Bail – Prolonged Custody – Allegations under BNS, POCSO Act, and JJ Act – Bail Granted – Appellant, a school principal, accused of sexual offences under POCSO and BNS, was in custody for nearly ten months – Only 7 of 22 witnesses examined – Supreme Court observed no serious incriminating material presently on record and held that further delay in trial justifies grant of bail – Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial and prevent misuse of liberty.

Allegations by Colleagues – Motive Imputed – Teacher Accuser's Grudge Over Non-appointment as Principal – Allegations Against Appellant May Be Vitiated – Court noted the argument that another teacher with a grudge may have motivated false complaints, which requires careful consideration during trial, not a ground for prolonged pre-trial detention.

Discretionary Bail – Balance Between Rights of Accused and Fair Trial – Judicial Discretion Applied – Supreme Court used its discretion to grant bail considering delay, weak material, and non-cooperation concerns – Appellant directed to cooperate and not tamper with evidence – Violation of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Final Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s denial of bail and directed appellant’s release on conditions as deemed appropriate by the Trial Court – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 4-5].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – High Court Rejection Set Aside – FIR No. 188/2017 registered under Section 304 IPC, eight years old – Appellant added subsequently in investigation, alleged only to have been last seen with deceased – No evidence of direct involvement; appellant cooperating under interim protection – Held: rejection of anticipatory bail by High Court unsustainable – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions.

Delay in Investigation – Implication of Appellant – Considered – Court noted that investigation against appellant showed harassment and mala fide since he was not named in original FIR; later addition without clear evidence – Delay of eight years weighed in favour of granting relief.

Bail Conditions – Safeguards – Anticipatory bail allowed subject to furnishing cash security of ₹25,000 with two sureties – Appellant to cooperate in investigation, not misuse liberty, and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Allahabad High Court order dated 18.07.2024 rejecting anticipatory bail set aside – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions.

Constitutional Law – Village Common Lands – Proprietary Rights – Haryana Amendment Validity – Civil Appeal by State against High Court's partial quashing of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 – High Court struck down amendment expanding 'shamilat deh' definition under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Supreme Court examined impact on proprietors who contributed land under the 1948 Consolidation Act [Paras 1 to 3, 24 to 64]

Interpretation – 'Shamilat Deh' and Bachat Land – Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 inserted Section 2(g)(6) defining lands reserved for common village purposes under 1948 Act as 'shamilat deh' – Proprietors challenged inclusion of unutilized (bachat) lands not earmarked for common use – Held: Only lands specifically reserved in the scheme for common purposes would vest with Gram Panchayat – Bachat lands not so reserved do not vest in Panchayat and must revert to contributing proprietors [Paras 2.1 to 2.6, 53]

Property Rights – Article 31-A and Compensation – Held: Reservation of land solely for Panchayat income purposes without compensation violates second proviso to Article 31-A – Reservation for common use (e.g. roads, schools) upheld, but revenue-generation reservation constitutes acquisition requiring compensation – Clarified that unless land was actually earmarked for common purpose and possession transferred, vesting in Panchayat does not occur [Paras 31 to 42, 46 to 51]

Judicial Precedents – Constitution Bench Judgments – Supreme Court analyzed key decisions: Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram – Ajit Singh held State must justify if land acquisition is for its own benefit – Bhagat Ram emphasized Panchayat's income land is State acquisition requiring compensation – These binding precedents upheld [Paras 24 to 51]

High Court Reasoning – Consistent Judicial View – Full Bench rightly relied on earlier Division Bench ruling in Gurjant Singh – Held: Bachat lands unutilized under consolidation scheme to be re-partitioned among proprietors in original share – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s reliance on consistent precedent and clarified that State itself had not challenged that aspect before [Paras 54 to 57]

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court – Longstanding judicial consensus on bachat lands reverting to proprietors was applied – Court held that such consistency over 100 judgments cannot be lightly disturbed unless manifestly erroneous – Followed principle of legal certainty and predictability [Paras 58 to 62]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Haryana’s appeal against High Court judgment dismissed – Land not specifically earmarked in the scheme does not vest with State – To revest with proprietors – No costs awarded [Paras 63 to 64]

