Transfer of Criminal Case – Allegation of Bias – Application for transfer based on dissatisfaction with trial court’s order rejecting recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC – Allegation of unjustified and discriminatory conduct – Held: Mere dissatisfaction with judicial order cannot be grounds for transfer – Apprehension of bias must be reasonable, not imaginary or presumed – Transfer denied [Paras 2-4, 23-24]

Judicial Orders – Not a Valid Basis for Transfer – Judicial orders passed by competent courts after hearing parties cannot be construed as indicators of bias – Transfer sought merely because court rejected application under Section 311 CrPC – Court reiterated that such orders form part of judicial process and cannot justify apprehension of injustice [Paras 3, 6]

Reasonable Apprehension – Meaning and Threshold – Reiterated legal position that for a case to be transferred, party must demonstrate reasonable and substantiated apprehension that justice will not be done – Mere suspicion or dissatisfaction insufficient – Reference to Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan (1966) 2 SCR 686 [Paras 6, 10, 16, 22]

Protection of Judges – Courts Warn Against Forum Shopping – Strong judicial warning against attempts to malign presiding officers or seek ‘forum shopping’ – Cited precedents including Ajay Kumar Pandey (1998) 7 SCC 248 and R.K. Anand (2009) 8 SCC 106 – Held: No civilised system of justice permits forum shopping or judicial intimidation [Paras 8, 11-13, 19, 22]

Judicial Discipline – Expression of Opinion During Hearing – Judges not expected to be sphinx-like – Mere expression of views during proceedings not to be misconstrued as bias – Allegations must be substantiated by material facts – Court cautioned against frivolous and vexatious transfer pleas [Paras 7, 17, 21]

Exceptional Relief – Transfer to be Granted Sparingly – Court emphasized transfer is not to be granted routinely – Must be exercised cautiously and in rare cases where justice may be jeopardized – Cited multiple Apex Court decisions including Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal and Afzal Ali Sha v. State of West Bengal [Paras 15, 16, 22]

Decision: Transfer application rejected – No case made out for reasonable apprehension of bias – Judicial order under challenge not a valid basis for transfer – No costs imposed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Joint Bank Account with Accused – Allegation of Financing – Petitioner arrested based on deposits made by her father in joint account, without recovery of contraband or direct involvement in drug trafficking – Held: Mere receipt of proceeds, without evidence of intentional aid or operational financing of illicit drug activity, does not constitute offence under Section 27A NDPS Act – Bail granted [Paras 2, 10-11, 14-15]

NDPS Act – Section 29 – No Prima Facie Case of Abetment – Petitioner alleged to have received proceeds from drug trade – No overt act or instigation attributed – Court held that passive receipt of money without intentional facilitation does not amount to abetment – Application of Section 29 not attracted in absence of active complicity [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Principles Reiterated – Court relied on guidelines laid down in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 and other precedents – Factors including gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, and possibility of tampering with investigation considered – Held: Petitioner entitled to bail due to lack of direct nexus to drug trafficking [Paras 8-9]

Interpretation – ‘Financing’ under NDPS Act – Citing Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2021 CrLJ 248 – Court held that 'financing' must involve conscious and operational monetary support to sustain or promote the illicit drug trade – Mere monetary deposit by another in joint account insufficient to attract Section 27A [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner directed to furnish ₹1,00,000 bail bond with one surety – Subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence, attending trial regularly, and disclosing change of address or contact details – Petition disposed of.

Writ - Service Law - Disability Rights – Functional Requirements – Visually Impaired Candidates – Rejection of Appointment – Reasonable Accommodation – Posts identified as suitable for blind candidates under Section 33 of the RPWD Act – Petitioners (visually impaired) were selected through examination for post of Junior Executive (Law), Common Cadre and Finance – AAI rejected appointments citing failure to meet the functional requirement of “seeing” as per DEPWD Notification and advertisement – Held: Once a post is identified as suitable for blind candidates, rejection solely on basis of inability to "see" without assistive devices violates reasonable accommodation and rights under the RPWD Act – Assessment must account for aids, assistive technologies, and enabling atmosphere – Functional assessment cannot be purely clinical or medical [Paras 12.1–14.12].

Constitutional Law – Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Supreme Court guidance in In re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services applied – Held: Eligibility must be assessed through inclusive lens considering assistive support and reasonable accommodation – Rejection on basis of medical report without providing such support is impermissible – Right against disability-based discrimination equated with fundamental rights – Recruitment authorities must aim for inclusion, not exclusion [Paras 14.5–14.10, 15.6–15.7].

Administrative Law – Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Petitioners participated with awareness of functional requirement of “seeing” – Held: Estoppel not applicable where challenge is based on illegality, constitutional violations or infringement of statutory rights – Participation does not bar enforcement of rights under RPWD Act [Paras 15.1–15.7].

