Look Out Circular (LOC) – Challenge to LOC issued against the Petitioner at the instance of Respondent No.2/Bank of Baroda – Petitioner’s employment history, resignation, and subsequent developments – Investigation into alleged financial irregularities post-Petitioner’s resignation – Petitioner’s request to travel abroad obstructed due to LOC – Legal validity of LOC questioned. [Para 1-8]

Right to Travel and Personal Liberty – Fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Restriction of movement due to LOC – Importance of ensuring valid and justifiable reasons for imposing such restrictions – Need for substantial evidence to support the issuance of LOC. [Para 9]

Issuance of Look Out Circular – Conditions for issuing LOC – Cognizable offences under IPC or penal laws – National interest, sovereignty, security, integrity, bilateral relations, economic interests, and public interest as grounds for LOC – Exceptional cases where LOC can be issued without complete parameters – Necessity for satisfying the prescribed conditions before opening LOC. [Para 12]

Legality of Look Out Circular – Lack of substantial material to justify the LOC – Use of LOC for debt recovery without meeting necessary criteria – Quashing of the Impugned Look Out Circular due to its unsustainability. [Para 14]

Decision – Writ petition allowed, Impugned Look Out Circular quashed – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 15]

Facts [Para 2, 3, 4]

The case revolves around a Sub Inspector of Police, S.SukumaranChettiyar, who had registered a crime against an Advocate under Section 51(A) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960. The Advocate was accused of behaving disorderly and uttering obscene words in public. The Magistrate found that the initial medical certificate did not mention any smell of alcohol, and a false certificate was later produced. The Magistrate also noticed a personal rivalry between the Sub Inspector and the accused.

 Issues [Para 1, 5]

The central issue is whether a Sub Inspector of Police can be imposed with compensation under Section 250 Cr.P.C. after the acquittal of the accused. The revision petitioner argued that the imposition of compensation is inherently without jurisdiction.

 Observations [Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

The court observed that Section 250 Cr.P.C. specifies instances when such compensation can be ordered and does not include cases registered suo motu by police officers. The court also referred to previous judgments that supported this view. The court emphasized that compensation under Section 250 Cr.P.C. is a special provision and should not be extended beyond its literal interpretation.

 Decision [Para 14]

The court set aside the imposition of compensation upon the revision petitioner, stating that it was irregular and liable to be set aside. The criminal revision petition was allowed.

Criminal Bail Application – Regular bail sought under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to Order dated 31.10.2022 – NDPS Act – Offences under Sections 8/21/22/23/29 NDPS Act – Seizure of narcotic drugs – Conspiracy involving petitioner and co-accused – Recovery of Heroin and Cocaine from parcels and residential premises – Petitioner in custody for more than 7 years – Applicability of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. Union of India guidelines on undertrial prisoners’ release – Precedents considered – Nature of contraband, commercial quantity, and potential sentence – Consideration of period of incarceration – Necessity of continued detention – Balance between liberty and public interest – Adherence to principles of bail – Importance of fair trial – Bail application allowed with conditions.

Criminal Revision – Quashing of criminal proceeding – Allegation of bodily harm, threats, and false criminal cases against the petitioner – Opposite party no. 2’s alleged vendetta against petitioner due to protest against illegal activities – Complaint registered under Sections 341/323/506 of IPC – Charge sheet filed – Petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings – Counter case and mediation proceedings also involved – Absence of petitioner in mediation – Medical papers indicating injuries – Compoundable offences – Prima facie materials for trial found – Revisional application dismissed. [Para 1]

Personal Vendetta – Alleged vendetta by opposite party no. 2 against petitioner – Petitioner’s protest against illegal activities, misappropriation of funds, and corrupt practices – History of conflicts and complaints – Association’s board dissolved by State Government – Personal vendetta alleged to be motive behind filing false criminal case – Counter case and mediation proceedings indicating continued disputes. [Para 2-6]

Legal Proceedings – Criminal case registered against petitioner – Sections 341/323/506 of IPC – Charge sheet filed – Petitioner claims abuse of process of law and seeks quashing of proceedings – Mention of counter case and related revisional application – Mediation attempted but petitioner absent on two occasions – Mention of medical reports indicating injuries suffered by complainant. [Para 7-12]

Evidence – Medical papers in case diary – Injury report showing pain and swelling over left cheekbone of complainant – Mention of failure of petitioner to appear for mediation on two occasions – Primacy facie materials indicating need for trial mentioned – Mention of compoundable offences. [Para 13-15]

