Criminal Writ Petition – Quashment of interception orders under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 – Violation of right to privacy – Compliance with Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution – Lack of sufficient reasoning and procedural safeguards. (Para 1)

Provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act – Requirement for occurrences of public emergency or interest of public safety – Impugned orders lacked disclosure of material justifying public safety – Failure to record reasons in writing for interception. (Para 4)

Precedents – Illegal tapping of phone conversations violates right to privacy – Upheld by a 9 Judges Constitution Bench – Importance of procedural fairness and protection of privacy rights reaffirmed in previous cases. (Para 9)

Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules, 2007 – Mandate for issuance of interception orders by competent authorities – Orders must contain reasons – Requirement to consider other means of acquiring information – Failure to adhere to procedural safeguards. (Para 16)

Non-compliance with statutory provisions – Impugned orders passed by an incompetent authority – Failure to send orders to the Review Committee – Impugned orders suffered from manifest arbitrariness. (Para 17)

Quashing of all three interception orders – Direction to destroy intercepted messages and their copies – Prohibition of use of intercepted messages in pending criminal proceedings. (Para 19)

Petitioner allowed to seek further legal remedies for other reliefs sought in the writ petition – No costs imposed on either party. (Para 20)

Offenses relating to the security of women and POCSO Act - Duty of criminal courts to ensure witness protection - Rebuttal of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act through cross-examination - Right to cross-examine as an indelible right and essential for a fair trial. (Para 11)

Delay in filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Seriousness of offenses and harsh punishments under the POCSO Act - Importance of right to cross-examine in such cases - Delay not a sufficient ground to deny the opportunity for cross-examination. (Para 12)

Granting limited opportunity for cross-examination - Petitioner afforded a single date for cross-examining PW1 - Cross-examination to be conducted and completed on August 7, 2023 - No further opportunities to be provided. (Para 15)

Conditions and consequences - Precondition of payment to the witness - Payment of Rs. 10,000/- to be made by the petitioner within one week - Violation of conditions leading to the automatic vacation of the granted opportunity. (Para 17)

Disposal of the petition - Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the trial court's order dismissed - Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para 19)

Bail application - Allegations under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - Serious allegations against accused Deputy Chief Minister/Excise Minister for formulating excise policy to benefit certain individuals and receiving illegal gratification - Defense challenges credibility of Enforcement Directorate (ED) case based on inconsistent statements and contradictions in witnesses' testimonies - Court to balance personal liberty with societal interests. (Para 53-55)

Evidentiary value of statements under Section 50 PMLA - Statements admissible but not considered gospel truth - Court to weigh evidence during trial - Defense argues case based on whims and fancies, while ED relies on Section 50 statements. (Para 57)

Involvement of third parties and mens rea in formulating excise policy - Bail jurisdiction discretionary but must be exercised judiciously - Court to consider legislative intent behind Section 50 PMLA. (Para 58)

Serious economic offense by accused public servant - Gravity, nature, and impact of offense considered in bail decision - Previous bail application rejection and possibility of evidence tampering. (Para 59-66)

Dismissal of bail application - Failure to meet conditions under Section 45 PMLA and triple test for bail - Deep-rooted conspiracy and alleged loss of public funds. (Para 67-79)

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench - Writ Petition - Release of film 'Ajmer 92' - Prayers seeking a ban on the film's release and the formation of a committee to review the content - Alternative remedy of revision available under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 - No grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition dismissed. (Para 3)

Criminal Procedure Code – Sections 82 and 83 – Quashing of orders – Petitioners sought quashing of order summoning them by way of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and declaring them proclaimed persons under Section 83 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners contended that their business had ceased to exist before the pandemic, and they were never served with warrants – Court found no evidence of proper service and non-compliance with statutory requirements – Held, orders not sustainable in law – Impugned orders quashed – Further proceedings to continue in the lower court. (Para 7)

Passport - Deletion of spouse's name - Petitioner sought direction to delete the name of her alleged husband from her passport - Petitioner contended that she had not solemnized marriage with the said person and the inclusion of his name was for the purpose of travel, which did not materialize - Respondents accepted notice and undertook to decide on the petitioner's representation and legal notice within six weeks - Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's representation and legal notice within the stipulated timeframe. (Para 1-4)

Bail Application - Economic Offenses - Grant of bail - Conditions - The court held that the accused, who was charged with economic offenses of significant magnitude, was entitled to bail pending trial on stringent conditions to allay apprehensions expressed by the investigating agency. The court emphasized the need to balance the accused's liberty with the necessity of a fair trial and imposed elaborative and stringent conditions to address concerns regarding influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses. [Para 5, Para 6]

Bail Conditions - Pragmatic Approach - The court suggested that while granting bail with sureties, the accused should be given the choice to either furnish surety bonds or alternative options such as fixed deposits, direct electronic money transfer, or creating a lien over their bank account. The court emphasized that the option should lie with the accused and not with the court or the arresting officer. [Para 10]

Compliance with Bail Conditions - The court required the petitioner to comply with the conditions of bail, including providing detailed information about bank accounts, assets, and financial holdings within a specified period. Failure to comply with these conditions could lead to the cancellation of bail. [Para 13]

Modification of Bail Conditions - The court allowed the petitioner to file a reasoned application for the modification of any bail condition that violates fundamental, human, or other rights or causes difficulty due to any situation. The court stated that the concerned court could also modify or delete any condition after taking cognizance of the application. [Para 17]

Authenticity of Bail Order - The court permitted any advocate for the petitioner to download and attest a true copy of the bail order from the official website of the court, which could be used for furnishing bonds. The attesting officer could also verify the authenticity of the downloaded copy. [Para 22]

Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Conviction - Sentence - Reduction of sentence - Petitioner convicted for offense of adulteration of khoya - Petitioner, aged more than 70 years, had already suffered incarceration for a short period and had no criminal antecedents - Deficiency in milk fat content found to be only 0.5% - Petitioner's conviction maintained but sentence reduced for the period already undergone - Petitioner set free. [Para 11]

Fundamental right to speedy trial - Right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution - Accused's right to speedy trial considered as part of the fundamental right to personal liberty - Protracted trial and delays - Petitioner faced agony of protracted trial for over 28 years - Age of petitioner, advanced at the time of revision, considered - Sentence reduced based on various circumstances and precedents - Sentence should be proportionate to the facts of the case. [Para 12]

Family Court Appeal – Dissolution of Marriage – Allegations of cruelty and dissolution of marriage under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Husband appeals against the judgment and decree dismissing his petition – Examination of the facts and issues surrounding the case – Appeal allowed on grounds of cruelty and dissolution of marriage granted. [Para 1]

Cruelty in Marriage – Definition and scope of cruelty in matrimonial cases – Mental cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage – Analysis of precedents that establish cruelty beyond ordinary wear and tear – Importance of baseless and reckless allegations causing mental agony – Allegations against the husband of having an illicit relationship and fathering a child with another woman – Assessment of evidence and determination of credibility. [Para 20-24]

Spousal Conduct – Examination of the wife’s conduct in the marriage – Insulting husband based on complexion, separation from the husband without cause, refusal to withdraw complaints against husband and family – Impact of wife’s conduct on the marital relationship – Court’s recognition of cruelty due to baseless allegations and refusal to reconcile. [Para 23-24]

Decree of Divorce – Conclusion on the issue of cruelty and its impact on the marital relationship – Setting aside the Family Court’s judgment and decree – Dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent granted – Alimony and maintenance issues reserved for separate consideration – Costs not awarded. [Para 26-28]