Judicial Review – Functional Requirements in Recruitment – Functional requirements prescribed in DEPWD notification held valid – But rejection based on failure to “see” without aids when post identified for blind candidates is illegal – Medical test cannot override statutory identification of posts [Paras 12.13–12.16, 14.12].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Rejection of candidatures set aside – Functional suitability to be reassessed with assistive technology, inclusive atmosphere, and in compliance with SC judgment – Appointments to be offered if found suitable – Challenge to Note 8 in DEPWD Notification rejected [Paras 19–20].

Criminal Law – Section 61(2) r/w 318(3), 316(5), and 112 BNS - Paper Leak – Departmental Examination – Economic Offence – CBI Investigation – Bail Granted – Delay in Trial – Procedural Irregularities – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused railway officials and candidates allegedly conspired to leak the CLI departmental examination paper in exchange for bribes – Leaked paper allegedly handwritten by paper-setter and circulated via intermediaries – Recovered documents and cash used as key evidence – CBI relied on confessions, call intercepts, and seizures – Applicants contended lack of direct recovery, lack of expert opinion, procedural violations under BNSS – Court held that trial unlikely to begin soon due to lack of sanction and large volume of evidence – 16 co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted to all remaining applicants on parity and due to prolonged incarceration without trial [Paras 1–85].

Evidence Law – Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Admissibility – Custodial Statements – Recovery Before Arrest – Handwriting and Voice Analysis Inconclusive – Several recoveries based on pre-arrest disclosures – No expert verification of handwriting or voice samples produced – Statements recorded without magisterial supervision – Held: Statements inadmissible under law and cannot be sole basis for denial of bail [Paras 30–31, 58–61].

Search and Seizure – Section 105 BNSS – Audio-Visual Recording Mandatory – Procedural Non-compliance by CBI – Accused argued seizure proceedings were not fully recorded on video as required under BNSS – Lack of sketch map in some cases – CBI failed to justify procedural lapses – Held: Such deficiencies weaken evidentiary value – Favors bail [Paras 32–33, 52–53].

Bail Principles – Economic Offences – Serious Allegation Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – CBI opposed bail citing economic offence seriousness – Court reiterated principles from Sanjay Chandra, Satender Antil, Dataram Singh, and Manish Sisodia – Held: Bail is rule, jail is exception – Long trial delay, lack of prior criminal history, and co-accused parity are valid considerations for bail [Paras 34–35, 70–78].

Bail – Role of Accused – Individual Allegations Considered – Bail Conditions Imposed – Specific roles detailed for each accused: from paper-setter to bribe collector to candidate – Some named in FIR, others only in charge-sheet – Many with no recovery or direct link – All applicants in custody for over 7 months – Bail granted subject to conditions of non-tampering, attendance, and non-intimidation of witnesses [Paras 1–85].

Decision: Bail allowed – All 8 applicants (Sushant Parashar, Ramayan, Ajit Kumar Singh, Niraj Kumar Verma, Raj Narayan Singh Yadav, Surjeet Singh, Rakesh Kumar, and Sanjay Kumar Mishra) granted bail on personal bonds and two sureties each – Conditions imposed to prevent interference with trial or witnesses [Paras 84–86].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bank Loan Fraud – Diversion of Loan Funds – Further Investigation – Accused company (HCCPL) and its directors alleged to have diverted Rs.15 crore project loan from erstwhile SBT (now SBI) by selling mortgaged properties without bank's consent – CBI initially excluded bank officials from prosecution citing lack of mens rea – Special Judge rejected CBI’s request to drop PC Act charges and directed further investigation – Held: Special Judge rightly found material suggesting complicity or willful neglect on part of bank officials – Further investigation justified [Paras 4–6, 13, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Role of Public Servants – CBI’s report described conduct of bank officials as negligent but lacking dishonest intention – However, Special Judge found unexplained silence and procedural violations by officials in allowing the borrower to operate outside mandated norms like escrow account requirement – Held: Dereliction of duty without criminal intent insufficient basis to shield officials from further scrutiny – Deeper inquiry mandated [Paras 12–14, 17]

Corporate Loan Disbursement – Escrow Account – Lax Monitoring – Loan extended to HCCPL without opening escrow account – Flats sold without bank consent and sale proceeds routed through third-party banks – CBI failed to investigate critical lapses – Trial court rightly observed that institutional failures merited reinvestigation – Escrow account norms were industry standard and failure to enforce indicated serious oversight [Para 16]

Maintainability – Accused Lacking Locus to Challenge Investigation Against Co-accused – Petition filed by Managing Director of HCCPL (A1) to quash order for further investigation against bank officials – Court held that A1 had no standing to contest reliefs denied to others – Filing of petition seen as attempt to shield co-accused – Revealed apparent collusion between borrower and bank staff – Petition not maintainable [Paras 23–24]

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Special Court’s direction for further investigation upheld – Interim stay vacated – CBI directed to complete further investigation and submit report within two months [Para 25]

