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]

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing in murder case – Convicts held guilty for various charges including murder, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence – Aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered – Court emphasizes reformation and integration of convicts into society – No “rarest of rare” circumstances found – Convicts sentenced to imprisonment for life with concurrent sentences for different charges – Fine imposed on convicts to be disbursed to legal heirs of victims – Court cites legal precedents and principles for imposing sentences – Appeals disposed of accordingly.

Sentencing Principles – Court refers to Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1984) to emphasize the norm of life imprisonment with death penalty being an exception – Consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, circumstances, and principles while determining sentence – Convicts’ arguments based on circumstantial evidence refuted – Convicts’ conduct, age, family situations, and past convictions taken into account.

Reformation and Integration – Court highlights importance of reformation and integration of convicts into society – Death penalty to be avoided when a chance of reformation exists – Lengthy trial process and pandemic-related delays considered as mitigating circumstances – Court balances retribution with rehabilitation.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances – Court examines aggravating circumstances including multiple murders, previous criminal record, and fear instilled in victims’ families – Mitigating circumstances include age of convicts, dependent family members, and long incarceration – Court concludes that the case does not meet the “rarest of rare” criteria.

Sentence – Convicts sentenced to imprisonment for life – Specific sentences for different charges imposed concurrently – Convicts Jai Parkash and Parmod, already undergoing life imprisonment for murder of another complainant, sentenced to imprisonment for life for rest of their lives – Fine imposed to be disbursed to legal heirs of victims – Appeals concluded.

Civil Suit – Jurisdiction – Territorial jurisdiction of the court – Whether the Court at Patiala had territorial jurisdiction in a suit involving immovable property situated in Gurugram, Haryana – Provisions of Section 16 and Section 20 of the CPC considered – The suit property was situated in Gurugram, Haryana, and as per Section 16 CPC, suits in relation to immovable property are required to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose area the property is situated – The Courts of Gurugram had exclusive jurisdiction over the property – Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement or contract when the Court lacks jurisdiction as per the provisions of the CPC – Relevant case law, including the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd, discussed – Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate have no power to decide the rights or interests in respect of such property – Impugned order held to be erroneous, and the issue of jurisdiction decided in favor of the petitioner. [Para 23A-23K]

Civil Procedure Code – Rejection of plaint – Maintainability of the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction – Objection raised that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deals with specific grounds for rejection of plaint and lack of jurisdiction is not one of them – Court found that the application also raised other grounds like insufficient court fees and forged document, which fall within the domain of Order 7 Rule 11 – Comprehensive application maintainable – Proper valuation of the suit also discussed – Application allowed on multiple grounds. [Para 24A-24C]

Civil Suit – Rejection of plaint – Multiple grounds for rejection of plaint including lack of jurisdiction, inadequate court fees, and forged document – Court found that the learned Trial Court did not address other material issues raised by the petitioner – Plaintiff’s valuation of the suit compared to the agreement’s sale consideration highlighted – Suit filed after a long gap of over 12 years from the alleged agreement – Impugned order set aside – Revision petition allowed – Plaintiff advised to file a civil suit before the competent jurisdiction. [Para 25-32]

Passport Renewal – The petitioner seeks the renewal of his passport – Passport renewal denied due to pending criminal cases against the petitioner – Reliance placed on Gazette Notification No.G.S.R No.298(E) dated 14.04.1976 – Reference to prior judgments regarding passport renewal in similar cases – Interpretation of the applicability of the Gazette Notification – Distinction between intending to depart from India and seeking passport renewal – Court concludes that the Gazette Notification pertains to those intending to depart from India, not to passport renewal – Legal impediment in applying the Gazette Notification to passport renewal not found – Writ petition allowed, directing respondents to renew petitioner's passport within three months – Clarification that passport renewal does not grant automatic permission to travel abroad – Permission from concerned courts required for travel abroad in cases with pending criminal proceedings. (Para 9 to 11)

Criminal Appeal – Appellant/Husband’s appeal against denial of divorce – Grounds of desertion, unsoundness of mind, and mental disorders – Examination of the appellant’s claims in light of legal provisions and precedent – Disputed issues pertaining to marriage dissolution.

