NDPS Act – Bail – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused No.2 found in possession of 10.188 kg ganja while co-accused possessed commercial quantity – Held, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted when quantity recovered from the applicant alone is intermediate and no material to establish conspiracy – Bail granted [Paras 6–7].

Narcotic Offences – Joint Possession – Conspiracy – Mere presence together insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish conspiracy between accused No.1 and accused No.2 – No corroborative material such as CDR details or supplier identification available – Held, joint standing at railway station by itself does not attract liability for commercial quantity [Paras 6–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Length of Custody – Completion of Investigation – Applicant in custody since 07.08.2025 – Investigation almost over – Continued detention held unnecessary – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Antecedents – NDPS Cases – Effect on Bail – Applicant involved in four prior NDPS cases, mostly for consumption and small quantity – Antecedents alone not a ground to deny bail when statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act is inapplicable [Para 7].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on execution of bond with conditions including cooperation with investigation, weekly appearance before Investigating Officer, non-tampering of evidence, and restriction on leaving the State of Kerala.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC based solely on circumstantial evidence – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to guilt – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 70–74].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Absence of Proof – Alleged motive that deceased decided to leave accused and return to native place – No witness proved strained relationship or immediate provocation – Evidence indicated cordial relationship between accused and deceased – Held, absence of motive assumes significance in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 54–59].

Last Seen Together Theory – Reliability of Witnesses – Evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 17 relied on by trial court – High Court found material contradictions, omissions and embellishments in their testimonies – Witnesses lacked close acquaintance and consistency – Held, last seen theory not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 63–66].

Recovery of Weapon – Section 27 Evidence Act – Doubtful Recovery – MO2 chopper allegedly recovered after two years from bushes near scene of occurrence – Weapon found without rust and at a place already inspected by police earlier – Held, recovery highly suspicious and unreliable, incapable of forming a vital link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 69].

Recovery of Mobile Phone – Inconsistent Evidence – Contradictions between PW5 and PW6 regarding sale or free transfer of mobile phone allegedly belonging to accused – Lack of clarity and reliability – Held, circumstance not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 67–68].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Prosecution failed to first establish foundational facts – Mere failure of accused to explain circumstances cannot substitute proof of guilt – Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in prosecution case [Paras 62, 70–71].

Suspicion vs Proof – Criminal Jurisprudence – Strong suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt – Possibility of involvement of third parties not ruled out – Time gap between alleged last seen and death significant – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 71–74].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 324 and 326 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder by Poisoning – Grant of Bail on Change in Circumstances – Petitioner (A-2) sought regular bail in a case alleging conspiracy and murder by mixing cyanide poison in alcohol of the deceased – Earlier bail application dismissed on the ground that investigation was at a crucial stage – Subsequent completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet constitutes a change in circumstances – Bail granted [Paras 1, 4, 6].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 r/w 3(5) – Allegation of Conspiracy and Homicide – Prosecution case based on alleged extra-judicial confession made before Village Revenue Officer – Allegation that deceased misbehaved with wife of A-1 and conspiracy hatched by A-1 and A-2 – Court held that at bail stage, detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted [Paras 3, 6].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Relevant Consideration – Accused No.1, the prime accused, already enlarged on regular bail by the Trial Court – Principle of parity applicable in favour of petitioner – Continued incarceration of A-2 held unwarranted once investigation concluded [Paras 4–6].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge Sheet – No Apprehension of Tampering – Once charge sheet is filed and material witnesses examined during investigation, apprehension of tampering with evidence substantially reduces – Bail can be granted subject to stringent conditions [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and sureties – Weekly appearance before Station House Officer till cognizance – Deposit of passport – Prohibition on leaving country and on influencing witnesses or making statements on social media – Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

Service Law – Recruitment – Head Teacher (Class-III) – Interpretation of Eligibility Rule – Teaching Experience – Petitioners, having cleared Head Teacher Aptitude Test, were denied acceptance of application forms on the ground that they lacked five years’ teaching experience after acquiring B.Ed. degree – Rule 4(d) of Recruitment Rules, 2012 prescribes “at least five years separate or combined experience of teaching as a Teacher or Vidya Sahayak” – Rule silent on requirement that such experience must be post-B.Ed. – Held: State misread and misconstrued its own rules by adding a condition not provided therein – Five years’ experience cannot be restricted to post-B.Ed. period in absence of express stipulation [Paras 10–12].

