Specific Performance – Temporary Injunction – Power of Attorney – Fraud and Collusion – Reasoned Order – Appellant-owners executed a registered power of attorney and agreement for sale in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 – Both were subsequently cancelled by mutual consent – During the subsistence of the power of attorney, respondent nos. 2 and 3 allegedly executed a sub-agreement for sale of the subject property in favour of respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) without disclosing the same to the appellants – Appellants received no part of the consideration and lodged a police complaint alleging fraud – Trial Court granted temporary injunction in the suit for specific performance without adverting to the serious allegations of fraud and collusion raised in the written objection – Held: An order of temporary injunction which pays lip-service to the three cardinal tests without specifically addressing grave allegations made by the defendants cannot be sustained – Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing [Paras 10–15].

Injunction – Three Cardinal Tests – Duty to Give Reasons – A court granting temporary injunction must specifically advert to the allegations and contentions of both parties, including those raised in the written objection, and must give clear reasons for its conclusion on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury – Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable regardless of the merits of the respective contentions [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 12.12.2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 528 of 2023 set aside – Temporary injunction application remanded for fresh hearing and disposal by a reasoned order preferably by 30.06.2026 – Pending disposal, appellants restrained from selling, transferring or alienating the suit property to third parties – Merits of contentions of parties left open – No order as to costs.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Rigour Applicable – Recovery of 2.700 kg methamphetamine (Ice) from vehicle – A3 arrested on 22.06.2024 and A4 arrested on 09.11.2024 – Both petitioners sought bail on multiple grounds including non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, absence of CCTV footage during recovery, remand beyond 24 hours, and parity with co-accused – No materials placed to overcome the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Held: Bail petitions dismissed [Paras 8, 16, 17].

Grounds of Arrest – Prospective Application – Arrest Memo vs. Grounds of Arrest – Mihir Rajesh Shah – The Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500 (decided 06.11.2025) held that the right to seek bail on account of inadequacy of grounds of arrest would apply only prospectively from 06.11.2025 – Both arrests in the present case were prior to that date – Held: Petitioners cannot raise the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, even though arrest memos and grounds of arrest stand on a different footing as held by the Supreme Court [Paras 9, 10, 11, 15].

Parity with Co-Accused – Not Available – The co-accused Abdul Gaffar was granted bail in Crl.O.P.No.7908 of 2025 on the ground of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest; however, the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case mandating prospective application from 06.11.2025 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge therein – Petitioners cannot seek parity on the basis of an order that did not consider the binding prospective restriction – Moreover, the role of the present petitioners is distinct from that of Abdul Gaffar [Paras 6, 14, 15].

NDPS – Recovery – Absence of CCTV/Videography – Not Fatal in Absence of Court Direction – Petitioners contended that absence of CCTV recordings during the recovery proceeding entitled them to bail, relying on Ragul Rahaman v. NCB (SLP (Crl.) No.11712 of 2025) – Held: The said ruling arose from a case where the Calcutta High Court had issued a specific direction for videography, which was not done in the present case; the ruling is not applicable – This contention was in any event raised in earlier bail applications and rejected [Para 12].

Detention Beyond 24 Hours – Allegation Not Substantiated – Petitioners were intercepted on 20.06.2024 but A3 was formally arrested on 22.06.2024 after voluntary statements were recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – No material on record showed that the petitioners were detained prior to formal arrest – Both petitioners were remanded to judicial custody within 24 hours of their respective dates of arrest – Held: No illegality found in the remand [Paras 13, 15].

Distinction – Detention Orders vs. Bail Jurisprudence – Judgments in Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 612 and Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117, cited by the petitioners, arose in the context of preventive detention orders and are not applicable to bail matters – Distinguished [Para 11].

Decision: Both Criminal Original Petitions dismissed – No grounds made out to overcome the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Market Value – Government Policy as Basis in Absence of Sale Transactions – Doctrine of De-escalation – Land situated in Village Buwana, District Jind was acquired under Section 4 Notification dated 26.03.2000 and Section 6 Notification dated 16.08.2000 for construction of Buwana Sub-Minor – LAC assessed market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Nehri and Gair Mumkin land and Rs.85,000/- per acre for Barani land – Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 14.01.2006 – Landowners failed to produce any sale transaction to substantiate their claim for enhancement – Held: In absence of specific sale evidence, recourse may be taken to Government Policy, as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a beneficial legislation aimed at securing just and fair compensation – Government of Haryana vide policy dated 28.04.2005 fixed minimum market price at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for all cases where Collector's award was announced on or after 05.03.2005 – Applying the doctrine of de-escalation at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the period between the Section 4 Notification date (26.03.2000) and the Government Policy date (28.04.2005), the market value works out to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre — coinciding exactly with the Reference Court's award — no interference warranted [Paras 7–9].

