Criminal Law - Bail Application – Denial by Trial Court under UAPA for alleged ISIS involvement – Charges under IPC and UAPA, including Sections 38 and 39 – High Court grants bail, citing insufficient evidence of intent to further terrorist activities, as required under specific UAPA sections – Prosecution fails to establish required intention beyond mere possession and access to radical content – Digital evidence indicates radical views but no active participation or preparation for terrorism – Absence of direct actions supporting ISIS negates charges under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA. [Paras 1-98]

Incriminating Material and Association with Terrorist Organization – Analysis – Held – Examines the allegations and digital evidence against the appellant, including possession of radical content and discussions about potential migration ('Hijrah') to ISIS-controlled territories. The Court finds that mere possession of such material, without evidence of dissemination or direct involvement in terrorist activities, does not suffice to establish active membership or support under UAPA Sections 38 and 39. Notes lack of direct participation or overt acts in furtherance of terrorist activities by the appellant. [Paras 54-74]

Decision – Grant of Bail to Appellant – Despite heavy charges under UAPA, the Court concludes that the strict conditions of UAPA for denying bail are not met as the accusations against the appellant lack substantial evidence of his active involvement or intention to further terrorist activities. The appellant is granted bail on stringent terms set by the trial court, with a caution that breach of conditions could lead to revocation of bail. [Paras 96-98]

Criminal Law – Discharge Rejection – Appeal against order refusing discharge from rape and criminal intimidation charges based on DNA evidence showing petitioner not the father of victim’s child – High Court finds dismissal justified as lack of paternity does not conclusively negate the alleged rapes on various occasions – Decision to continue trial emphasized need for substantive evidence beyond DNA report – DNA test as corroborative, not conclusive, evidence for rape – Discharge rejection upheld; revisional application dismissed [Paras 1-8].

Evidence and Proof – DNA Evidence and Rape Charges – Court explains while negative paternity test significant, it does not conclusively prove absence of rape, highlighting the necessity of evaluating all evidence during trial – Importance of victim’s multiple allegations and consistent testimonies over time underscored – Allegations to be fully explored during trial, not at the stage of discharge [Paras 2, 7-8].

Procedural Justice – Importance of Thorough Judicial Process – High Court emphasizes proper judicial process cannot be circumvented by early discharge based solely on scientific evidence – Substantive evidence needs full trial [Paras 7b, 8].

Decision: The High Court upheld the decision of the lower court rejecting the petitioner’s request for discharge based on the DNA evidence, affirming the necessity of a full trial to consider all evidence related to the allegations of rape and criminal intimidation. The revisional application was dismissed  [Para 9].

Property Dispute - Rights over terrace access - Dispute arising from the installation of an iron grill by the petitioner obstructing the respondents' access to the terrace - Initial suit filed by respondents resulted in a directive for the petitioner to remove the obstruction - Subsequent appeals upheld the trial court's decision.

Limitation Issue - Condonation of Delay - Petitioner's review petition dismissed by the Additional District Judge due to a delay of 94 days, unexplained satisfactorily by the petitioner - High Court confirms no sufficient cause shown for delay in filing review petition.

Procedural Irregularities - Petitioner alleged late discovery of crucial MCD assessment order impacting property rights, claimed discovered only in 2023 - High Court finds inconsistencies in petitioner's submissions regarding the timeline of acquiring the document and its awareness.

Decision - Dismissal upheld - High Court finds no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding procedural lapses or factual discoveries that could justify condonation of delay or overturn the lower court's decisions - All applications and the petition itself are dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Recall of Order – Petition for recalling of order dismissing previous revision as ‘Not Pressed’ based on misconceptions about the continuation and nature of investigation – Court discusses extensive precedents on powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall orders for securing justice and preventing abuse of process – Held, recalling of the dismissal order is justified to address merits of the case. [Paras 1-31]

Limitation & Procedure – Procedural Bar and Limitation – Analysis – Held – CBI's argument that recall application is barred by limitation under Article 122 rejected; timely filed within 30 days of relevant subsequent orders – Section 362 Cr.P.C. discussed, not applicable as original criminal revision was not disposed on merit but dismissed as 'Not Pressed' – Application allowed, ensuring procedural fairness and opportunity to contest on merits. [Paras 16-27]

Decision – Recall and Restoration of Criminal Revision – Court orders recall of previous order and restoration of CRR 2565 of 2019 to status before dismissal, ensuring both parties opportunity for a fair hearing on merits – Emphasizes adherence to justice and procedural integrity in judicial review. [Paras 28-31]

Criminal Procedure - Pardon and Custody - Petitioner, involved in conspiracy and unlawful activities, granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. as an approver but remained in custody - Analysis of judicial discretion for release under inherent powers (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) despite statutory provisions mandating custody till trial completion - Held, the court, recognizing the medical hardships and prosecution's no objection, exercised its discretion favorably for petitioner's release on personal bond. [Paras 5-31]

