Criminal Law – Bail – Impersonation of Advocate – Fraud upon Court – Material Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Petitioner, having no licence to practice in any Court, conducted an election petition before the Orissa High Court by impersonating himself as an advocate using enrolment number D/718/2001, which the Bar Council of Delhi reported to be registered in the name of Ms. Geetanjali Sharma – FIR registered on the direction of a co-ordinate Bench – Charged under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2) and 340(2) of the BNS – In custody for five and a half months – Petitioner suppressed eight criminal antecedents in the bail application – Held: Suppression of criminal antecedents in a bail application amounts to abuse of process; petitioner not entitled to discretionary relief of bail; prima facie case established from the very direction of the co-ordinate Bench for registration of FIR; allegation of impersonation constitutes a crime against society undermining the dignity of judicial proceedings – Bail application rejected [Paras 2-9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Duty of Disclosure – Material Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Every applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion, including criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, duration of custody, and compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards – Suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of material facts amounts to abuse of the process of law – Petitioner having eight criminal antecedents failed to disclose them in the bail application and petitioner's counsel stated he had instructions only about one case – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents disentitles a petitioner from the discretionary relief of bail [Paras 6-7].

Criminal Procedure – Arrest – Power vs. Necessity – Existence of power to arrest and necessity to arrest are distinct concepts – When an accused does not cooperate with investigation or fails to join investigation, the police have adequate reason to arrest – Failure to produce valid documents despite opportunity and non-cooperation with investigation justifies arrest even in cases involving offences punishable not beyond seven years [Para 8].

Criminal Procedure – Section 35(3) BNSS – Notice – Non-issuance – Where offences alleged carry maximum punishment of seven years or less, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is required before arrest; however, plea of non-issuance of notice is negated when the record shows that a notice was in fact issued on 16.10.2025 requiring production of documents, which were not produced by the petitioner – Further, offence under Section 338 BNS carries punishment of imprisonment for life, and therefore the bar of Section 35(3) is inapplicable [Para 8].

Decision: Bail application rejected – BLAPL disposed of – Soft copy of order directed to be transmitted immediately to the Court in seisin over the matter [Para 9].

Bail — Regular Bail Before Chargesheet — Prohibition Act — Bail Jurisprudence — Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were in custody since 21.04.2026 for allegedly aiding and abetting preparation of country-made liquor — No role beyond abetment was attributed to them — No past antecedents — Substantial part of investigation complete — Nothing to be recovered or discovered — None of the offences punishable with life imprisonment or death — Held: Keeping an accused behind bars pending trial amounts to pre-trial conviction — Applying the celebrated principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and considering the right to personal liberty under Article 21, applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to regular bail on conditions — Application allowed qua applicants Nos. 2 and 3 — Dismissed as withdrawn qua applicant No. 1 with liberty to approach the trial court after chargesheet [Paras 4–9].

Bail — Considerations — The Court reiterated the well-settled factors to be considered while deciding a bail application: (i) nature of accusation and severity of punishment; (ii) apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threat to complainant; (iii) possibility of securing presence of accused at trial or likelihood of abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and (v) larger interest of the public or State [Para 6].

Decision: Application allowed qua applicants Nos. 2 and 3 — Released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety — Subject to standard conditions including non-interference with investigation, surrender of passport, territorial restriction from Ghogha Taluka for six months, and regular marking of presence — Application dismissed as withdrawn qua applicant No. 1.

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.

Rent Law – Summary Proceedings – Preliminary Issue – Maintainability Objection – Section 10, U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 – Tenant raised objections touching maintainability and sought their adjudication as a preliminary issue before final hearing — Rent Authority, noting that proceedings had been pending since February 2023 and had reached the stage of final hearing, declined to segregate the maintainability objection and directed all questions to be decided together at the final stage — Held: The Rent Authority has discretion in summary proceedings to defer consideration of maintainability objections to the final stage, particularly where the matter is ripe for hearing and segregation would delay disposal; no prejudice is caused as the objection survives for consideration in the final order.