Constitutional Law – Village Common Lands – Proprietary Rights – Haryana Amendment Validity – Civil Appeal by State against High Court's partial quashing of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 – High Court struck down amendment expanding 'shamilat deh' definition under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Supreme Court examined impact on proprietors who contributed land under the 1948 Consolidation Act [Paras 1 to 3, 24 to 64]

Interpretation – 'Shamilat Deh' and Bachat Land – Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 inserted Section 2(g)(6) defining lands reserved for common village purposes under 1948 Act as 'shamilat deh' – Proprietors challenged inclusion of unutilized (bachat) lands not earmarked for common use – Held: Only lands specifically reserved in the scheme for common purposes would vest with Gram Panchayat – Bachat lands not so reserved do not vest in Panchayat and must revert to contributing proprietors [Paras 2.1 to 2.6, 53]

Property Rights – Article 31-A and Compensation – Held: Reservation of land solely for Panchayat income purposes without compensation violates second proviso to Article 31-A – Reservation for common use (e.g. roads, schools) upheld, but revenue-generation reservation constitutes acquisition requiring compensation – Clarified that unless land was actually earmarked for common purpose and possession transferred, vesting in Panchayat does not occur [Paras 31 to 42, 46 to 51]

Judicial Precedents – Constitution Bench Judgments – Supreme Court analyzed key decisions: Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram – Ajit Singh held State must justify if land acquisition is for its own benefit – Bhagat Ram emphasized Panchayat's income land is State acquisition requiring compensation – These binding precedents upheld [Paras 24 to 51]

High Court Reasoning – Consistent Judicial View – Full Bench rightly relied on earlier Division Bench ruling in Gurjant Singh – Held: Bachat lands unutilized under consolidation scheme to be re-partitioned among proprietors in original share – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s reliance on consistent precedent and clarified that State itself had not challenged that aspect before [Paras 54 to 57]

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court – Longstanding judicial consensus on bachat lands reverting to proprietors was applied – Court held that such consistency over 100 judgments cannot be lightly disturbed unless manifestly erroneous – Followed principle of legal certainty and predictability [Paras 58 to 62]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Haryana’s appeal against High Court judgment dismissed – Land not specifically earmarked in the scheme does not vest with State – To revest with proprietors – No costs awarded [Paras 63 to 64]

Criminal Procedure – Review of Section 482 CrPC Order – Maintainability – High Court had earlier dismissed accused’s petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR – Accused filed a separate recall application, which was treated as a fresh case – Held: Once petition under Section 482 was dismissed, High Court became functus officio – Recall application not maintainable – [Paras 23-25]

Criminal Law – Interim Protection – Absence of Jurisdiction – Despite lack of jurisdiction, High Court granted accused 30-day protection from arrest and advised him to seek anticipatory bail – Held: Granting interim protection and advising anticipatory bail in a disposed matter was wholly erroneous – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction – [Paras 24-27]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Earlier Application Rejected – Accused had previously been denied anticipatory bail by Sessions Court – No challenge made to that order – High Court overlooked this and created avenue to reapproach for bail – Held: This undermined judicial discipline and due process – [Paras 25-26]

Victim Rights – Challenge by Complainant – Complainant, as brother of rape survivor and first informant, entitled to challenge interim relief granted to accused in violation of procedural law – Directions issued by High Court found unsustainable – [Paras 2, 22, 27]

High Court Jurisdiction – Misuse of Review Mechanism – Treating recall application as new proceeding with fresh number unjustified – Such procedural irregularity criticized – [Paras 23-25]

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Directions in Paragraphs 3.1 and 4 of the High Court’s order dated 11/07/2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 235 of 2025 set aside – Sessions Court’s subsequent rejection of anticipatory bail on 05/08/2025 unaffected – High Court to consider any pending bail appeal independently – Liberty granted to accused to seek regular bail – [Paras 28-34]

Service Law – Eligibility under Reserved Quota – Appointment in TGT Post – Appellant working in 100% Government-aided Minority School applied under 25% quota reserved for Government Elementary School teachers – Selection process conducted and appointment letter issued based on recommendation of District Education Establishment Committee – After one year, appointment cancelled and recovery of salary ordered – Held: Though technically ineligible under the reserved quota, appellant was selected, appointed, and joined based on decisions of competent authorities – Appellant cannot be penalised for administrative lapses of the State [Paras 4–8, 20–28].