Service Law – Statutory Rules – Interpretation – When recruitment rules do not link experience requirement with acquisition of higher educational qualification, employer cannot read such linkage into rules by administrative interpretation – Experience gained prior to obtaining B.Ed. is liable to be counted when rule itself includes experience as Vidya Sahayak, a post for which B.Ed. is not mandatory – Impugned action held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12.1–13.1].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits and Scope – Though State has prerogative to prescribe qualifications and experience under Article 309, Court can interfere where State acts contrary to its own statutory rules – Misinterpretation of recruitment rules resulting in exclusion of eligible candidates violates Articles 14 and 16 – Limited judicial review does not preclude correction of perverse or arbitrary administrative action [Paras 7–9, 14–15].

Public Employment – Right to Apply – Wrongful refusal to accept applications based on erroneous interpretation of eligibility criteria amounts to denial of opportunity to compete for public employment – Such action infringes fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Petitioners entitled to consideration of candidature on merits [Paras 14–17].

Relief – Directions – Respondents directed to accept application forms of petitioners and consider their candidature for appointment as Head Teachers if otherwise eligible – Appointments, if made, to be with notional seniority from date of appointment of last selected candidate under advertisement dated 22.03.2012 – No entitlement to back wages, but continuity of service and retiral benefits protected – Petition partly allowed [Paras 18–21].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Recovery of Heroin – Section 37 Rigours – Petition under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR for offences under Sections 21, 22, 27-A and 29 NDPS Act – Recovery of 258 grams of heroin attributed to petitioner, which is more than non-commercial quantity – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act squarely attracted and bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions [Paras 1, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope of Consideration at Bail Stage – Court not required to conduct mini trial or detailed appreciation of evidence – Reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail must coexist – Held: Such satisfaction could not be recorded on facts of present case [Paras 7–8].

Conscious Possession – Recovery from Polythene Thrown by Accused – Effect – Argument that contraband was not recovered from physical possession but from polythene allegedly thrown on seeing police – Held: Does not negate prima facie case of conscious possession at bail stage, particularly when apprehension was preceded by specific secret information [Para 8].

Non-Compliance of Mandatory Provisions – Plea at Bail Stage – Contention regarding violation of NDPS procedural safeguards – Held: Mixed question of law and fact to be adjudicated during trial and not determinative at stage of consideration of regular bail [Para 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevance in NDPS Bail – Petitioner involved in other NDPS and criminal cases – Held: Criminal antecedents are relevant factor while considering likelihood of re-offending and weigh against grant of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 4, 8].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Effect under NDPS Act – Custody of about nine months – Held: Mere completion of investigation or likelihood of delay in trial is not sufficient ground to override statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act in absence of exceptional circumstances [Paras 4, 8–9].

Section 27-A NDPS Act – Challenge at Bail Stage – Argument that provision wrongly invoked – Held: Such contention cannot be examined conclusively at bail stage when prima facie material indicates involvement in narcotics trade [Para 8].

Decision – Regular Bail – Refusal – Seriousness of offence, quantity of contraband, manner of recovery, and statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope and Limits – Objections raised by judgment-debtors questioning executability of decree – Held: Executing Court cannot go behind decree but can examine whether decree is a nullity, vague, or incapable of execution – Executability of decree itself falls within ambit of Section 47 CPC [Paras 52–55, 69–74].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC – Narrow Compass – High Court can interfere only where subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with material irregularity – Revisional court not an appellate forum for reappreciation of evidence [Paras 51, 63].

