Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Surviving appellant Onkar Singh convicted for fatal assault with spear during alleged house invasion incident – Trial Court found motive in Gram Pradhan election enmity – High Court re-examined evidence and found prosecution version riddled with improbabilities and suppressed facts – Held: Delay in lodging FIR unexplained despite police presence at scene within hours – Eye-witnesses were close relatives who denied presence of police contrary to official records – Their testimony found unreliable and inconsistent with site evidence and sequence of events [Paras 32–38, 42–44]

Delay in FIR – Suppression of Material Facts – Police arrived at scene around 11 p.m. on same night, yet FIR was lodged at 6:30 a.m. next morning without explanation – Prosecution witnesses denied early police arrival – Constables and G.D. entries proved otherwise – Supreme Court precedents (Thulia Kali, Meharaj Singh) applied – Held: Unexplained delay casts serious doubt on spontaneity and authenticity of FIR, suggesting afterthought and embellishment [Paras 34–40]

Interested Witnesses – Independent Witnesses Not Examined – Prosecution case solely based on testimony of deceased’s uncle and wife – Other women present during incident not examined – Inconsistencies between statements and site-plan – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses, and contradictions in testimony, render prosecution version doubtful – Witnesses found to suppress key facts, including presence of village Pradhan and possible dacoity angle [Paras 41–43]

Doubtful Motive and Unexplained Conduct – No attempt to conceal identity alleged – Assailants known to victims and villagers, yet prosecution claimed dacoity narrative from accused's relatives – Held: Story of pre-planned murder followed by misleading FIR fails to inspire confidence – Involvement of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Final report under Arms Act reinforces doubt about recovery and use of alleged weapons [Paras 45–52]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Onkar Singh acquitted of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled – No need to surrender – Directions issued to Trial Court for compliance [Paras 56–58]

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Reversal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC based on testimonies of injured witnesses (P.W.4 and P.W.5) – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons and ballistic evidence – No independent or forensic corroboration – Court held conduct of eye-witnesses unnatural as they failed to name assailants to police or hospital staff despite being fit to speak – Held: Sole reliance on testimonies of interested and tainted witnesses in absence of corroboration is unsafe – Conviction reversed [Paras 31–57].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witness – Credibility – P.W.4 and P.W.5 were found to have prior enmity with accused and were involved in counter cases – Their silence till FIR registration and contradictions with medical and other evidence raised doubts – Court applied test of “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable” – Held: In absence of corroboration, such testimony cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 32–54].

Evidence – Recovery and Forensics – Failure of Prosecution – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons allegedly used in crime – Ballistic report was negative – No independent witness examined – CCTV footage not seized – Panch witnesses were friends of deceased – Held: Multiple procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps undermine prosecution case [Paras 33–50].

Delay in FIR – Impact – FIR lodged 6.5 hours after incident despite eye-witnesses being medically fit to speak – Court held delay used for possible false implication – Supported by inconsistent medical and police testimonies – Held: Delay not satisfactorily explained, creates doubt about genuineness of prosecution version [Paras 41–45].

False Implication – Previous Enmity – Double-Edged Sword – Evidence showed prior criminal cases between witnesses and accused – Assault alleged to have occurred at spot of earlier crime involving deceased – Court held prior enmity increased possibility of false implication in absence of corroboration [Paras 32, 45, 54].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 307 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released if not required in any other case.

Service Law – Disability Reservation – Retrospective Promotion – Visually impaired petitioner working as Mali in Forest Department since 1998 – Became eligible for promotion to Forest Guard in 2003 and Forester in 2013 – Promotions granted only in 2007 and 2021 after relaxation of rules – Government issued instructions in 2023 granting retrospective application of 3% reservation for persons with disabilities from 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017 – Held: Petitioner entitled to notional promotion from 2003 and 2013 respectively under 1% quota for blindness/low vision – Delay in granting relaxation cannot defeat statutory right under 1995 and 2016 Acts – Denial violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 1–3, 6–12, 21–31]

Constitutional Law – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Right to be considered for promotion under disability quota – Right to equal opportunity includes right to be considered from due date when eligibility arose – Absence of formal exemption under Section 33 of 1995 Act from reservation renders justification of visual standards untenable – Bureaucratic delay cannot nullify substantive rights – Impugned order set aside for ignoring statutory mandate and binding government instructions [Paras 20–25, 28–30]

Administrative Law – Government Instructions – State instructions dated 11.07.2023 provided for retrospective reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities from 1996 to 2017 – Instructions binding on authorities – Held: Failure to apply instructions and reservation quota retrospectively to petitioner’s case renders the impugned rejection order legally unsustainable [Paras 24–27, 29]