De-escalation Principle – Rate of 7.5% Per Annum for Rural Areas – In absence of specific evidence relating to actual change in prices, increase or decrease in market value may be taken at about 5% to 8% per annum for rural areas — as settled by the Supreme Court — applied to work backwards from the 2005 policy rate to the Section 4 Notification date, yielding the same figure as determined by the Reference Court [Para 8].

Decision: All appeals — both by the State of Haryana and by the landowners — dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed of.

Contempt of Court – Matrimonial Settlement – Willful Disobedience – Undertakings before Magistrate – Marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.1 solemnized on 19.02.2011 – FIR registered by wife under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 377 and 506 IPC – During hearing of bail application, parties arrived at settlement for Rs.1.50 Crores as full and final settlement and agreed to file for mutual divorce – Three demand drafts handed over to respondent No.2 (brother of respondent No.1) and encashed – Statements recorded before Judicial Magistrate and Area Magistrate on 30.12.2020 and 15.02.2021 respectively – Despite receipt and encashment of the entire amount, respondent No.1 backed out from the mutual divorce petition and took the stand that the total agreed amount was Rs.3 Crores – Court prima facie satisfied that respondents committed willful disobedience of court orders and undertakings – Charges were to be framed – Petitioners also sought contempt for respondents' conduct in related quashing proceedings [Paras 1–12].

Settlement – Modification and Disposal – Custody of Minor Child – On the next date, respondent No.1 filed an affidavit undertaking to remain present and give statement as per settlement in the pending quashing petitions arising out of both FIRs – Petitioners undertook to withdraw their private complaint pending before Trial Court, Gurugram – Respondent No.2 undertook to withdraw all complaints filed by him against the petitioners and not to initiate future proceedings – Original settlement envisaged custody of minor child Himaksh with the father; settlement modified to allow mother to retain custody – Father expressed concern about future of the child; mother accordingly undertook to deposit Rs.50 lakhs in fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank within 30 days for the benefit of the minor [Paras 2–7].

Child Welfare – Fixed Deposit – Terms and Conditions – Mother directed to deposit Rs.50 lakhs in fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank within 30 days and furnish copy of fixed deposit certificate with the Court – Mother not entitled to withdraw principal or interest except for higher studies of the minor child, for which she may apply to this Court – Only interest accrued on the fixed deposit to be withdrawn for that purpose – Principal amount to be released to minor child Himaksh only after he attains 21 years of age – Violation of any term of the settlement by either party to entitle the opposite party to initiate contempt proceedings [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Contempt petition disposed of on the basis of settlement and undertakings – Custody of minor child Himaksh to remain with the mother – Mother directed to deposit Rs.50 lakhs in fixed deposit within 30 days – Parties undertake not to initiate any proceedings against each other in future – Liberty reserved to approach Court for contempt in case of violation of any term.

Land Acquisition — Market Value — Determination — Comparable Sale Deeds from Proximate Acquisition — Prior acquisition of adjacent land in Villages Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar for road construction (Notification dated 20.02.2009) finally assessed by this Court at Rs.3,38,40,000/- per acre in RFA No. 7762-2013 (GMADA v. Baldev Singh) — Present acquisition (Notification dated 17.05.2013) involving same revenue estates in close geographical proximity — Held: Decision in Baldev Singh's case constitutes best available evidence for determining base market value; reliance rightly placed thereon [Paras 7–8].

Land Acquisition — Market Value — Appreciation for Time Gap — Rate of Appreciation — Time gap between previous acquisition (Section 4 notification dated 20.02.2009) and present acquisition (Section 4 notification dated 17.05.2013) being 4 years and 3 months — Acquired land situated on 200 ft. wide master plan HR-2 road, in close proximity to UT Chandigarh, with high locational and potential value — Held: Appreciation @ 15% per annum on base market value of Rs.3,38,40,000/- per acre warranted, resulting in enhanced value of Rs.5,54,13,000/- per acre [Para 9.1].

