Constitutional Law – Protection of Life and Liberty – Live-in Relationship – The petitioners, Harpreet Kaur and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and liberty, as they feared harm from relatives unhappy with their live-in relationship. The court acknowledged the petitioners' right to protection irrespective of societal views on their relationship​​.

Protection for Live-in Couples – Judicial Precedents – The court referred to several precedents where protection was granted to couples in live-in relationships, including Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, and Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, noting that individuals in such relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law​​.

Assessment of Threat Perception – The court directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.05.2024, assess the threat perception, and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The decision emphasized that protection should be provided based on the perceived threat to life and liberty​​.

Legal Right to Choose Partner – The judgment reaffirmed that every adult has the right to live with a partner of their choice, and protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the legality of the relationship is not a primary concern when addressing threats to life and liberty​​.

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate action based on the threat perception. The court also clarified that this order does not prevent the State or any aggrieved person from initiating appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted by their actions​​.

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]

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]

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 Law – NDPS Act – Conviction for Possession of Poppy Husk – Appeal against conviction under Section 15 NDPS Act – Appellant argued improper handling of evidence and lack of primary evidence due to destruction of examined sample cloth parcels – High Court found non-compliance with statutory procedures for certifying and retaining evidence – Inventory and FSL report not sufficient without production of examined samples in court – Conviction set aside. [Paras 1-31]

Evidence Law – Section 52-A NDPS Act – Certified Inventory and Primary Evidence – Interpretation of statutory provisions for disposal and certification of seized narcotics – Court held inventory must be supported by laboratory testing at time of certification by magistrate – Non-compliance with procedures undermines evidentiary value – Certified inventory alone not primary evidence without corroborative examined samples. [Paras 16-25]

Judicial Review – Handling and Production of Evidence – Emphasized need for strict adherence to procedures in narcotics cases – Court directed improvements in storage and handling of evidence – Reiterated necessity of producing examined samples along with FSL reports in trials – Guidelines for proper certification and disposal to ensure integrity of evidence. [Paras 30-31]

Decision: Held: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 15 NDPS Act – Directed immediate release if not required in other cases – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded – Directions issued to state authorities for compliance with storage and procedural guidelines. [Paras 32-33]

Civil Procedure – Prohibitory Injunction – Ownership Dispute – Appeal challenging Trial and First Appellate Court judgments dismissing suit for prohibitory injunction – Appellants claimed ownership of disputed site part of Plot No. 212 – Respondent had allegedly opened door and constructed chabutra illegally – Courts found site was shamlat deh (village common land) based on prior judgments and evidence – High Court upheld lower courts' findings – No substantial question of law found – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Land Law – Shamlat Deh – Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities – Courts held consolidation authorities cannot partition or declare shamlat deh land as not vesting in Gram Panchayat – Only the Collector has such jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Appellants' claim based on mutation entries found invalid – Ownership and title disputes to be decided by civil courts, not revenue entries. [Paras 10-12]

Judicial Review – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court reiterated limited scope of second appeals under Section 100 CPC – Interference warranted only on substantial questions of law – No such question arose in this case – Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts not disturbed. [Para 13]

Decision: Held: Regular second appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and First Appellate Court upheld – No substantial question of law – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of. [Paras 13-14]

Criminal Law – Acquittal of Accused – Appeal against acquittal in a case of alleged murder of Bipin Kumar – Trial Court acquitted the accused based on lack of evidence – High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment [Paras 61-63].

Evidence – Sufficiency of Proof – Prosecution failed to establish motive and connection between the accused and the crime – Lack of credible evidence and witnesses – Circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain leading to the accused [Paras 59-61].

Victim Compensation – Despite the acquittal, the informant, being the victim’s legal heir, is entitled to compensation under Section 357A Cr.PC from Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 – State directed to compensate the victim [Para 62-63].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – State to provide compensation to the victim’s legal heir.
 

Bail Application – PMLA Provisions – Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Contended absence of scheduled offence linkage and non-completion of scheduled offence investigation – High Court evaluated provisions of PMLA, nature of allegations, and evidence presented – Emphasized stringent conditions under Section 45 PMLA for bail – Recognized petitioner’s custodial period and compliance with Income Tax obligations – Court inclined towards granting bail with conditions considering investigation completion and lack of direct involvement in scheduled offence [Paras 1-44].

Investigation and Evidence – Section 50 PMLA Statements – Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA deemed judicial proceedings – Petitioner’s involvement in money laundering activities inferred from financial transactions and property acquisitions – High Court examined the admissibility and weight of such evidence under Article 20(3) of the Constitution [Paras 5-10, 27-30, 41].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 45 PMLA – Bail Conditions – Analyzed twin conditions for bail under Section 45 PMLA – Court emphasized judicial discretion and balance between societal interests and individual rights – Relied on precedents including Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary v. Union of India and Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate [Paras 11-15, 40-44].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Held – Petitioner granted bail with strict conditions to ensure compliance and non-tampering of evidence – Directed petitioner to appear before ED as required and to not engage in any activities undermining the ongoing investigation [Paras 45-46].
 

Medical Negligence – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings – Allegations against a senior gynecologist for leaving a surgical sponge inside a patient during surgery – Initial investigation followed by medical board review and subsequent judicial scrutiny – FIR and criminal proceedings quashed based on lack of conclusive evidence attributing negligence solely to the petitioner – Court emphasizes the higher degree of proof required for criminal negligence compared to civil liability [Paras 1-26].

Evidentiary Standards – Criminal vs. Civil Liability – Court reiterates distinction between negligence in civil and criminal contexts – For criminal liability, negligence must be gross and of a high degree – Importance of establishing mens rea for criminal charges – Medical Board's inconclusive findings on the period the sponge was left inside the patient – Absence of FSL report to determine the timeline of negligence – Petition allowed, but liberty granted to pursue civil remedies [Paras 16-26].

Judicial Precedents – Application of Jacob Mathew Case – Guidelines from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab applied to determine standard of care and negligence – Supreme Court's direction on medical negligence in criminal law, emphasizing gross negligence and mens rea – Distinction highlighted between professional error and criminal negligence – Case references include Jacob Mathew (2005), A. Srimannarayana (2013), and Simrikhia (1990) [Paras 8-18].

Decision:

Petition Allowed – FIR dated 31.03.2017 lodged at Crime No.134/2017 at Police Station Shujalpur, District Shajapur under Sections 269, 337, 336, and 308 of IPC and the consequent criminal proceedings quashed – Liberty reserved for complainant to pursue civil remedies – Emphasis on higher evidentiary standards for criminal prosecution in medical negligence cases [Paras 25-27].