Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Attempt to Murder – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Complainant and wife allegedly assaulted by accused using knife and iron pipes – Injuries confirmed by medical officer but contradictions in witness accounts regarding time, identity, mode of assault, and absence of key eyewitness (son) examined – Prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused properly in FIR – Evidence of independent eyewitness Kantibhai found unreliable due to prior connection with complainant – Doctor’s evidence contradicted claim of indoor treatment and severity of injuries – Investigating Officer admitted no seizure of clothes or FSL report of weapons – No proof of caste identity or use of caste-based slurs – Held: Serious inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative gaps justify trial court's acquittal – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court in Acquittal Appeals – Principles Restated – Appellate Court can reappreciate evidence but must exercise caution and respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be reversed only when judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence or leads to manifest miscarriage of justice – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable one based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 7–8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.11.1999 in Atrocity Case No. 89 of 1996 confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court

Civil Law - Partition – Joint Family Property – Claim by Daughters – Dismissal of Suit – Plaintiffs (daughters) sought 1/7th share in ancestral and purchased properties claiming fraudulent alienation by brother (Defendant No.1) – Courts below found that partition of ancestral property had occurred in 1966 via registered deed – Plaintiffs failed to challenge partition or subsequent settlement/consolidation records despite knowledge – Held: No co-parcenary or joint ownership subsisted – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 5–10, 17–18].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 6 – Reopening of Partition – Not Permissible – Partition occurred prior to 20.12.2004 – Plaintiffs relied on amended Section 6 to seek reopening – Held: Explanation to Section 6 bars reopening of partitions effected before 2005 amendment – Appeal court correctly held that plaintiffs’ claim not maintainable on this ground [Paras 10, 22].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Article 59 – Plaintiffs alleged cause of action arose in 2013 when brother threatened to sell property – However, settlement and consolidation records were finalized in 1977 and 1982 and never challenged – No specific plea or proof of date of knowledge of RORs – Held: Vague assertion of threat in 2013 insufficient – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 59 and 110 of Limitation Act [Paras 18, 22].

Civil Procedure – Non-joinder of Parties – Legal Heirs of Other Branch Not Necessary – Defendants argued that non-joinder of successors of common ancestor’s second son rendered suit defective – Held: Plaintiffs confined claim to properties allotted to their own father’s branch – No relief sought against other branch – Non-joinder not fatal [Para 17].

Civil Courts’ Jurisdiction – Bar under Consolidation and OEA Laws – Validity of Settlement and OEA Proceedings – Plaintiffs sought to invalidate RORs and settlements finalized decades earlier – Held: Section 59 of OCH & PFL Act and bar under OEA Act applicable – None of the exceptions laid down in Gulzar Khan v. Commissioner of Consolidation, 1993 (II) OLR 194, attracted – Civil court has no jurisdiction to re-open finalized consolidation or OEA decisions [Paras 18, 21, 22].

Sale Deed – Challenge to Alienation by Co-sharer – Defendant No.1 sold Schedule-B land to Defendant No.3 in 2012 – Plaintiffs sought cancellation alleging lack of consent – Held: Defendant No.1 had exclusive title as per RORs and earlier partition – Sale valid – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 19–20, 22].

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Restoration of Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed on 25.11.2019 for non-removal of defects despite peremptory order dated 14.10.2019 – Petitioners filed application to condone delay of 2096 days in seeking restoration – Plea that mother was conducting litigation and failed to inform sons held implausible – Petitioner No.1 had earlier deposed as DW-1 stating he managed the case – Held: No sufficient cause shown for condoning long delay – Delay not condoned – Application dismissed [Paras 2–8]

Restoration – Dismissal for Default – Non-removal of Defects – Counsel for appellants was present and heard at time of dismissal – Case not dismissed for non-appearance but for failure to comply with Court’s directions – Plea that counsel’s name was missing from cause list rejected – Court found no justifiable explanation for non-compliance [Paras 5–6]

Litigation Conduct – Implausibility of Explanation – Petitioners’ claim that their elderly mother managed litigation without informing adult sons found baseless – Particularly in light of petitioner’s own prior admission under oath of conducting case himself – Held: Such justification cannot support condonation under law [Para 7]

Decision: Delay of 2096 days not condoned – Application for restoration dismissed – CMAPL also dismissed as consequence.

