Constitutional Rights – Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Protection sought by two adult females in a live-in relationship – Invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Examination of the claim in light of established legal principles. [Para 1]

Protection of Rights – Duty of the State to protect fundamental rights – Assertion that living together in a same-sex relationship does not violate any provision of law – Recognition of the right to live as desired within the boundaries of law – Emphasis on the importance of Article 21 as a fundamental right. [Para 3]

Legal Precedent – Reference to Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2022:INSC:1154 [Para 17] (2014) 9 SCC 737 – Delving into the origin and significance of Article 21 – Recognition of its status as a precious fundamental right – Comparison to the Magna Carta and its historical evolution. [Para 4]

Protection Order – Appropriate protection ordered for the petitioners – Direction to concerned authorities to provide two female police officials for protection for two weeks – Provision for extension of protection based on ongoing threat analysis or request from the petitioners – No adjudication on merits or blanket bail granted. [Para 5-6]

Duration of Order – Clarification that the protection order will eclipse after thirty days – Temporary nature of the order and provision for fresh approach in case of new threat perception – No certified copy required. [Para 7-8]

Conclusion – Petition allowed to the extent mentioned – Pending applications disposed – Detailed examination of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and the corresponding duty of the State to protect these rights within the boundaries of the law. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal - Section 307 read with 34 of IPC – Conviction challenged based on discrepancies in the evidence – Appellants convicted for assaulting victim’s mother – Informant’s presence doubted as he arrived after hearing noise – Inconsistencies in the story of prosecution witnesses – Victim not examined – Prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt given to the accused – Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. [Para 31]

Witness Reliability – Importance of reliable witnesses in criminal trials – Testimony of single reliable witness can lead to conviction – Witness statements should have a ring of truth, be cogent, credible, and trustworthy – Presence of discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements raises doubt. [Para 27]

Evidential Standard – Criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Quality, weight, and value of evidence more important than quantity of witnesses – Trustworthy evidence crucial for conviction. [Para 28, 29]

Presence of Witness – Witness’s presence at the scene crucial for credibility – Witness testimony supported by being present at the scene of the crime – Injured witnesses generally considered reliable as they have no reason to falsely implicate others. [Para 22]

Benefit of Doubt – In criminal cases, doubt benefits the accused – Onus on prosecution to prove each allegation beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction cannot be based on mere preponderance of probabilities. [Para 29, 30]

Acquittal – Inconsistent evidence, doubts about witness presence, and lack of corroboration weaken prosecution’s case – Convictions set aside based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt goes to the accused. [Para 31]

Family Court Appeal – Custody Dispute – Appellant-husband’s challenge to the impugned order refusing his application for temporary custody of minor child – Analysis of facts and circumstances – Interpretation of mediated settlement – Importance of maintaining parent-child bond – Child’s best interest considered – Appeal disposed of with directions for video conferencing interactions between appellant-father and minor child every Saturday and Sunday. [Para 1]

Background and Parties – Marriage dissolution between appellant-husband and respondent-wife – Failed marriage leading to separate residences – Custody dispute over minor child – Series of interactions and e-mail exchanges between the parties – Appeal filed by appellant against the Family Court’s order declining his request for temporary custody. [Para 24]

Settlement Agreement – Mediated settlement dated 27.07.2019 – Payment of maintenance and visitation plan – Appellant-husband’s efforts to meet minor child – Non-compliance of settlement terms – Custody petition pending adjudication – Appellant’s continuous efforts to interact with the child. [Para 26]

Interim Orders – Family Court’s interim orders granting video/phone interaction – Non-compliance by respondent-wife – Order modified allowing physical meeting for limited period – Appeal against impugned order – Appellant’s contentions on respondent’s reluctance to comply. [Para 32]

Supreme Court Precedents – Reference to precedents emphasizing a child’s right to affection of both parents – Need for a balance between permanent custody and access to both parents – The significance of child’s welfare and balanced growth – Relevant case laws cited by both parties. [Para 34]

Judicial Analysis – Court’s analysis of the situation – Child’s age and circumstances – Failure of interactions and compliance with court orders – Importance of maintaining parent-child bond even when spatial distance exists – Need for meaningful interactions between father and son – Balancing child’s interests and father’s affection. [Para 35-40]

Directions – Appellant granted video conferencing interactions with minor child every Saturday and Sunday – Flexible timing for interactions – Directions for expeditious disposal of pending application – Emphasis on child’s best interest and meaningful interactions between father and son. [Para 40-41]

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions to ensure regular video conferencing interactions between appellant-father and minor child – Emphasis on the importance of maintaining parent-child bond and considering child’s welfare. [Para 41]

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 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]