Land Acquisition — Deduction for Development — Variable Percentage — Acquired land situated in close vicinity of UT Chandigarh, located on HR-2 Road, with developed surroundings including private colonisers Omaxe and Altus providing basic civic amenities — Held: Development cut of 25% appropriate in the circumstances as against the normal one-third deduction; market value re-assessed at Rs.4,15,59,750/- per acre as on date of Section 4 notification dated 17.05.2013 — Landowners entitled to solatium @ 30% and all statutory benefits and interest under the 1894 Act [Paras 10–14].

Additional Evidence — Order 41 Rule 27 CPC — Photostat Copies of Sale Deeds Not Admissible — Certified copies not placed on record — Sale deeds admittedly available during recording of evidence before Reference Court — No reasonable explanation for failure to produce at trial stage — Held: Additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill gaps in evidence or make up for lack of diligence — Photostat copies countersigned by Joint Sub-Registrar not sufficient compliance with Section 51A of the 1894 Act — Public records including Minutes of Meetings, Site Plan and Master Plan (Annexures A-1 to A-3 and A-14 to A-15) admitted as additional evidence, authenticity thereof being undisputed [CMS-4006-CI-2023].

Decision: Appeals preferred by GMADA dismissed — Cross-objections filed by landowners partly allowed — Market value re-assessed at Rs.4,15,59,750/- per acre with all statutory benefits [Paras 14–15].

Writ Law - Family Pension - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 - Rule 44(5) and Rule 48 - Inclusion of divorcee daughter in definition of family - Petitioner the divorcee daughter of a deceased District Commandant challenged the order dated 16.12.2021 which rejected her claim for family pension - Departmental authority held that a divorcee daughter was not a dependent under Rule 48 - Court examined Rule 44(5) which explicitly includes unmarried daughters- widowed daughters- and married daughters within the definition of family - Court observed that there is no intelligible differentia to exclude a divorcee daughter when a married daughter is already included - Held - Excluding divorcee daughters while including other categories of daughters is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Impugned order quashed and respondents directed to reconsider the case subject to evidence of dependency - [Paras 1-9].

Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination in statutory definitions - Pensionary benefits - Definition of family under Rule 44(5) of the Rules of 1976 - Rule included various categories of daughters but omitted divorcee daughters - Court held that if divorcee daughters are not included then fundamental rights under Article 14 shall be violated as there is no difference between unmarried- married- or divorcee daughters for the purpose of being a family member - Held - Divorcee daughter is required to be treated equally with other daughters mentioned in the Rules to maintain constitutional validity - [Para 6].

Service Law - Family Pension - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 - Rule 48(5)(a) - Eligibility criteria - Requirement of dependency - Rule specifies that certain family members receive pension without evidence of dependency while others must furnish proof - Held - Once the divorcee daughter is treated as part of the family- the grant of pension remains subject to the fulfillment of conditions regarding dependency and lack of independent source of income - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned order quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's application within 90 days upon submission of fresh representation and evidence of dependency.

Criminal Procedure — Proclaimed Person — Section 82 CrPC — Mandatory Requirements — Non-Compliance — The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 14.12.2023 in an FIR involving kidnapping, extortion and cheating — The trial Court, while passing the impugned order, merely observed that the mandatory period of 30 days had expired and proceeded to declare the petitioner a proclaimed person — Neither the impugned order nor the zimni orders disclosed compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 82(2) CrPC regarding mode and manner of publication — No statement of the serving official regarding publication and affixation was recorded — No satisfaction was recorded that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately concealing himself — Held: The provisions of Section 82 CrPC are mandatory and any non-compliance therewith vitiates the entire proclamation proceedings — The order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, being passed in a mechanical manner without adherence to mandatory requirements, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 6–10].

