Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail – Conscious Possession – Recovery of narcotics from a polythene bag thrown on the ground by the petitioner when the police approached – Bail granted – Court found it debatable whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband – The petitioner was not involved in any other case, and all prosecution witnesses were officials, thus reducing the risk of tampering or influencing witnesses – Bail granted subject to compliance with conditions to ensure the petitioner does not commit any similar offence.

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Applicability of Bail Provisions – The court held that while Section 37 imposes strict conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities, the facts of this case, including the uncertainty surrounding the petitioner’s conscious possession, satisfy the requirements of Section 37(1)(b) by implication – The court referred to several precedents, including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, where similar circumstances led to the granting of bail.

Decision:

Regular bail granted to the petitioner with specific conditions imposed to meet the object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Liberty - Live-in Relationship - Petitioners, both majors, seek protection from threats due to their live-in relationship - One petitioner not of marriageable age - Held, Constitution protects the liberty to pursue a way of life - Right to life and liberty includes the right to live with a partner of choice - Petitioners entitled to protection. [Paras 1, 15-16]

Live-in Relationships - Legal Recognition - Analysis - Live-in relationships recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Adults have the right to live together even if not married - Protection of life and liberty is fundamental and stands at the highest pedestal. [Paras 8-10, 15]

Judicial Precedent - Supreme Court and High Court Judgments - Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions affirming protection for individuals in live-in relationships - Courts emphasize the importance of individual liberty and right to make personal life choices. [Paras 8-14]

Decision - Protection Ordered - Petition allowed - Respondent directed to address representation and provide protection if threat perception found - Petitioners' fundamental rights upheld. [Paras 17-18]

Pre-emption Act – Mandatory Court Order for Deposit – Petition challenging dismissal of application for deposit of 'Zare-Panjim' amount. Held, sub-section (1) of Section 22 mandates that the trial court must order the plaintiff to deposit a sum not exceeding 1/5th of the probable value of the land or property, or to provide security. In the absence of such direction, consequences for non-deposit cannot be imposed on the plaintiff. Dismissal of application set aside. [Paras 1-8]

Litigant Not to Suffer for Court's Mistake – The trial court's failure to issue the required direction under Section 22(1) led to the petitioner’s non-deposit. The petitioner cannot be penalized for this court error. The principle “actus curiae neminemgravabit” (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) applies. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Allowed – The impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to determine the amount of 'Zare Panjim' and require the petitioner to deposit it or provide security as per Section 22. [Para 9]

Administrative Law - Appointment Process - Selection Committee Recommendations - Validity of Appointment – Held, the State Government is bound to follow the recommendations of the Selection Committee under Rule 6(10) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. The appointment of a candidate lower in merit without assigning valid reasons constitutes a negation of the rule. The impugned appointment order and related memo were quashed. [Paras 1-20]

Role of the Selection Committee - Analysis – Held, the Selection Committee, after assessing the candidates based on suitability, record of past performance, integrity, and adjudicatory experience, recommended a merit-based panel for consideration by the State Government. Ignoring the higher-ranked candidate without valid reasons is incompatible with Rule 6(10) and (11) of the Rules of 2020, thus not legally sustainable. [Para 17]

Decision - Quashing of Appointment Order - The court quashed the appointment order and the related memo, directing the State Government to proceed strictly based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. [Para 20]

Family Law - Child Custody - Welfare of the Child -Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking release of minor daughter—Petitioner married in India, daughter born in India, family moved to Canada—Matrimonial discord led to wife moving back to India with the minor—Foreign court judgment not binding—Dominant factor is the welfare of the child—Held, welfare of the child best served by staying with the mother—Visitation rights granted to the petitioner father at least twice a year.** [Paras 1-18]

Foreign Court Judgment - Relevance in Indian Context -Petitioner argued the foreign court's judgment should be binding under Section 13 CPC and Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act—Held, foreign court judgment loses relevance if not based on Indian laws—Primary consideration is the child's welfare—Foreign judgment cannot override the welfare principle enshrined in Indian jurisprudence.** [Paras 5-8]