Administrative Law – Cancellation of Appointment – Recovery of Salary – Appellant's appointment was approved by multiple authorities including JSSC, District Education Establishment Committee, and District Superintendent of Education – Appointment cancelled after one year without fault of appellant – Held: Cancellation and salary recovery orders arbitrary and unsustainable – Authorities must bear consequences of their own errors – Cancellation and recovery orders quashed [Paras 23–28].

Relief – Reinstatement – Continuity of Service – No Back Wages – Supreme Court orders reinstatement of appellant with continuity of service and benefits except for back wages – Relief granted considering peculiar facts and equities of case – Order passed not to be treated as precedent [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cancellation of appointment and recovery of salary quashed – Appellant to be reinstated with continuity in service but without back wages – Order passed in view of peculiar facts, not to be treated as precedent.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Proceedings – Loan Default and Auction – Challenge to Sale Notice – Stay and Set Aside – Respondent defaulted on loan repayment after mortgaging properties – After compromise failed, sale notices were issued and challenged – DRT initially granted stay, later refused extension – Ultimately, auction held, but set aside by DRT due to procedural lapses – Fresh auctions challenged again, but without final adjudication [Paras 2, 5, 9, 13-14].

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – SBI OTS 2020 Scheme – Eligibility Criteria – Upfront Payment Mandatory – Application Incomplete – Application by borrower under OTS 2020 Scheme was not accompanied by 5% of proposed settlement amount as required by Clause 4(i) of Scheme – Held: Failure to deposit upfront rendered application invalid and not liable to be processed [Paras 25-27, 39-40].

Judicial Review – Grounds of Rejection – Validity of Administrative Orders – Additional Grounds Permissible if Fairness Ensured – Though SBI’s rejection letter did not cite failure to pay upfront amount as a reason, the Court held that where alternative valid grounds appear from record and parties are put to notice, orders may be upheld on such grounds in the interest of justice – Principles in Mohinder Singh Gill case harmonized with fairness doctrine [Paras 34-38, 42].

Mandamus – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – No Positive Right to OTS – Direction Limited to Reconsideration – Courts below erred in issuing directions to reconsider respondent’s OTS application without examining eligibility under Clause 4(i) – Courts should not compel grant or reconsideration unless statutory duty exists – High Court’s interference unjustified [Paras 21, 23-24, 29, 43].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction for reconsideration of OTS application set aside – Respondent permitted to submit fresh proposal not under 2020 Scheme – Appellants may proceed to enforce security interest as per law [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law - Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act  – Direction for Re-trial – Procedural Lapses in Admitting Electronic Evidence – High Court Order Set Aside – In a prosecution under the NDPS Act, the Trial Court convicted the appellant based on oral evidence and video recordings supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – The High Court allowed the appeal partly and ordered a re-trial citing failure to properly admit the CD and to examine the Chemical Analyst – The Supreme Court held that the video was already admissible with a valid certificate and that failure to explain it through witness testimony or prepare a transcript was not fatal – Further held that CA’s report was admissible under Section 293 CrPC and non-examination of the CA was not fatal in the absence of objection – Re-trial can only be ordered in exceptional cases of miscarriage of justice, which was not established here – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and matter remanded for fresh consideration of appeal on merits by High Court [Paras 1, 18-21, 36].

NDPS Trial – Admissibility of Video Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B of Evidence Act – Re-trial Unwarranted – High Court erred in holding video inadmissible due to absence of witness-specific narration or transcript – Once certificate under Section 65B(4) is submitted, CD is admissible – Video corroborated oral testimony and was viewed by the Court, counsels, and accused – No prejudice established – Re-trial on this ground unjustified [Paras 18-20].

Chemical Examiner’s Report – Section 293 CrPC – Not Mandatory to Examine CA in Every Case – High Court incorrectly held non-examination of CA as a fatal flaw – Under Section 293, CA’s report is admissible without oral evidence unless specifically disputed – Report was exhibited and not objected to during trial – No legal error found [Paras 21, 24].