Medical Condition Consideration - Petitioner suffers from severe post-polio residual paralysis - Court considered "humane and understanding approach" necessary, affecting decision to grant relief from custody under judicial discretion principles. [Para 25-27]

Legal Principles - Discussion on inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to override Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C.'s custody requirement - Cited precedents and judicial reasoning for possible bail or release of approvers under High Court's inherent jurisdiction, aligning with the constitutional right under Article 21. [Paras 12-18]

Decision - Release on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with strict conditions related to compliance with pardon terms and mandatory court appearances, highlighting the balance between legal mandates and individual rights. [Paras 31-32]

Electricity Theft - Revisional Application for Quashing – Petitioner, owner of premises rented to a nursing home, charged under Section 135(1)(b)&(c) of the Electricity Act for alleged electricity theft through meter tampering – High Court dismisses application, emphasizing trial to ascertain veracity of allegations – Highlights petitioner’s continued role as consumer for meter despite not being the direct user – Application dismissed on grounds that material issues demand resolution at trial.

Tenancy and Liability – Petitioner argues non-possession and non-use of electricity at the time of alleged theft, placing responsibility on tenant – High Court underlines that determination of actual user and intent requires evidential trial, not summary determination under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Application for quashing based on ownership versus possession not accepted at preliminary stage.

Role of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Emphasized limited interference at the stage of revision/application for quashing – Necessity for trial highlighted to probe deep into allegations and evidence.

Decision: Dismissal of Revisional Application – High Court declines to quash proceedings, mandates continuation of trial to probe allegations of electricity theft – Acknowledges need for comprehensive evidence assessment beyond mere allegations and petitioner’s claims.

Corporate Law – Transfer of Winding-Up Proceedings –  Application for transfer of winding-up petition to NCLT under Section 434(1)© of the Companies Act, 2013 – Official Liquidator had taken possession of the company’s registered office but had not invited any claims from creditors or workers – Supreme Court precedents (A. Navinchandra Steels, Kaledonia Jute & Fibres, and Action Ispat) emphasize discretion of Company Court to transfer proceedings to NCLT as long as no irreversible actions have been taken in the winding-up process – Bombay High Court exercises discretion to transfer petition to NCLT for efficient resolution under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [Paras 1-14]

Transfer of Proceedings – Discretionary Power of Court - Held – Court may transfer winding-up proceedings to NCLT unless irreversible steps have been taken – Irreversibility determined by whether assets have been sold or significant actions preclude setting the process back – Present case does not reach such stage – Transfer ordered subject to deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs towards liquidation costs. [Para 8-11]

Decision: Company Petition No. 317 of 2012 transferred to NCLT, Mumbai, subject to Applicant depositing Rs. 3 lakhs with Official Liquidator for liquidation costs – Admission order dated 28^th September 2017 recalled/revoked – NCLT to treat the petition as an application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC, 2016. [Para 10-13

Bail – Criminal Law – Bail Jurisprudence – Petitioners accused of offences under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B IPC, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Contended that offences are triable by a Court of Magistrate, no case made out against them, and their incarceration is unwarranted. Argued that co-accused had already been granted bail and petitioners' cases are not distinguishable.

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Court reiterated bail jurisprudence, emphasizing discretion vested in Magistrates for offences triable by them. Highlighted that prolonged detention without trial completion infringes on rights and goes against reformative justice principles. Court found no legal impediment to grant bail to petitioners, given no significant adverse factors against them. [Paras 1-28]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitions allowed. Petitioners ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bonds and sureties as stipulated. Court underscored parity with co-accused and judicial consistency as grounds for decision. [Paras 5-6]

Family Law - Divorce - Appeal against Family Court’s judgment dismissing divorce petition based on alleged cruelty by the wife - Family Court found no sufficient evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment by respondent; however, High Court reverses decision, citing mental cruelty due to false criminal accusations and prolonged legal battle - Held, marriage irretrievably broken, decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Paras 1-29]

Evidence and Testimony - Lack of corroborative evidence from the respondent on allegations of dowry harassment against the appellant and his family - High Court notes previous acquittal of appellant in related criminal proceedings, undermining credibility of respondent’s allegations - Held, false criminal charges against spouse can constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce. [Paras 20-22]

Maintenance and Financial Support - Discussion on maintenance payments - Appellant’s obligations towards maintenance addressed, with direct deductions from his pension - Execution proceedings for arrears in maintenance are acknowledged but left to be resolved in pending execution proceedings. [Paras 10-11, 27]

Decision: Judgment of Family Court reversed – Decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal disposed of with all pending applications. [Para 32]