Judicial Review – Quashing of Administrative Order – Order dated 16.04.2024 rejecting petitioner’s representation did not address statutory provisions or binding precedent – Held: Order arbitrary, in breach of Articles 14 and 16 – Quashed with direction to grant notional promotion and financial benefits with 6% interest [Paras 29–34]

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned Order dated 16.04.2024 set aside – Petitioner to be accorded notional promotion as Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013 with consequential benefits including pay fixation, arrears, and seniority – Financial dues to carry 6% interest per annum from due date till realisation – Compliance to be effected within 4 weeks [Paras 33–35]

Criminal Law – Section 156(3) CrPC – Cognizability of Offence – Complaint by husband alleging forgery by wife and father-in-law in complaint submitted to police – Magistrate dismissed complaint holding no cognizable offence made out and permitted recourse under Section 202 CrPC – Revisional Court remanded matter for fresh consideration – Held: Complaint did not disclose prima facie cognizable offence – Magistrate’s refusal to order registration of FIR justified – Revisional court exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with such order [Paras 9, 10, 13].

Criminal Law – Forgery – Nature of Document – Whether complaint submitted to police is a ‘public document’ – Respondent alleged that Section 313 IPC was added to wife’s complaint later by forgery – Court held that police complaint is not a public document under Section 74 of Evidence Act – As per Supreme Court’s ruling in Saurav Das v. Union of India, charge-sheet is not public document – A fortiori, initial police complaint is not either – Held: At best, case under Section 465 IPC (non-cognizable) could be made out – No FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC permissible [Paras 7, 9].

Criminal Law – Section 2(d) CrPC – Meaning of Complaint – Complaint under CrPC connotes a complaint made to a Judicial Magistrate, not information to police – Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of UP held that complaint to Executive Magistrate or police not valid under Section 2(d) – Held: Alteration in police complaint, even if proved, does not convert it into public document or justify cognizable offence [Para 8].

Criminal Revision – Scope of Revisional Powers – Revisional court should not reappreciate facts unless findings are perverse – Revisional jurisdiction limited to correcting jurisdictional error or manifest illegality – Revisional Court erred in substituting its opinion for that of Magistrate without demonstrating perversity – Held: Revisional order set aside, Magistrate’s order restored [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, set aside – Order dated 11.06.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram upheld – Complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC does not disclose cognizable offence and Magistrate rightly declined to order FIR [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of sexual exploitation over three years disbelieved – De facto complainant alleged repeated sexual abuse and coercion by petitioner between 2011 and 2014 – Petitioner produced documents showing ongoing cordial relationship till 2017 and pending civil litigation regarding monetary disputes – Court found inconsistencies in complainant's version and noted that FIR followed closely after petitioner initiated civil and criminal proceedings against her – Held: Allegations inherently improbable and motivated – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 5–7]

Criminal Procedure – Quashment of Charges – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – Legal test – Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law – Evident from record that FIR was lodged as a retaliatory move after petitioner initiated legal actions – No prima facie case made out warranting trial – Held: Proceedings against accused under Sections 376(f)(n) IPC and 66E IT Act liable to be quashed [Paras 6–7]

Evidence – Delay and Prior Relationship – Long delay in lodging complaint coupled with friendly relationship undermines credibility – Complainant gave sworn statement in 2017 describing petitioner as a close family friend despite alleging prior prolonged abuse – Court noted improbability of continued relationship and non-disclosure of alleged abuse for years by educated complainant – Held: Circumstances indicate false implication [Paras 6–7]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner in S.C. No.108/2019 (arising from Crime No.1142/2018 of Erattupetta Police Station) quashed.

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Assam Rifles – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner Association sought parity in pay, pension and emoluments with Indian Army, citing similarity in duties and historical role – Held: Assam Rifles operates under dual control of MHA and MoD, unlike Army – Nature of duties, retirement age, and structural differences validly justify distinct treatment – Equal pay claim rejected [Paras 1, 4-5, 12, 25-26]

Administrative Law – Dual Control Mechanism – Parliamentary Committee Recommendations – No Mandamus – Parliamentary Standing Committee Report recommended ending dual control of Assam Rifles – Held: Such recommendations are not binding and do not mandate parity in salary or service conditions – Policy decision lies within Executive domain – Court cannot issue directions under Article 226 for pay fixation [Paras 11, 24, 27]