Criminal revision application seeking quashing of proceedings dismissed – Prima facie materials found in present case against petitioner. [Para 16-20]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Petitioner seeks bail in a case involving charges of 302, 201, 364, 365 & 34 IPC – Peculiar facts and circumstances considered – State opposes bail – Role assigned to the petitioner is providing a rope to tie the deceased – Lack of motive or prior enmity – Petitioner's incarceration since 07.07.2021 – Petitioner's claim of being a first offender – Importance of granting bail while considering the possibility of influencing investigation or tampering with evidence – Conditions for the grant of bail – Bail granted with stringent terms and conditions – Court's focus on ensuring safety of witnesses, victims, and fair trial – No expression of opinion on case's merits – Possibility of modification of conditions – Order not limiting or restricting further investigation. [Para 1-26]

Criminal Bail Application – Violation of NDPS Act – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC – Allegations of possession of contraband – Petitioner’s antecedents, irreparable injustice, and commercial quantity involved are key points – Court examines compliance with NDPS Act provisions and legislative mandate under Section 37. [Para 1]

Burden of Proof – Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin conditions of statutory mandate must be satisfied – Commercial quantity involved shifts burden on petitioner – Non-examination of independent witnesses insufficient – No violation of Section 37 requirements established. [Para 6]

Search and Seizure – Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act – Accused alleges non-compliance – Legal status of compliance to be determined at trial – Non-rectifiable violations might lead to bail – Prejudice to prosecution must be proven – No evident violation in this case. [Para 11]

Speedy Trial – Conclusion of trial requested by court – Balance between speedy trial and court’s docket considered – Accused’s obligation to not delay proceedings – Consequences for seeking adjournments or delaying trial outlined. [Para 16]

Decision:Petition for bail dismissed – No discharge of burden under Section 37 – Trial court requested to expedite trial proceedings and conclude by specified deadlines – Non-compliance with trial requirements leads to recall of expedited trial order. [Para 16]

NDPS Case - Petitioner seeks quashing of order dismissing application to preserve call details record of his mobile - Dispute over date and circumstances of petitioner's arrest - Prosecution alleges arrest on 10.10.2021 from highway, petitioner claims abduction by police on 09.10.2021 near his house - Petitioner's request for tower location and call details preservation - Similar cases considered by court [Para 3-11]

Access to Evidence - Accused's right to access evidence to build defense - Court's consideration of preserving call details and tower location records - Precedents cited supporting early access to evidence [Para 9]

Decision - Trial court's order set aside - Tower location and call details of petitioner's mobile to be preserved for specific period - Copies to be provided to petitioner [Para 11]

Anticipatory Bail – Petition filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC – Petitioner a victim of alleged conspiracy – Loan obtained against gold jewelry – Allegation of fraud against bank officials – Several criminal cases registered against similar individuals – Allegations of connivance with managing director of empaneledjeweler – Petitioner’s compliance with loan procedure – Petitioner joined investigation – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute. [Para 1-9]

Procedure and Compliance – Petitioner complied with bank’s procedure for availing loan – Jewelry verified by empaneledjeweler in presence of bank officials – Petitioner’s willingness to continue joining investigation – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute. [Para 7]

Observations – Court’s observations not indicative of merits of the case – Petitioner granted anticipatory bail without expressing opinion on case’s merits. [Para 6]

Petitioner’s petition for anticipatory bail disposed of – Interim anticipatory bail granted earlier made absolute, subject to compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and continued cooperation with investigation. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing in murder case – Convicts held guilty for various charges including murder, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence – Aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered – Court emphasizes reformation and integration of convicts into society – No “rarest of rare” circumstances found – Convicts sentenced to imprisonment for life with concurrent sentences for different charges – Fine imposed on convicts to be disbursed to legal heirs of victims – Court cites legal precedents and principles for imposing sentences – Appeals disposed of accordingly.

Sentencing Principles – Court refers to Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1984) to emphasize the norm of life imprisonment with death penalty being an exception – Consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, circumstances, and principles while determining sentence – Convicts’ arguments based on circumstantial evidence refuted – Convicts’ conduct, age, family situations, and past convictions taken into account.

Reformation and Integration – Court highlights importance of reformation and integration of convicts into society – Death penalty to be avoided when a chance of reformation exists – Lengthy trial process and pandemic-related delays considered as mitigating circumstances – Court balances retribution with rehabilitation.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances – Court examines aggravating circumstances including multiple murders, previous criminal record, and fear instilled in victims’ families – Mitigating circumstances include age of convicts, dependent family members, and long incarceration – Court concludes that the case does not meet the “rarest of rare” criteria.

Sentence – Convicts sentenced to imprisonment for life – Specific sentences for different charges imposed concurrently – Convicts Jai Parkash and Parmod, already undergoing life imprisonment for murder of another complainant, sentenced to imprisonment for life for rest of their lives – Fine imposed to be disbursed to legal heirs of victims – Appeals concluded.