CRIMINAL LAW – Bail Application – Allegation of rape, penetrative sexual assault, and conspiracy – Applicant seeking bail under – Victim aged about 16-17 years – Allegation of consensual relationship with the applicant – Previous judgments emphasizing the judicious application of the POCSO Act in cases involving adolescents and teenagers in romantic relationships – Bio-social approach to understanding adolescent psychology and relationships – Bail granted to the applicant, considering uncertainty in trial conclusion, one-sided investigation, and fundamental right to speedy trial – Conditions imposed to ensure non-tampering of evidence and attendance at court hearings – Trial to be expedited – Bail allowed. (Para No. 7, 8, 9, 10)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), Section 439 – Regular Bail – Murder and Related Offences – Conspiracy – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused allegedly involved in the murder of the deceased due to a previous quarrel – Missing person’s motorcycle found near a railway track – Alleged railway accident leading to the death of the deceased – Deceased’s mobile phone sold by one of the accused – Petitioner Sarabjit Singh @ Saba last seen with the deceased – Failure to inform the family about the alleged railway accident – Petitioner Karanveer Singh accused of conspiracy based on co-accused’s disclosure statement – Innocence found during inquiry – Grant of Bail – Petitioner Sarabjit Singh @ Saba denied regular bail due to strong circumstantial evidence against him – Petitioner Karanveer Singh granted bail due to lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime – Bail allowed for petitioner Karanveer Singh.

Marriage – Dissolution of marriage – Appeal against the judgment of the Family Court – Petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty – Allegations of improper behavior, refusal to cohabit, and making unreasonable demands – Examination of evidence – Failure to prove specific allegations of cruelty – No ground for dissolution of marriage. (Para 10)

Desertion – Not made out – Petition for divorce filed within two years of marriage – Requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years – Absence of such continuous desertion. (Para 8)

Inability to bear children – Not a ground for dissolving the marriage – Parties may consider alternative means such as adoption for having children. Marital duty – Duty to co-operate and support a spouse in times of illness or difficulties – Developing a disease during marriage not within the control of any spouse. Motive for divorce – Seeking divorce with the intent to remarry and have children with another person – Motive not recognized as a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.  (Para 11)

Bail - Constitutional Law – Personal Liberty – Arrest – Necessity for justification – Arrest and detention in police lock-up causing harm to reputation and self-esteem – Arrest cannot be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of offense – Justification required for arrest apart from the power to arrest – Arrest to be avoided if reasonable satisfaction as to the genuineness and bona fides of complaint and person’s complicity reached after investigation – Personal liberty being an important aspect of constitutional mandate. (Para 26.1)

Criminal Procedure – Remand – Application of mind by the court – Fundamentally a judicial function – Obligation on the Magistrate to satisfy himself of reasonable grounds for remand – Purpose of remand under Section 167 of CrPC – Investigating agency to send case diary with remand report for Magistrate’s appreciation – Remand not to be ordered automatically or in a mechanical manner. (Para 26.2)

Interpretation of Statutes – Distinction between arrest and remand – Accused already under incarceration – No need for further arrest – Custody not limited to police or judicial custody but presentation before the court – Pari materia provision having same effect as Section 167(2) CrPC – Accused entitled to default bail under appropriate satisfaction – Incarceration meaning confinement in jail or preventing someone from leaving a closed place. (Para 26.3)

Companies Act – Twin-conditions for bail under Section 212(6) – Accused not arrested before stage of cognizance – Summons issued instead of arrest warrants – Investigating officer not seeking police custody or judicial custody – Failure to record satisfaction that accused is guilty of offenses charged – Misdirection by court in applying twin-conditions – Flawed premise for remanding accused to judicial custody. (Para 27.7)

Bail – Seriousness of allegations not sole test for denial of bail – Gravity of allegations determining length of sentence upon conviction – Accused’s right to expeditious trial not to be undermined – Pre-trial detention to be limited – Justifiable reasons required for remand and articulation based on material against accused. (Para 27.9)

