Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in the context of a conspiracy related to unprovoked firing upon peaceful protesters – Similar facts and common prayer in multiple petitions – Present order addressing six petitions with similar facts for brevity. [Para 1]

Background of the Case – Petitioners apprehending arrest for their alleged involvement in a conspiracy related to firing on protesters – Previous bail applications dismissed – Nature of the case and conspiracy outlined. [Para 2-3]

Historical Context – Incidents leading to the FIR, including a religious congregation, an FIR in 2007, and subsequent developments – Deepening resentment and sacrilege incidents explained. [Para 4-5]

Investigation and Findings – Overview of the SIT’s investigation, which implicated various individuals, including the petitioners – Specific actions attributed to each accused. [Para 13]

Reasons for Anticipatory Bail – Court’s reasoning for granting anticipatory bail – Emphasis on lack of custodial interrogation need, the impact of the crime, and the evidence collected – Conditions imposed on petitioners to prevent interference with witnesses or the investigation. [Para 16-23]

Legal Precedent – Reference to legal precedents, such as Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, Sidharth v. State of UP, and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, in support of the decision. [Para 20-21]

Civil Appeal – Termination of service – Grant of back wages – Appellant-State challenges the judgment allowing the respondent's appeal against the termination of his services – Respondent's services were terminated without following proper procedure – Trial Court set aside the termination but declined to grant back wages – First Appellate Court granted back wages – Issue of entitlement to back wages for the period of absence from duty – No illegality or perversity in the First Appellate Court's judgment – No substantial question of law for determination – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-18]

Rowdy Sheet - Legality of keeping rowdy sheet open against the petitioner - Petitioner's challenge to the action of respondents - Allegation of the action being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India - Petition seeks closure of the rowdy sheet. [Para 1-2]

Background - Four criminal cases registered against the petitioner - Two cases resulted in binding over, and two cases are pending trial - Rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner based on the alleged offences - Petitioner claims that this continued surveillance causes inconvenience and hardship in leading a respectable life. [Para 2]

Evaluation - Examination of the petitioner's criminal history - Bound over cases from 2013 and 2015, pending trial cases from 2018 and 2019 - Consideration of the long interval between registration of the cases. [Para 5]

Lack of Allegations - Absence of allegations regarding breach of peace or public tranquility by the petitioner after opening of the rowdy sheet - Basis for opening the sheet is the 2013 and 2015 cases - No conviction in the subsequent cases registered in 2017 and 2019. [Para 7]

Legality of Rowdy Sheet - Discussion on the statutory nature of A.P. Police Standing Orders and their limitations - Emphasis on the serious consequences of opening a rowdy sheet and the protection of the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 8]

Insufficiency of Grounds - Finding that there are insufficient grounds to term the petitioner as a "habitual offender" under Clause (A) of Order 601 of A.P. Police Manual - Lack of specific instances of the petitioner's involvement in offences after the opening of the rowdy sheet. [Para 9]

Closure of Rowdy Sheet - Directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner - Acknowledgment of the possibility of future actions if the petitioner is involved in any crimes. Petition Allowed. [Para 10]

Anticipatory Bail – Suicide Inducement Allegations – Accused seeks anticipatory bail asserting no direct or indirect role in deceased’s suicide – Claims only demanded repayment of invested money – Court examines circumstances and legal principles governing anticipatory bail [Paras 1-3].

Judicial Discretion – Criteria for Bail – High Court considers absence of proximate cause for suicide, lack of evidence under Section 107 IPC, non-severity of alleged offence, and previous release of co-accused on bail – Emphasizes judicious exercise of discretion [Paras 4-6].

Legal Precedents – Citing Apex Court Rulings – High Court references legal standards from cases including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sushila Aggarwal, supporting conditional anticipatory bail in appropriate circumstances [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Application Allowed – Applicant granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount – Conditions imposed include cooperation with investigation, appearance at police station, non-interference with witnesses, and surrender of passport – Clarifies remand procedures and directs trial court to proceed uninfluenced by this order’s observations [Paras 7-10].
 

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Enhancement – Appellant dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s award – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,80,000 for future loss of income and additional amounts under various heads – Appellant sustained multiple fractures and 80% permanent disablement – High Court enhanced the compensation considering prospective income and increased award for pain, shock, and suffering [Paras 1-11].

Quantum of Compensation – Future Prospects – Tribunal’s determination of Rs. 1,000 monthly income deemed low – High Court revised monthly income to Rs. 1,500 with 40% addition for future prospects, calculating future economic loss as Rs. 3,52,800 [Para 9].