Execution of Injunction Decree – Vagueness – Inexecutability – Decree of permanent injunction restraining disclosure of design without specifying design particulars, dimensions, drawings or identifying features – Held: Prohibitory decree lacking precision and certainty is incapable of execution – Vague decree cannot be enforced by attachment of property [Paras 72–77].

Attachment of Property – Beyond Decree – Impermissible – Decree restrained disclosure of design by Defendant No.1 only – No direction for attachment, seizure or restraint on use of machines – Executing Court exceeded jurisdiction by attaching machines not identified or declared infringing in decree – Held: Executing Court travelled beyond decree [Paras 65–66, 80–84].

Secondary Evidence – Indian Evidence Act – Strict Compliance Required – Photocopy of agreement dated 29.01.2015 relied upon by Executing Court – Application under Section 65 Evidence Act neither allowed nor adjudicated – Document not exhibited or proved – Held: Unproved and inadmissible document cannot form basis of adjudication in execution proceedings [Paras 67–68].

Cross-examination – Reference to Unproved Document – No Cure of Inadmissibility – Mere confrontation of witness with inadmissible document does not render it proved or admissible – Evidentiary status cannot be conferred indirectly [Para 68].

Execution Proceedings – Recording of Evidence – Permissibility – Executing Court permitted to record evidence in exceptional cases when necessary for effective execution – Decree-holders having invited remand and participated in evidence cannot later object – Principle of approbate and reprobate applied [Paras 61].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Objection at Belated Stage – Waiver – Judgment-debtors participated in execution proceedings without protest – Order of transfer and attachment not challenged earlier – Held: Objection as to territorial jurisdiction barred by acquiescence and waiver [Para 62].

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC – Injunction Decree – Preconditions – Execution for breach of injunction presupposes clearly identifiable prohibited act – Where subject matter of restraint is indeterminate, execution by coercive measures impermissible [Paras 75–76].

Attachment Based on Subsequent Agreement – Jurisdictional Error – Executing Court maintained attachment of one machine on basis of agreement dated 20.06.2020 – Said agreement not subject matter of decree – Held: Execution cannot be founded on subsequent transactions requiring independent adjudication [Paras 78–84].

Additional Evidence at Revisional Stage – Not Maintainable – Applications to place additional documents on record during revision dismissed – Revisional court confined to material before executing court – Allowing fresh material would convert revision into appeal [Paras 15–18].

Decision: S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2023 (by Decree-holders) dismissed – S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 273/2022 (by Objectors/Judgment-debtors) allowed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2022 set aside to extent it maintained attachment of one machine – Executing Court directed to release both machines forthwith – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 85–88].

Suspension of Sentence – Deposit of Fine as Condition – Recall of Condition – Appellant convicted under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment – Sentence suspended earlier subject to deposit of fine of Rs.1 lakh – Appellant unable to deposit fine due to poverty and continued to remain in jail despite suspension order – Held: Imposition of an impossible condition defeats right of appeal and violates Article 21 – Condition regarding deposit of fine recalled and release directed forthwith [Paras 9–15].

Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Article 21 – Poverty of Accused – Continued Detention Despite Release Order – Court held that poverty cannot be a ground to deny liberty when sentence already suspended – Continued incarceration despite suspension amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 9, 12–15].

Lawyers’ Strike – Abstention from Court Work – Impact on Administration of Justice – Bar Associations opposing working Saturdays called for strike – Supreme Court precedent reiterating that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts – Held: Boycott of courts infringes litigants’ right to speedy justice, particularly in matters involving personal liberty [Paras 1–8].

Balancing Right to Protest and Right to Liberty – Article 19(1)(b) vis-à-vis Article 21 – Right to protest not absolute – Must not obstruct administration of justice or affect personal liberty of undertrial/convicted prisoners – Courts cannot be paralysed due to lawyers’ abstention [Paras 7–9].

