Juvenile Justice - Bail - Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Revision petition against the denial of bail to juvenile under Section 12 - Held, bail is the rule and can only be denied under exceptions mentioned in Section 12 - No evidence of petitioner coming into association with criminals, or being exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger - Petitioner a meritorious student with no criminal history - Bail granted. [Paras 12-14]

Application of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act - Analysis - Held, bail for juveniles is a rule and exceptions apply only if there is a reasonable belief of association with criminals or exposure to danger - Social Investigation Report found no such risk - Petitioner's good academic record and lack of involvement in other cases support bail. [Para 12]

Decision - Grant of Bail - High Court sets aside lower courts' orders denying bail - Petitioner granted bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds - Observations limited to bail decision and not on the case's merits. [Paras 13-16]

National Investigation Agency Act - Bail Application - Appeal under Section 21 - Appellant not named in FIR but arrayed later - Prima facie case not established - Held, appellant entitled to bail - Clean antecedents and prolonged trial duration considered - Special Judge's decision reversed - Bail granted with conditions. [Paras 14-16]

Prima Facie Case and Statutory Restrictions - Analysis - Held, statutory restriction under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA is less stringent than Section 37 of NDPS Act - Degree of satisfaction lighter under UAPA - Prima facie case not made out due to lack of credible evidence linking appellant with terrorist activities - Clean antecedents and prolonged custody weighed in favor of bail. [Paras 14]

Decision - Grant of Bail - High Court grants bail to appellant considering clean antecedents, prolonged custody, and slow trial progress - Bail granted with conditions to report to local police station every 15 days - Observations made are solely for bail purposes and not on merits of the case. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Procedure - Second Revision Petition - Inherent Powers of High Court – Held, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. amounts to a second revision petition disguised as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a second revision to prevent frivolous litigation. The High Court's inherent power should be exercised sparingly to avoid needless multiplicity of procedures, unnecessary delay in trial, and protraction of proceedings. No special circumstance in this case justifies lifting the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The petition is dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Release of Original Cheque - Material Evidence in Complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Held, the original cheque is material evidence in the ongoing case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Investigation in the related FIR for theft is complete, and the trial has commenced. The trial court rightly refused to release the cheque to prevent tampering, providing the liberty to inspect and examine the document before the Ahlmad as per rules. [Paras 3-8]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition – The court finds no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the courts below, warranting any intervention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. [Para 12]

Civil Procedure - Appointment of Local Commissioner at Appellate Stage - Application for Additional Evidence - Revision Petition against Appellate Court's Order - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, Rule 27 - Held, once the first application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner had been withdrawn by the respondents, the same relief via second application under the guise of additional evidence could not have been granted. Allowing such application at the appellate stage is to fill a lacuna and is not maintainable. Application for additional evidence should not be allowed to fill in lacuna and should be allowed very rarely - Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside. [Paras 13-17]

Role of Evidence - Analysis - Held, the parties are required to prove their case by leading their own evidence. The Court is not to collect evidence for the parties and will not assist in the appointment of a Local Commissioner. A third contradictory report would not help resolve the issue when it has never been the respondents' case that they own the suit land. [Para 16]

Decision - Quashing of Order for Additional Evidence - Court quashes the order of the Additional District Judge allowing the application for additional evidence by appointing a Local Commissioner, deeming it an attempt to fill lacuna in the respondents' case at the appellate stage. [Para 17]

Territorial Jurisdiction - Challenge at Appeal Stage - Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction not taken before the Tribunal - Held, such objections cannot be raised at the appeal stage if not taken before the Tribunal - Appeal on this ground dismissed. [Paras 23-24]

Change of Address - Alleged Collusion - Appeal against award citing address change of vehicle owner as evidence of collusion - Held, address change within two years not suspicious - Objection dismissed. [Paras 25]

Interest on Compensation - Penal Interest - Tribunal awarded 9% interest if compensation not paid within two months - Held, penal interest not permissible as per precedent - Interest rate adjusted to 7.5% per annum. [Paras 27-29]