Pain and Suffering – Inadequate Compensation – Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000 for loss of amenities – High Court enhanced total amount to Rs. 1,00,000 considering 100% disablement [Para 10].

Interest Rate – Enhanced Compensation – High Court ordered enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,200 with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition – Directed Insurance Company to deposit the amount within two months [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Total enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,200 awarded – Interest at 6% from the date of claim petition – Insurance Company to deposit the amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse the entire amount without further investment in FDRs [Para 11].
 

Copyright Infringement – Unauthorized distribution of Plaintiff’s educational course materials on various digital platforms – Prima facie case established – Balance of convenience favors Plaintiff – Irreparable harm if infringing activity continues – Injunction granted against Defendants [Para 42-44]

Digital Platforms – Challenge of widespread copyright infringement on digital platforms – Defendants using various techniques to disseminate Plaintiff’s courses – Channels and groups on Telegram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Google Drive, and other platforms involved – Copyright infringement in digital and electronic form [Para 41]

Injunction Orders – Defendants restrained from downloading, uploading, storing, sharing, transmitting, selling, or utilizing Plaintiff’s course material – Specific actions required by digital platform providers (e.g., Telegram, Google LLC, GoDaddy.com, WhatsApp) to block infringing content and disclose details of infringers [Para 44-51]

Compliance – Plaintiff directed to ensure compliance with the court’s orders through various digital communication channels (e-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram) [Para 55]

Next Court Date – Case scheduled to be listed before the Court on 22^nd March 2024 [Para 56]

Criminal Law - Framing of Charges - Petition seeking to set aside the order on charge - Charges framed against the Revisionist under various sections of the IPC - Allegation of beating leading to the death of the deceased - Disputed facts and varying statements by witnesses - Defense argument based on the lack of intent to cause severe bodily injury - Citing precedent cases to support the contention that a single injury, where the intent to cause that injury is in doubt, may not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC. [Para 1-13]

Criminal Case – Framing of Charges – Examination of evidence at the stage of framing charges – Scope of the Revision Court's inquiry – Prima facie view of the matter to be seen – Sifting and weighing of evidence without conducting a mini-trial – Charges framed against the Revisionist upheld. [Para 23-30

Witness Statements – Discrepancies in witness statements – Sole witness' statements consistent on essential elements – Minor discrepancies do not undermine prosecution's case at the stage of framing charges – Charges can be framed based on the statements. [Para 25-28]

Medical Assistance – Rendering medical aid to the victim – Not relevant at the stage of framing charges – Detailed examination of medical aid to be considered during trial – Prima facie opinion of doctors and witness statements sufficient for framing charges. [Para 31]

Nature of Injury – Single blow causing death – Vitality of the injury site – Sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Medical opinion supports framing of charges under Section 302 IPC. [Para 32-34]

Medical Opinion – Discrepancy between post-mortem report and AIIMS Medical Board Expert Opinion – Opportunity for cross-examination during trial – No grounds to deny framing charges. [Para 34]

Definition of Murder – Ingredients of Section 300 IPC – Presence of bodily injury, intention or knowledge of injury likely to cause death, and sufficient injury in the ordinary course of nature – Fulfilment of criteria for framing charges. [Para 38-41]

Official Duty – Revisionist's duty ended upon presentation of Identity Card – No sanction required for prosecution – Beyond official duties in the present case. [Para 42]

Decision – Special Judge correctly appreciated facts and law – No interference with the order on framing charges – Revision Petition dismissed. [Para 44-46]

SARFAESI Act – Validity of orders under Sections 13(2) and 14 – Borrowers challenging the validity of orders under Sections 13(2) and 14 of the Sarfaesi Act – Debtor challenging the legality of orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Principles of natural justice violated during the proceedings – Matter requires further examination – Special leave granted for review. [Para 3-8]

Leasehold Rights – Existence of tenancy rights over mortgaged property – Tenant claiming tenancy rights – Tenancy to be determined in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act – Rights of a rightful tenant must be respected – Bonafides of the alleged tenant to be fully established – Alleged tenant not entitled to protection against dispossession after one year of possession. [Para 22-28]

Abuse of Process – Writ petition found to be misconceived and an abuse of the process of court and law – Dismissed – Impugned orders affirmed. [Para 29]

Bail Application – Offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of the IPC – Allegations of cheating and fraud against the applicant – Prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence established – Applicant's use of forged identity documents – Flight risk – 34 cases registered against the applicant across India – Bail application dismissed. [Para 13-16]

Forgery – Use of forged identity documents – Multiple documents with different dates of birth – Fortifies the prosecution's apprehension that the applicant is a flight risk – Adds to the reasons for denying bail. [Para 15]