Desertion as Ground for Divorce – Analyzing Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Marriage dissolution upon desertion for a continuous period – Distinction between desertion and temporary separation – Essential conditions for desertion – Factors such as separation, intent, and consent – Precedents emphasizing inference drawn from factual circumstances. [Para 49 to 57]

Unsoundness of Mind and Mental Disorders as Grounds for Divorce – Interpretation of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act – Requirement for spouse seeking relief to reasonably not live with the other – Determining degree of mental disorder – Legal perspectives on mental disorders – Not all mental abnormalities considered as grounds for divorce – Need for incurable unsoundness of mind and inability to cohabit. [Para 58 to 65]

Marriage as a Sacred Institution – Recognizing the significance of marriage in Indian society – Honoring the sanctity and permanence of the marriage bond – Legal reflection on the responsibilities and challenges inherent in marital relationships – Importance of mutual support and endurance.

Burden of Proof and Evidence – Assessing burden of proof in divorce cases – Evaluation of evidence supporting desertion, unsoundness of mind, and mental disorder claims – Consideration of continuous cohabitation, child upbringing, and medical evidence – Relevance of medical prescriptions and treatment records.

Decision and Costs – Appellant/Husband’s appeal dismissed – Upholding Family Court’s decision to deny divorce – Each party to bear their respective costs – Judicial endorsement of the Family Court’s judgment based on the presented evidence and legal arguments. [Para 66]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act – Lack of evidence to establish abetment or criminal conspiracy – Discrepancies in link evidence – Non-compliance with Section 42 – Production of seized contraband before Magistrate – Presumption of possession under Section 54 – Mere non-production of specimen seal – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside. [Para 42]

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act – Agreement between accused – Doing of an illegal act or lawful act by unlawful means – No evidence of criminal conspiracy – Appellant's presence not sufficient to infer conspiracy – Reference to case law and precedent. [Para 46-53]

Link Evidence – Discrepancies in link evidence – Minor contradictions in testimonies – Normal errors of observations – Test of credibility – Marginal variations do not render evidence brittle – Necessity to separate grain from shaft – Discrepancies not affecting core of prosecution case – No material improvement or contradiction undermining witness credibility. [Para 70-71]

Seizure and Production – Compliance with Section 52A of the ND&PS Act – Sampling and drawing of samples – Judicial Magistrate's role – Description of proceedings – Discrepancies in inventory preparation – Role of court seal and re-seal impression – Non-production of specimen seal – Precedent on non-production of seal in evidence. [Para 72-78]

Conclusion – Conviction under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act not sustained – Lack of evidence for abetment or criminal conspiracy – Discrepancies not undermining core of prosecution case – Non-compliance with Section 42 not fatal – Appeal allowed – Immediate release of appellant ordered – Personal bond and surety required as per Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Para 79-80]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 342/363/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act - Victim, a minor, allegedly sexually assaulted by the appellant - Appeal seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence - Various submissions made by the parties - Examination of victim's testimony, medical evidence, and corroborating statements - Analysis of inconsistencies in victim's statements - Consideration of age of victim - Appellant's contention of absence of injuries - Statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act - Conviction upheld.

Personal Liberty - Court's duty to appreciate evidence and not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies - Emphasis on the credibility and reliability of victim's testimony - Age of the victim as a factor in evaluating statements - Relevance of corroborating evidence in sexual assault cases.

Sexual Offences - Importance of medical evidence and injuries in sexual assault cases - Acknowledgment that injuries may not be present in every case - Recognition of penetration as a crucial element, regardless of the presence of injuries - Reference to statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

Conviction under Sections 342/363/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act upheld - Victim's testimony found credible and trustworthy - Minor contradictions and absence of injuries do not discredit the prosecution's case - Appellant's appeal dismissed.

Writ Petition - Challenge to Rejection of Representation for Reopening of IMFL "ON" Shop - Petitioner sought quashing of orders rejecting representation and a direction to grant permit for reopening - Shop had been closed due to Supreme Court's ban on liquor sale along highways.

Apex Court's Relaxations - Subsequent orders by Supreme Court provided relaxations based on proximity and development of the area in question - Government issued guidelines limiting distance for liquor outlets along highways to 3 KMs from municipal areas, subject to sufficient urban development.

Government's Policy - Discretion of the Government in policy formulation and decision-making not routinely subject to judicial review - Courts evaluate legality, not the wisdom of policy decisions.

Scope of Judicial Review - Judicial review concerned with decision-making processes, not the correctness of policy - Courts must avoid usurping government decision-making power.

Government's Decision Upheld - Petitioner's claim conflicted with government's policy decisions aligned with apex Court's directions - Court upheld government's rejection of petitioner's representation.

Writ Petition Dismissed - Petition seeking quashing of government's decision and reopening of petitioner's shop dismissed - No order as to costs.