Conditions for bail – Personal bond, sureties, and compliance with court orders – Active cell-phone contact, surrender of passport, non-contact with witnesses, and evidence tampering prohibition – Restriction from contact or transaction with officials/employees concerned with the case – Issuance of Look-out Circular to prevent accused from leaving the country. (Para 28)

Economic Offenses – Severity of allegations not justification for pre-trial incarceration – Punishment to follow conviction – Importance of ensuring due process and safeguarding personal liberty. (Para 30)

Jurisdiction – Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Termination of LPG Distributorship – Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Indian Oil Corporation Limited terminated the petitioner’s LPG Distributorship – Court to examine whether the termination was lawful and justified. (Para 1)

Background – Petitioner applied for LPG Distributorship and was declared successful candidate – Letter of Intent (LOI) issued on 07.11.2016 – Agreement executed between the petitioner and the corporation on 16.03.2017 – Complaint lodged against petitioner alleging an “agreement to sell” with her mother-in-law, leading to termination proceedings. (Para 2)

Allegations – Corporation alleged gainful employment of petitioner elsewhere, unauthorized foreign visits, and execution of General Power of Attorney (GPA) and agreement to sell in favor of family members – Petitioner denies the allegations and claims evidence of non-remunerative motivational lectures and pending civil suit regarding alleged forged documents. (Para 3)

Impugned Order – Corporation issued a show cause notice to the petitioner listing various allegations – Impugned order dated 30.06.2022 terminated the petitioner’s distributorship – Petitioner challenged the order before the High Court. (Para 4)

Arguments – Petitioner’s counsel contends that impugned order failed to address specific allegations and lacked proper examination of evidence – Corporation’s counsel argues that the order was passed after a fair opportunity of hearing and termination was justified within the contract’s terms. (Para 5)

Decision – High Court directs the corporation to pass a fresh order within two months, considering all documents on record and granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing – Corporation to address all issues raised in the show cause notice and the petitioner’s reply. (Para 6,7)

Interim injunction - Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC - Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendant's use of similar trademark - Plaintiff claiming prior adoption, registration, and extensive use of the mark - Defendant claiming honest and concurrent use - Analysis of passing off and infringement claims - Examination of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act - Plaintiff's contradictory stand on similarity of marks - Consideration of the Division Bench's judgment in a related case - Court's prima facie view on maintainability of infringement action - Need for trial to determine prior user of the mark. (Para 1)

Passing off - Essential elements - Misrepresentation, made by a trader in the course of trade, calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader, causing actual damage - Examination of the defendant's bona fide use of its own name - Application of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act - Court's prima facie view on defendant's entitlement to the defense under Section 35. (Para 2)

Division Bench's judgment in a related case - Findings on the generic nature of the word 'VASUNDHRA', existence of several registered trademarks with similar marks, requirement of establishing exclusive identification of the mark with the plaintiff's business, and plaintiff's contradictory stand on similarity of marks - Supreme Court's clarification on the limited scope of the Division Bench's judgment. (Para 3)

Plaintiff's invoices and genuineness - Reasonable doubt raised by defendant regarding the authenticity of plaintiff's invoices - Material to be examined during trial. (Para 4)

Volume of sales and reputation - Plaintiff's high turnover not determinative of reputation in the relevant market sector - Division Bench's findings on reputation associated with the plaintiff's trademarks. (Para 5)

Approbate and reprobate - Plaintiff's contradictory stand in its reply to the Examination Report - Bar on obtaining equitable relief after making contrary assertions before the Trade Marks Registry. (Para 6)

Conclusion - Prima facie view on the maintainability of the infringement action, need for trial to determine prior user, and defendant's entitlement to the defense under Section 35 - Interim injunction not granted. (Para 7)

Contempt of Court – Allegation of willful disobedience of an order granting anticipatory bail – Addition of further offenses during investigation – Arrest of the petitioner – Violation of a previous judgment – Petitioner’s bail applications subsequently dismissed – Respondents contending proper procedure was followed – Petitioner’s counsel arguing arrest in violation of a previous judgment – Court examining the sequence of events – Petitioner initially filing bail applications later withdrawn or rendered infructuous – Court finding no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents – Court opining arrest made for completing the investigation – Court concluding no intentional or willful disobedience – Petition dismissed.