Precedent – Suspension of Sentence of Fine – Appellate Court’s Discretion – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision holding that conditions while suspending sentence must not be such that compliance becomes impossible and defeats statutory right of appeal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Condition of deposit of fine of Rs.1 lakh recalled – Trial Court directed to release appellant forthwith subject to remaining bail conditions – Order clarified not to be treated as precedent – Directions issued to Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Rajasthan [Paras 15–18].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Mandatory Injunction – Suit initially filed for bare injunction later amended to include relief of mandatory injunction for removal of alleged encroachment and construction – Trial Court allowed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure suit property with help of Surveyor – Held: In a suit seeking mandatory injunction, proper measurement and identification of offending construction is essential to avoid execution difficulties – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner justified [Paras 4–5].

Civil Suit – Bare Injunction vs Mandatory Injunction – Change of Circumstances – Earlier application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner dismissed when suit was only for bare injunction – Subsequently, prayer for mandatory injunction introduced by amendment – Held: Dismissal of earlier application does not bar a fresh application when there is a subsequent change in circumstances – Doctrine of res judicata not attracted [Paras 7–8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order appointing Advocate Commissioner – Held: Order passed by Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal – Appointment would assist Court in adjudicating real controversy – No ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 8–9].

Measurement of Property – Role of Advocate Commissioner – Direction issued that Advocate Commissioner shall measure suit property with assistance of Surveyor with reference to title deeds of both parties and revenue records – Held: Such exercise would aid effective adjudication and precise identification of disputed constructions [Para 10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner upheld – Directions issued regarding manner of measurement – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Shared Household – Alienation by Husband – Rights of Wife – Bona fide Purchaser – Wife claimed right to continue in matrimonial home after husband sold property to third party during matrimonial dispute – Property sold through registered sale deed – Held: Right of residence under Section 17 DV Act does not confer indefeasible right against a bona fide purchaser – Protection under Section 17(2) operates only against the “respondent” under Section 2(q) DV Act – Purchaser not a respondent – Eviction in due course of law permissible [Paras 21–21.7].

Alienation of Property – Allegation of Collusion – Agreement to sell executed prior to filing of injunction suit and during subsistence of matrimonial dispute – Sale deed executed after compromise in specific performance suit – Evidence showed negotiations conducted openly in presence of both spouses – Held: No material to establish sham or collusive transaction – Purchaser a bona fide purchaser for consideration [Paras 20–20.6].

Shared Household – Effect of Death of Husband – Husband died during pendency of proceedings – Domestic relationship came to an end though wife continued to be an “aggrieved person” – Remedy, if any, lay against legal heirs of husband and not against bona fide purchaser – Section 17 DV Act cannot be stretched to prohibit eviction in due course of law [Paras 21.6–21.8].

Section 26 DV Act – Reliefs in Other Proceedings – Though reliefs under DV Act can be sought in civil proceedings – Same cannot defeat rights of third parties who are not respondents under the Act – Section 26 does not override property rights of bona fide purchaser [Paras 21.7–21.8].

Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Permissive Possession – Wife in occupation of property only by virtue of matrimonial relationship – No independent right, title or interest – Title of purchaser clear and undisputed – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction for delivery of possession maintainable – No requirement to file suit for possession [Paras 22–22.3].

Licence – Wife Not a Licensee – Wife cannot be treated as licensee of husband – Occupation permissive but without independent right – Termination notice does not change nature of possession – Suit maintainable despite incorrect nomenclature [Paras 22.1–22.3].

Ancestral Property – Plea Rejected – No evidence to establish property as ancestral or HUF property – Property purchased from funds received by husband from sale of inherited property – Held: Self-acquired property of husband – Findings of courts below upheld [Paras 23–23.1].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Appellate court awarded mesne profits at Rs.20,000 per month despite absence of specific evidence – Considering location, size and inflationary trends – Held: Assessment reasonable and not excessive – Occupation without payment impermissible [Paras 24–24.2].

Permanent Injunction – Refusal Upheld – Wife not entitled to restrain alienation or dispossession by lawful process – No prima facie right established under DV Act or property law – Dismissal of suit for injunction upheld [Paras 25].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – All three appeals dismissed [Paras 26].