Service Conditions – Discrimination – SFF/ICG Comparison – Not Applicable – Petitioner compared service with Special Frontier Force and Indian Coast Guard – Held: SFF and ICG operate under different administrative structure and duties, under direct PMO supervision – Parity claim unjustified – Kerala High Court’s ruling on ECHS benefits not applicable for pay/emoluments parity [Paras 9, 16, 22-23]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – No Violation – Petitioner alleged breach of equality under Article 14 due to different pay scales from Indian Army – Held: Distinction in retirement age, service tenure, and nature of duties is reasonable – Classification not arbitrary – No violation of Article 14 established [Paras 6, 19, 25-26]

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy Matters – Limited Interference – Court held it cannot interfere in matters of pay fixation or emoluments, which fall exclusively within domain of the Central Government – Direction issued to consider fresh representation [Paras 27, 29]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for pay parity – Petitioner allowed to submit fresh representation, to be decided within 3 months [Paras 30]

Criminal Law – Representation of Company – Section 305 CrPC – Trial court directed petitioner to represent company (Accused No. 23) despite his resignation from directorship prior to initiation of proceedings – Held: A company being a juristic person must appoint its own representative for trial under Section 305 CrPC – Neither the complainant nor the court can compel an unwilling individual, even a former director, to represent the company – Summons must be served at the company’s registered office – Petitioner cannot be forced to represent the company without valid authorization [Paras 1, 22, 26, 28–30].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Section 70 PMLA – Scope – Company and persons in charge at the time of offence may both be liable under Section 70 – However, representation under Section 305 CrPC is separate from liability under Section 70 – Subsequent resignation from company does not absolve individual from criminal liability under PMLA, but does relieve him of obligation to represent the company unless duly authorized [Paras 18–20, 28].

Special Law vs General Law – Harmonious Interpretation – Argument by ED that Section 70 of PMLA overrides Section 305 CrPC rejected – Held: PMLA does not conflict with CrPC provisions on representation of juristic persons – Prosecution under special statute does not allow bypassing procedural safeguards regarding company representation – Trial cannot proceed without proper representation of the company in accordance with Section 305 CrPC [Paras 14, 26–28].

Judicial Discretion – Improper Exercise – Trial court erred by postponing decision on company representation to later stage under Section 207 CrPC – Held: Representation issue must be settled prior to continuation of proceedings – Trial court failed to apply its mind to settled legal position – Order set aside and direction issued to summon company at its registered office and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if no representative is appointed [Paras 21, 26, 30].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order of trial court dated 03/11/2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to serve fresh summons on accused company (Accused No. 23) at its registered address and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if company fails to nominate representative – Entire process to be completed within 60 days from receipt of this order [Paras 29–30].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Interference – Award upholding investor’s claim for indemnity from CDSL under Section 16 of Depositories Act – Tribunal held DP (BRH) acted negligently and fraudulently while transferring and pledging investor’s shares – Court held findings plausible, reasoned, and not perverse – Petition under Section 34 dismissed [Paras 1, 75–78].

Depository Liability – Negligence by DP – BRH, acting as DP of CDSL, fraudulently transferred investor’s shares using Power of Attorney and pledged them to HDFC Bank – Held: Since BRH acted at least partly as DP, CDSL liable to indemnify under Section 16 – CDSL cannot escape liability by attributing acts solely to role of broker [Paras 20–24, 36–47].

Power of Attorney Misuse – Composite Fraud – No underlying trades justified share transfers – Transfers effected solely to engineer fraudulent pledge – Tribunal found Petitioner liable for permitting DP to transfer and pledge shares of 9493 clients – Held: Entire transaction was composite fraud facilitated by CDSL’s DP, attracting vicarious liability [Paras 40–44, 48–50].

Investor Protection – SEBI Regulatory Framework – SEBI Circulars (pre- and post-incident) required adequate monitoring, early warning mechanisms, and supervisory oversight – CDSL failed to prevent DP’s misuse of POA – Court held that investor compensation is independent of specific regulatory violations; Section 16 creates strict liability on depository for DP’s negligent acts [Paras 53–62].

SEBI Circular of 25.07.2023 – No Bar to Depository’s Liability – Circular cannot override statutory liability under Section 16 – Tribunal correctly held that responsibility for DP’s misconduct lies with CDSL and not with NSE – Attempt to shift burden to NSE rejected [Paras 63–70].

Equity Jurisdiction – Tribunal Not Acting as Amiable Compositeur – Though Tribunal used terms like ‘ends of justice’, award was based on findings of statutory negligence – Tribunal did not invoke equity jurisdiction under Section 28(2) of Arbitration Act – No illegality found [Paras 73–74].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award upheld – CDSL held liable to indemnify Respondent No.1 for value of lost shares (Rs. 86,02,768/-) – No costs awarded – Interim Application also disposed of [Paras 75–79].