Proclaimed Person — Essential Requirements — Section 82 CrPC — The Court summarised the essential requirements for a valid proclamation: (i) prior issuance of warrant of arrest is a sine qua non; (ii) there must be a report before the Court that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself; (iii) the Court must be prima facie satisfied independently and cannot issue proclamation merely because the police requests it; (iv) the requisite date and place of appearance must be specified, with a minimum of 30 clear days from publication; (v) all three modes of publication under Section 82(2)(i) — public reading at a conspicuous place, affixation at the accused's residence, and affixation at the courthouse — are conjunctive and must all be complied with; (vi) the statement of the serving officer regarding date and mode of publication must be recorded by the Court; (vii) the Court must make a written statement that proclamation was duly published, which alone constitutes conclusive evidence of compliance — Any non-compliance renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity [Para 8].

Quashing — Section 528 BNSS — Jurisdiction — Declaration of a person as proclaimed person has serious civil and criminal consequences affecting the accused's right to participate in criminal trial proceedings — Proclamation proceedings cannot be invoked in a casual and cavalier manner — Where the mandatory requirements under Section 82 CrPC have not been followed and no proper satisfaction has been recorded, exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS to quash such proceedings is appropriate — Held: Petition allowed; proclamation order and all consequential proceedings quashed — Petitioner directed to apply for bail, anticipatory or regular, within two weeks [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Acquittal – Failure of Prosecution to Establish Presence of Accused – Deceased Mamta was found dead in her matrimonial home on 15.08.2017 – FIR alleged throttling by husband-appellant Mahipal and other family members – Trial Court acquitted all co-accused (father-in-law, mother-in-law) but convicted the appellant alone under Section 302 IPC – Appellant was a car driver who frequently remained away from home – Prosecution failed to produce any evidence establishing the appellant's presence at the matrimonial home on the date of the incident – Held: The prosecution must first discharge its primary burden of proving the accused's presence at the place of occurrence before the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be invoked – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 24, 27–29].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Last Seen Theory – Mere co-habitation under the same roof does not raise a presumption of guilt or attract Section 106 of the Evidence Act against the husband – Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt – The prosecution must first lead evidence which, if believed, would sustain a conviction or make out a prima facie case, before the question of special knowledge under Section 106 arises – On the same set of evidence, co-accused were acquitted; conviction of the appellant alone is unsustainable [Paras 20–21, 27].

Medical Evidence – Throttling vs. Hanging – Post-mortem revealed ante-mortem injuries including traumatic swelling on head, ligature mark on neck, and abrasion on chest – Hyoid bone was intact – No thumb nail marks found on throat – Doctor opined that death could have been due to hanging, and the injuries could have been caused by the body falling when being taken down from a rope – No rope was found but absence of nail marks on throat was inconsistent with manual throttling – Defence witnesses consistently deposed that the deceased died by hanging with a chunni, the door was closed from inside, and the accused was away [Paras 10, 14–17, 26].

Witness Credibility – Contradictions – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Contradictions emerged between P.W.-1 (uncle) and P.W.-2 (father) as to the source of information about the death and as to who bore the medical expenses during the deceased's pregnancy – Elder sister Maldei alias Guddi, married in the same village, was a material witness who could have corroborated or negated allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, but was not produced by the prosecution – Her non-examination is a significant gap in the prosecution's case [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 07.04.2023 of the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 372 of 2017 set aside – Appellant honourably acquitted of all charges – Sureties and bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Bail – Rape and Extortion – Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2) and 351(2) BNS – Prima Facie Case – Accused gym trainer alleged to have administered intoxicant to prosecutrix, taken her to hotel in Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, raped her, clicked objectionable pictures, and thereafter repeatedly raped her under threat of circulating such pictures while also extorting Rs. 65,000 — Prosecutrix is a practising advocate aged about 30 years — Accused in custody since November 2025 — Photographs and videos produced by accused depicting consensual romantic relations admitted without objection; seized mobile phone of accused did not contain any objectionable pictures or videos of prosecutrix — Prima facie difficult to accept that prosecutrix, after losing consciousness at Dilshad Colony, could have travelled to a hotel in Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad — Held: No reason to further deprive liberty of accused; bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety [Paras 8–13].

Bail – Morality and Religion – Irrelevant Considerations – Prosecution argued accused, being a married man with a child, does not deserve bail and also raised a communal argument based on difference of religion between accused and prosecutrix — Held: Morality must be kept separate from the offence while dealing with liberty of an individual; argument based on difference of religion simply rejected [Para 11].

Decision: Bail application allowed — Accused directed to be released on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court — Observations not to prejudice either side at trial.