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Proof and Appreciation of Evidence – Husband sought divorce alleging abnormal and violent behaviour of wife due to alleged psychiatric illness suppressed prior to marriage – Allegations of schizophrenia and violent conduct during honeymoon and matrimonial life – Held: Husband failed to prove that wife was suffering from psychiatric illness prior to marriage – No independent witnesses or documentary evidence adduced – Medical evidence only showed treatment for sleeplessness, restlessness and low mood during pregnancy – Family Court erred in presuming pre-marital mental illness – However, sustained matrimonial discord and conduct amounted to mental cruelty [Paras 11–15, 23–30].

Matrimonial Disputes – False or Failed Criminal Proceedings – Impact on Cruelty – Wife lodged complaints under Section 498-A IPC, DV Act and maintenance proceedings – Husband arrested, remanded, bail rejected and Look Out Circular issued – Criminal case ended in acquittal and no appeal preferred – Held: Repeated criminal litigation and its consequences constituted mental cruelty to husband – Relevant factor while granting divorce [Paras 16, 22, 25–27].

Evidence – Failure to Corroborate Serious Allegations – Allegations of physical violence, threats of suicide and assault on elderly relative not supported by testimony of parents, neighbours or independent witnesses – Mediator also not examined – Court held that uncorroborated serious allegations cannot be accepted mechanically [Paras 13–14, 18–21].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Relevance – Though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce – Court entitled to consider prolonged separation, failed mediation and absence of possibility of reunion as relevant circumstances – Parties living separately since 2012 – Mediation failed – No scope of reconciliation [Paras 32–35].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Enhancement by Appellate Court – Family Court awarded ₹10,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor daughter – Appellate Court found amount inadequate considering child’s age, education, future marriage and financial capacity of father – Respondent had already paid ₹17,00,000/- earlier – Held: Ends of justice require enhancement – Directed payment of ₹80,00,000/- as full and final settlement towards maintenance and alimony for child by deposit in FDR – Wife not entitled to permanent alimony as she is gainfully employed [Paras 36–37].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Decree of divorce confirmed – Maintenance for minor child enhanced to ₹80,00,000/- payable within three months – Failure to comply to entitle appellant and child to take legal steps – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Easement of Necessity – Access Road – Plaintiffs sought declaration of easement of necessity and permanent injunction for a 10-feet wide road across defendant’s land (marked PQRS) – Trial Court found existence of necessity but held 10 feet width excessive – Decreed 3 feet wide pathway and granted injunction – First Appellate Court upheld the decree – High Court held that plaintiffs, being agriculturists, required access wide enough for bullock cart and transport of produce – Held: Easement of necessity granted with 6 feet width instead of 3 feet – Judgment and decree of lower courts modified accordingly [Paras 1–12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court modified to grant plaintiffs easementary right over a 6 feet wide pathway – Rest of the decree remains undisturbed.

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal – Appellant Raj Bala convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for allegedly firing at injured Kailash during a group assault where another accused had fired fatal shot – Trial court relied on ocular evidence but injury report (Exh. Ka-20) showed no firearm injury – Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution’s version – Held: Common intention not proved – No evidence of premeditation, meeting of minds or active participation by appellant – Conviction under Section 34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–20, 25–30]

Evidence Law – Contradiction between Medical and Ocular Evidence – Medical report by PW-7 showed injuries were simple, caused by hard and blunt object – No X-ray report submitted for injury kept under observation – Doctor not certain about firearm involvement – Court held this contradiction casts serious doubt on prosecution’s case and undermines charge of firing by appellant [Paras 19–21, 26]

Presumption of Guilt – Mere Presence at Scene – Trial court erred in holding appellant guilty solely on her presence at the crime scene and alleged relationship with co-accused – Supreme Court precedents cited (Surendra Singh, Chandra Pratap Singh) reiterate that presence alone, without proven common intention, is not enough to invoke Section 34 IPC [Paras 15, 24, 27–30]

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Court found prosecution failed to establish key ingredients for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC – Absence of overt act, lack of evidence of firearm use by appellant, and doubt regarding motive led to acquittal – Court set aside conviction and sentence, extended benefit of doubt to appellant [Paras 33–38]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Raj Bala under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 36–39]