Decision:Petition dismissed—Custody of the minor daughter to remain with the mother—Petitioner granted visitation rights twice a year—Application of the twin tests: welfare of the child and the child's desire, leads to the conclusion that the welfare of the girl child would be best served by staying with her mother.** [Paras 18-19]

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Anticipatory Bail – Evidence Linking Appellant – Appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A SC/ST Act. Allegation of using objectionable words against a community over the phone, with the audio recording going viral. Held, no evidence linking the appellant to making the audio viral. Bail granted. [Paras 1-15]

Maintainability of Appeal – Judicial Interpretation – Relying on judgments from Kerala High Court and this High Court, the court found the appeal maintainable. [Paras 2-3]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order set aside. Appellant directed to join the investigation and will be granted ad-interim bail upon arrest, subject to furnishing bail bonds. [Paras 16-18]

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Petition for amendment of written statement in matrimonial case. Held, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC empower the court to allow amendments at any stage to determine real questions in controversy. Amendments to written statements are granted more liberally than to plaints, especially when they elaborate the defense and are explanatory in nature. Rejection of the application was unsustainable. [Paras 1-7]

Matrimonial Law – Amendment to Elaborate Defense – Petitioner sought to amend the written statement to explain the non-subsistence of an earlier marriage, which was already denied. The amendment was bona fide and would not prejudice the respondent. [Para 7]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Court allows the petition, setting aside the impugned order, and permits the amendment of the written statement. [Paras 8-9]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Death and Injuries - Appeal Against Tribunal Award -Appeal under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act—Petitioner insurance company challenged compensation awarded for the death of Hitesh @ Monu and injuries to Kamal in an accident—Argument of false involvement of tractor due to absence of its registration number in FIR dismissed—Driver facing criminal prosecution sufficient to conclude prima facie involvement—Held, tribunal’s compensation assessment upheld—Appeal dismissed.** [Paras 1-9]

Absence of Driving License - Contributory Negligence -Petitioner contended deceased Hitesh @ Monu, a minor without a valid driving license, was contributory negligent—Tribunal found no evidence of deceased’s negligence—Mere absence of a driving license not sufficient to conclude contributory negligence—Held, deceased’s age and lack of license do not imply negligence in causing the accident.** [Paras 10-11]

Assessment of Compensation - Income Determination -Dispute over income assessment of deceased—Tribunal assessed income as a skilled laborer—Petitioner argued it should be as an unskilled laborer—Tribunal’s assessment based on the claimant's evidence upheld in the absence of contrary evidence—Held, tribunal's assessment of income and compensation affirmed.** [Para 12]

Decision:Appeal dismissed—Tribunal’s award of compensation upheld—Assessment of income and deductions for personal expenses found appropriate—Compensation under conventional heads enhanced as per Supreme Court’s guidelines in Pranay Sethi case—Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,04,382/- with interest at 9%.** [Paras 13-15]

Criminal Law – Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning Additional Accused – The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the application to summon respondent Nos. 2 to 7 as additional accused. Held, the trial court erred in not appreciating the intent of Section 319 Cr.P.C., which mandates proceeding against persons appearing to have committed an offense. The court should have considered available evidence to determine if there was a prima facie case. Impugned order set aside, petition allowed. [Paras 1-18]

Intent of Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Analysis – The court emphasized that Section 319 Cr.P.C. aims to ensure that no person who appears to have committed an offense is let off. The trial court must examine the sufficiency of evidence to form a prima facie view for summoning additional accused. [Paras 9-12]

Evidence Evaluation – The court found that the trial court failed to consider the medical and testimonial evidence presented by the petitioner, which clearly indicated the involvement of the respondents. The trial court's order was thus set aside for not delving into the evidence appropriately. [Paras 13-14]

Decision – Summoning Respondent No. 2 – The court concluded that based on the principles laid down in Manjeet Singh, Hardeep Singh, and Brijender Singh cases, the order dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was erroneous. The petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to summon respondent No. 2. [Paras 15-17]