Appeal – Interlocutory Orders – Non-Appealability – Rent Tribunal dismissed appeal against the Rent Authority's procedural order as not amenable to appellate challenge — Held: An order merely declining to frame a maintainability objection as a preliminary issue does not finally determine any right of the parties or adjudicate any jurisdictional plea; it is interlocutory in character and does not give rise to an independent statutory appeal unless the statute expressly provides otherwise.

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope – Held: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to keep subordinate courts within bounds of their authority and is not meant to correct every procedural order or substitute the High Court's view in discretionary matters, unless patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or jurisdictional error is demonstrated; no such case made out.

Preliminary Issue – No Indefeasible Right – Held: Raising an objection of maintainability does not confer an indefeasible right to insist on its separate trial as a preliminary issue; unless it can be decided purely on admitted facts and is capable of terminating proceedings at the threshold, the forum may examine it along with remaining issues at the final stage.

Decision: Petition disposed of on statement of petitioner's counsel not pressing the same — Liberty granted to petitioner to raise all permissible objections before the Rent Authority at the time of final hearing — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 409 - Petitioner was working as a Clerk in Municipal Council Nawanshahr and was accused of embezzling Rs. 3,975/- between 2003 and 2004 - Trial Court convicted petitioner and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment which was upheld by the first Appellate Court - High Court observed that prosecution failed to produce any appointment letter or document showing the petitioner's duties involved the collection or deposit of cash - Key prosecution witness PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that cash collection was the duty of the Cashier and not the petitioner - PW-2 specifically deposed that the accused had not embezzled any amount and documents were prepared at the instance of the department - Held - The prosecution failed to establish the basic ingredients of Section 409 IPC namely appointment as a public servant - entrustment of property - and misappropriation of funds - Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside - [Paras 1-15].

Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Statement of Witness - PW-1 supported prosecution in examination-in-chief but admitted lack of personal knowledge and contradictory facts regarding the duty of the Cashier during cross-examination - PW-2 disproved the prosecution case during cross-examination stating that the petitioner had not embezzled any amount - Legal proposition that the statement of a witness must be read as a whole and not based on examination-in-chief alone - Held - When the entire statements of material witnesses are considered they fail to support the charge of misappropriation against the accused - [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law - Proof of Guilt - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 409 - Prosecution argued that the petitioner confessed guilt by depositing Rs. 4,200/- via pay-in-slip after the alleged embezzlement was detected - High Court noted that the deposit was made approximately two years prior to the FIR registration - A retired official might deposit money merely to buy peace and set a controversy at rest - Held - Such a deposit by itself does not establish the commission of an offence or prove misappropriation of funds while working as a public servant - Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond shadow of doubt - [Paras 14].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate and order dated 13.06.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge are set aside – Petitioner acquitted of the charge.

Contempt of Court – Unauthorised Recording of Court Proceedings – Criminal Contempt – During the course of hearing of miscellaneous petitions, Mr. Anil Suman, driver of petitioner Mr. Kamal Rathore, was found recording court proceedings on his mobile phone without permission and on being caught attempted to delete the recording — Admitted before Court — Held: Unauthorised recording of court proceedings constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and amounts to serious interference with the administration of justice and lowering the dignity of the Court; Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 expressly prohibits unauthorised recording of proceedings — Show cause notice issued to both Mr. Kamal Rathore and Mr. Anil Suman.

Directions – Seizure of Mobile Phone – Police Action – Registrar (Judicial) directed to seize the mobile phone of Mr. Anil Suman and keep it in safe custody — SHO, Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (West) directed to take appropriate legal action — Registrar (Judicial) further directed to lodge a report against Mr. Anil Suman for intentionally causing interruption in judicial proceedings — Matter directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench excluding the present Bench.

Decision: Show cause notice issued to Mr. Kamal Rathore and Mr. Anil Suman — Directions issued for seizure of mobile phone, police action, and re-listing before appropriate Bench.

Electricity Tariff – Advocate's Office in Residential Premises – Commercial vs. Residential Rate – Petitioner, an Advocate, ran his office from his residential premises – Electricity Board declared the usage commercial and raised bills at commercial rates – Held: Legal profession involves no buying, selling, or trading of any kind and cannot be equated with commercial activity – A professional activity carried on by personal skill and intelligence is fundamentally distinct from a commercial activity – Advocate running office from residential premises is not liable to pay electricity charges at commercial rate – Order charging commercial rate set aside – Respondents directed to raise bills at residential rates [Paras 2, 9, 10].