Income Tax Deduction - Calculation Error - Tribunal's calculation of deceased's income without deducting income tax - Held, 5% income tax should be deducted from annual income - Corrected compensation calculated accordingly. [Paras 30-32]

Decision - Enhanced Compensation - High Court corrects compensation calculations and dismisses appeals challenging liability - Enhanced compensation awarded to claimants - Appeals disposed of. [Paras 26, 33]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment Post-Decree – Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed after suit was decided – Application dismissed – Held that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allows impleadment of parties only during pendency of proceedings – Post-decreeimpleadment not permissible – Remedy lies in filing an appeal as an aggrieved party with leave of appellate court. [Paras 1-12]

SARFAESI Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Mortgage and Tenancy – Held – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred by Sections 34 and 35 of SARFAESI Act – Issues of tenancy or leasehold rights on secured assets to be decided by Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of SARFAESI Act – Petitioner should seek remedy through appropriate channels under SARFAESI Act. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Application for Impleadment Dismissed – Petitioner directed to pursue remedies under SARFAESI Act for enforcement of security interest and possession of secured asset – Revision disposed of with directions for petitioner to take appropriate steps as per law. [Para 17]

Criminal Law - Non-joining of Independent Witnesses - Recovery of Arms - Appeal against conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act - Conviction based on recovery of revolver and cartridges solely witnessed by police officials - Held, no efforts made to call independent witnesses from nearby areas despite availability - Case rendered doubtful due to non-joining of independent witnesses. [Paras 11]

Criminal Law - Sealing of Recovered Arms and Ammunition - Doubts regarding the authenticity of the recovery - Revolver and cartridges not converted into sealed parcels - Held, failure to seal recovered items raises significant doubts about the prosecution's case. [Para 12]

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Mechanical Grant - Sanction for prosecution not granted after perusing material recovered and available documents - Held, mechanical grant of sanction without applying mind - Conviction set aside on this ground alone - Accused acquitted. [Para 14]

Decision: The appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant acquitted based on the lack of independent witnesses, improper handling and sealing of evidence, and mechanical grant of sanction for prosecution. [Para 15]

Criminal Law - Dacoity - Requirement of Five or More Persons - Appeals against convictions under Sections 395 and 397 IPC - Accused convicted for dacoity by trial court despite being less than five persons - Held, conviction for dacoity requires five or more persons as per Section 391 IPC - Conviction of less than five persons for dacoity erroneous - Convictions set aside. [Paras 11, 13, 17]

Identification of Accused - Importance of Test Identification Parade - Appeals also challenge identification - Held, accused identified in court for the first time after four years without prior test identification parade - Such identification meaningless - Accused acquitted. [Paras 15, 16, 18]

Decision - Acquittal of Appellants - High Court finds trial court's convictions unsustainable due to lack of required number of persons for dacoity and flawed identification process - Convictions and sentences set aside - Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released. [Paras 19, 20]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Non-Cognizable Offense – Public Gambling Act – Investigation without Magistrate’s Permission – Petition for quashing of FIR under Section 13-A of the Public Gambling Act – FIR related to recovery of Rs. 1,23,50,000/- alleged to be gambling money – Held that investigation of non-cognizable offense without Magistrate’s order is impermissible – Competence of police officer to conduct raid not justified – Raid conducted without independent witnesses – FIR and consequent proceedings quashed due to procedural irregularities – Petition allowed. [Paras 1-21]

Competence of Police Officers – Raids for Non-Cognizable Offenses – Held – As per Section 5 of the Public Gambling Act, only a Magistrate or authorized officer can permit raids – ASI conducting raid without warrants was impermissible – Raid and FIR marred by procedural irregularities. [Paras 8-10, 18]

Judicial Precedents – Abuse of Process – Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions emphasizing prevention of abuse of process and securing ends of justice – Investigation in non-cognizable offenses to be done strictly as per legal provisions – FIR and proceedings quashed due to violation of legal procedures. [Paras 15-20]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – Court quashes FIR No. 98 dated 25.7.2020 and consequent proceedings due to procedural irregularities and abuse of process of law – Petition allowed. [Para 21]