but complaint filed and consistent narrative maintained – Held: Case fell under Section 65(c) – Copy admissible – Attesting witness testimony credible and unshaken – Trial court justified in treating Will as genuine despite absence of original [Paras 15–17]

Indian Succession Act – Section 237 – Probate of Copy of Lost Will – Court reiterated that probate of copy is permissible where original lost or destroyed by accident or other unintentional means – Allegation of theft by son, along with prior consistent complaint, sufficient in circumstances – Will admitted to be in existence through conduct of objector, who attested subsequent Will referencing it – Held: Pre-conditions under Section 237 satisfied – Genuineness of Will established [Paras 13, 17]

Conduct of Objector – Estoppel by Conduct – Objector and his wife attested subsequent Will executed by father in 2004 acknowledging title through 1996 Will – Later challenged genuineness of 1996 Will only after cancellation of 2004 Will – Court held such conduct undermines credibility of objection – Testimony of attesting witness (PW-1) found reliable – Objector’s shifting position discredited [Paras 10, 17]

Procedural Law – Suppression of Material Facts – Dismissal of Probate Petition – Original petitioner sold property during pendency of probate proceedings without disclosure to court – Trial court rightly dismissed petition for suppression – Substituted petitioner failed to challenge such dismissal – Held: No interference warranted with trial court’s decision to deny probate despite Will being held genuine [Paras 8, 18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Execution and genuineness of Will upheld – Dismissal of probate petition due to suppression of material facts by original petitioner sustained – No interference warranted – Pending applications also dismissed.