Definition of "Commerce" and "Commercial" – Legal Profession – Professional vs. Commercial Activity – The expression "commerce" or "commercial" necessarily connotes a trading activity involving buying and selling – In the legal profession, there is no buying, selling, or trading of any kind whatsoever – A professional activity must be an activity carried on by an individual by personal skill and intelligence – There is a fundamental distinction between a professional activity and an activity of a commercial character – Comparing legal profession with trade and business is a far from correct approach [Para 7].

Distinction – Office in Residential Premises vs. Office in Commercial Premises – Where the office of an Advocate is situated in a residential premises, commercial electricity tariff cannot be charged – However, where the office is situated in an independent commercial building or place, the Advocate cannot seek exemption from payment of electricity charges at commercial rates – A clear distinction exists between the two situations [Paras 8, 9].

Supreme Court Precedent – Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shiv Narayan – Distinguished – The Supreme Court in Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and Others vs. Shiv Narayan and Another did not go into the question whether an Advocate carries on a commercial activity – It merely held that since the use was non-domestic, it fell in the non-domestic/commercial category based solely on the use of premises – The said decision did not examine the nature of legal profession vis-à-vis commercial activity and is therefore distinguishable from the present case [Para 6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders at Annexure P/1 and P/1A set aside – Respondents directed to raise bills of electricity dues at residential rates – Petitioner held liable to pay electricity dues of the office situated at his residence at residential rates only and not at commercial rates [Para 10].

Civil Law - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Section 50 - Succession to Male Bhumidhar - Married Daughter - Exclusion from Inheritance - Land originally held by a male bhumidhar (Ram Singh) was mutated in 1966 in equal shares between his son and married daughter (Rajban). Held, Section 50 of the DLRA provides a specific order of succession which includes an unmarried daughter but excludes a married daughter. Succession opens at the time of the death of the tenure-holder and is governed by the statute as it stood then. The married daughter, not being a statutory heir, did not acquire any inheritable interest despite the revenue entry. [Paras 19-20, 40].

Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Sections 50, 51 and 53 - Nature of Mutation - Fiscal Entry vs Title - Petitioners claimed title through long-standing mutation and possession. Held, mutation entries are maintained solely for fiscal purposes and revenue administration. They do not, by themselves, create, vest, enlarge, or extinguish title. Inheritable rights in agricultural holdings governed by the DLRA cannot be created merely by a mutation entry in the absence of a legally recognised mode of transfer or devolution. [Paras 23-25, 34, 38].

General Principles of Law - Waiver, Estoppel and Family Arrangement - No Estoppel against Statute - Petitioners invoked waiver and long-term acquiescence by the son (Chander). Held, there can be no estoppel against statute. Conduct cannot confer a status which the law withheld. Mere silence or long-standing revenue entries do not constitute a legally operative abandonment of statutory rights in agricultural land. A family settlement must be specifically pleaded and proved with a juridical foundation, which was absent in the present case. [Paras 26-31, 39].

Precedents - Prospective Overruling - Applicability of Ram Mehar v. Mst. Dakhan - Conflict between personal law and DLRA. Held, judicial decisions are generally declaratory of what the law has always been. In the absence of an express direction for prospective operation by the court, a ruling remains retroactive. The Financial Commissioner was justified in applying the authoritative view in Ram Mehar (1972) that succession to bhumidhari rights is strictly governed by the DLRA and not general personal law, regardless of the earlier administrative understanding or the Gopi Chand (1964) decision. [Paras 32-36].

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Limits of Review - Challenge to Financial Commissioner's order. Held, the High Court’s supervisory role is limited to checking for legal misdirection, jurisdictional error, or manifest perversity. It is not a rehearing on facts. As the Financial Commissioner identified the correct legal position regarding the effect of mutation entries, no ground for interference is made out. [Paras 37-38, 42].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Financial Commissioner's order dated 14/11/2006 upheld – No legal or jurisdictional infirmity found.