Criminal Law – Murder – Poisoning in Jail – Acquittal – Accused prisoners allegedly served poison-laced Pepsi and bread to fellow inmates causing death of three prisoners – FIR filed after two days by Jail Superintendent without immediate explanation – Eye-witness (PW-3) claims witnessing incident but failed to inform authorities or explain jail protocol violations – Other prosecution witnesses turned hostile or resiled from earlier statements – Medical evidence did not conclusively establish poisoning – No forensic report confirming poison in recovered Pepsi bottle or bread – Held: Serious doubt cast on prosecution’s version due to delayed FIR, inconsistent witness testimonies, violation of jail protocols, and lack of corroborative evidence – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 3, 12-18, 23-36]

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Sole eye-witness (PW-3) testimony found doubtful – Failed to report poisoning to jail officials despite witnessing the alleged murder – Stated accused spoke loudly about poisoning which was found unnatural – Other key witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) turned hostile or gave contradictory versions – Court found witness testimonies unreliable and uncorroborated [Paras 12-13, 25, 33-34]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR – FIR lodged 48 hours after the incident despite it involving custodial deaths – Delay found unexplained and in breach of Rules 608 and 894 of UP Jail Manual – Court referred to SC judgments emphasizing prompt FIR as a safeguard against fabrication – Held: Delay casts serious doubt on authenticity of prosecution’s story [Paras 27-31]

Forensic Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem reports inconclusive – Cause of death stated as uncertain in absence of forensic confirmation of poisoning – Viscera preserved but no chemical analysis report proved – Recovery of Pepsi bottle disputed and not witnessed by Jail Superintendent – Court held absence of scientific proof of poisoning fatal to prosecution case [Paras 14-17, 32]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 328 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Sureties and bail bonds discharged subject to Section 437-A CrPC compliance.

Motor Accident – Determination of Income – Presumptive Basis – Admissibility – Deceased was owner of loader vehicle and paying monthly EMI of ₹18,250 – Tribunal presumed additional earnings of ₹7,000/month to support his family of five dependents – Held: Tribunal justified in estimating income at ₹25,250/month in absence of documentary proof – Supported by SC ruling in Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – No interference warranted [Paras 2, 4, 6–8]

Motor Accident – Future Prospects – Age-based Calculation – Tribunal awarded 40% future prospects though deceased was aged 36 – Under Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claimants were entitled to 50% – Held: Award of 40% is conservative; no scope for reduction – Appeal against adequacy of compensation not sustainable [Paras 3, 9–10]

Compensation – No Deduction Warranted – Tribunal’s Approach Reasonable – Appellant-insurer raised ground that compensation was excessive due to presumed income – Held: Income based on proven expenditure (EMI) and family responsibilities is a valid basis – Future prospects correctly applied – No illegality in award [Paras 4–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹48,56,250/- with 7.5% interest affirmed – Statutory deposit to be remitted to Tribunal forthwith.

Service Law – Transfer – Panchayat Secretaries – Effect of District Bifurcation – Appellants transferred outside their preferred native district after bifurcation of Y.S.R. Kadapa District into Kadapa and Annamayya – Petitioners contended that transfer orders issued by the District Collector failed to consider online counselling options and contravened G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 – Held: District Collector of the erstwhile district alone is competent to effect transfers post-bifurcation – Purpose of centralized counselling was to ensure fair accommodation based on preferences – Transfer orders found contrary to policy intent – Single Judge’s dismissal of writ petition set aside [Paras 3, 7–9]

Administrative Law – Non-Consideration of Transfer Preferences – State failed to explain why petitioners’ submitted preferences were disregarded during counselling – Respondents’ justification based solely on general reference to G.O.Ms.No.5 held insufficient – Division Bench held that government failed to act in conformity with its own policy – Directed reconsideration of preferences within 3 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Single Judge dated 23.07.2025 set aside – District Collector of erstwhile Y.S.R. Kadapa District directed to re-consider transfer options submitted by petitioners and accommodate them within Y.S.R. Kadapa District – Exercise to be completed within 3 weeks [Paras 11–12]

Criminal Procedure – Additional Evidence – Section 311 CrPC – Prosecution allowed to produce video clip at defence evidence stage – Accused objected citing prolonged trial since 2018 and alleged abuse of process – Held: Trial court rightly exercised discretion to allow additional evidence to discover truth – Technical objections cannot defeat justice [Paras 1–3, 7–11].

Fair Trial – Delay and Prejudice – Petitioner contended that late-stage evidence prejudices right to speedy and fair trial – Supreme Court precedent in Ashutosh Pathak v. State of U.P., 2025(2) Crimes 332 relied upon – Court held that if evidence is essential to justice, delay alone not sufficient ground to reject it [Paras 7–11].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Impact – Accused argued that video lacks credibility as its preparers turned hostile – Court held: Relevance of material outweighs credibility concerns at this stage – Admissibility and weight to be assessed at trial [Para 8].

Judicial Discretion – Scope under Section 311 – Court cited Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136 and Zahira Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 – Reiterated that Section 311 empowers courts to summon or recall witnesses at any stage for a just decision – Discretion must be judicial, not arbitrary [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s discretion upheld – No interference warranted with order permitting additional evidence in interest of justice [Paras 14–15].