Promotion of government servant – Clearance regarding pending disciplinary proceedings required before confirmation – Failure to provide complete particulars of pending criminal case – “Sealed cover procedure” not followed – Fault of the respondents – Review DPC constituted to rectify the mistake – Petitioner entitled to ad-hoc promotion. [Para 32-50]

Rule 17.2 of the Guidelines mandates clearance regarding pending disciplinary proceedings before confirming promotion of a government servant – Incomplete information provided to DPC regarding petitioner’s pending criminal case. [Para 32]

“Sealed cover procedure” as provided in Rule 13.2 of the CCS Rules, 1965, should have been followed, but not possible due to incomplete information provided to the DPC. [Para 34]

Rule 17.8.1 of the DPC Guidelines and Office Memorandum dated September 14, 1992 provide a procedure for granting ad-hoc promotion to government servants with pending criminal charges – Factors to consider: gravity of charges, public interest, likelihood of case conclusion, absence of delay attributable to the government servant, likelihood of misuse of official position. [Para 35]

Previous judgments emphasize that employees should not suffer for administrative lapses – Notional promotion granted due to administrative exigencies and delay not attributable to the petitioner. [Para 38-39]

Petitioner should have been given the opportunity for ad-hoc promotion or the sealed cover procedure – Review DPC rightly constituted to rectify the mistake – Court cannot determine petitioner’s suitability for ad-hoc promotion. [Para 46-48]

Respondents directed to constitute Review DPC within 30 days to consider ad-hoc promotion of petitioner – Entire procedure to be completed within one month – Petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of assuming the position of Inspector, General Duty. [Para 49-50]

Bail application – Money laundering case – Involvement in fraudulent activities of a company – Application seeking bail in a case related to money laundering and fraudulent increase of inventory in a company – Applicant alleged to have aided in the diversion of loan funds and fraudulent activities – Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Applicant in custody since a specified date – Application for bail filed – Contentions of the parties considered. [Para 1-2]

Allegations against the applicant – Role in the company – Alleged involvement in money laundering – Applicant’s role in the company and alleged fraudulent activities – SBFL involved in manufacturing and selling food items – Applicant an employee of the company – Allegations of aiding fraudulent increase of inventory and diversion of loan funds – Applicant’s position as a shareholder and director in group entities – Alleged proceeds of crime attributed to the applicant – Arrest and subsequent investigation – Statements, emails, and documents indicating the applicant’s involvement – Arguments and submissions of the parties. [Para 3-20]

Examination of evidence – Inference of guilt – Analysis of evidence and arguments – Court’s assessment of the evidence presented – Statements, emails, and documents indicating the applicant’s involvement in fraudulent activities and money laundering – Applicant’s role in procuring fake invoices, verifying letter of credit documents, and coordinating with entry operators – Emails and documents marked to the applicant indicating his active participation – Statements of employees and other evidence supporting the respondent’s arguments – Court’s evaluation of the evidence and assessment of the applicant’s involvement. [Para 21-41]

Reasonable grounds for belief – Standard for granting bail – Interpretation of “reasonable grounds” – Court’s interpretation of the requirement for granting bail – “Reasonable grounds” meaning something more than prima facie evidence – Reference to previous judgments clarifying the interpretation of the standard – Importance of section 50 statements recorded under the PMLA as evidence. [Para 42-44]

Court’s decision – Dismissal of bail application – Conclusion of the court’s evaluation – Court’s finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offense of money laundering – Dismissal of the bail application – Clarification that the judgment does not express an opinion on the merits of the case, but is made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application. [Para 45-51]