Production of Contraband – Importance of Inventory and Sampling – Section 52A NDPS Act – While seized ganja was not physically produced, prosecution proved preparation of inventory certified by Magistrate, proper sampling, and FSL report confirming intact seals and presence of ganja – Evidence sufficient to establish seizure and identity – Failure to open samples during trial was curable defect, not warranting re-trial [Paras 25-32].

Re-trial – Exceptional Remedy – Not to Cure Curable Procedural Lapses – Court reiterated settled law that re-trial is permissible only in cases of serious miscarriage of justice – High Court’s reasons (procedural missteps in admitting electronic and scientific evidence) did not meet threshold for re-trial – Proper course was to remand for additional evidence or dispose of appeal on merits – High Court’s approach was legally flawed [Paras 16-19, 34].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Order for Re-trial Set Aside – Criminal Appeals Restored – High Court directed to decide both appeals afresh on merits within six months – Appellant to continue on bail – Supreme Court made no comment on merits of case [Paras 35-38].

Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 – Constitutional Challenge – Interim Relief Denied – Multiple petitioners challenged constitutional validity of provisions of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 alleging arbitrariness, discrimination, and infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court rejected prayer for stay of entire statute but granted limited interim relief in respect of certain provisions – Held: Presumption of constitutionality stands, no prima facie case made out for total stay – Certain clauses stayed or limited pending rulemaking or final adjudication [Paras 1, 120, 209].

Definition of Waqf – Five-Year Practice of Islam Condition – Section 3(r) – Provision requiring dedication by a person showing Islamic practice for at least 5 years held not arbitrary – However, implementation stayed pending rulemaking to define mechanism for ascertaining practice – Purpose is to avoid misuse via fraudulent conversions – No stay on entire definition, only limited part stayed [Paras 132–140, 209(i)].

Waqf by User – Deletion of Clause (i) of Section 3(r) – Validity Upheld – The deletion of concept of ‘waqf by user’ upheld prospectively – Court observed that for decades, registration was mandatory and waqfs could have complied – Held: Concept prone to misuse; legislature’s power to amend statute upheld – No retrospective impact on vested waqf rights [Paras 143–152].

Wrongful Declaration of Waqf – Section 3C – Partial Stay Granted – Court upheld inquiry mechanism for identifying government land wrongly declared as waqf – However, stayed proviso to sub-section (2) and sub-sections (3) and (4) as they allowed executive action to change status without judicial determination – Held: Only Tribunal can determine title, not revenue officer [Paras 153–167, 209(ii), (iii)].

Protected Monuments – Section 3D – Declaration of Waqf Prohibited – Provision barring declaration of protected monuments as waqf upheld – Court observed such monuments are national heritage and religious practices remain unaffected under existing heritage law – Argument of interference in Islamic religious practice rejected [Paras 168–172].

Tribal Areas – Section 3E – Declaration of Waqf Prohibited – Provision barring declaration of Scheduled/Tribal land as waqf upheld – Based on protection for vulnerable communities under Fifth and Sixth Schedules – Provision has nexus with object sought to be achieved and is not arbitrary [Paras 173–178].

Composition of Waqf Boards and Councils – Inclusion of Non-Muslims – Section 9 and Section 14 – Court limited number of non-Muslim members to 4 (Council) and 3 (Board) – Though inclusion not stayed, directed cap to preserve character – Function of Board held largely secular – Appointment of Muslim CEO encouraged but not mandated [Paras 179–189, 209(iv), (v)].

Registration of Waqf – Bar on Enforcement by Unregistered Waqfs – Section 36(10) – Validity Upheld – Court upheld bar on institution of legal proceedings on behalf of unregistered waqfs – Provision aligns with past recommendations and earlier legal framework – Six-month window and judicial discretion to condone delay provide sufficient protection [Paras 190–192].

Evacuee Waqf Properties – Section 108 – Deletion Upheld – Court found provision redundant as Evacuee Property Act was repealed – Deletion does not impair any constitutional right [Paras 203–205].

Overriding Effect Clause – Section 108A – Deletion Permissible – Provision existed only from 2013–2025 – Legislature competent to delete earlier overriding clause – Deletion held valid [Paras 206–208].

Limitation Act – Application to Waqf Property – Section 107 – Validity Upheld – Application of general limitation law to waqf proceedings upheld as removing earlier special treatment – Not discriminatory [Paras 198–202].

Final Decision – Entire Act Not Stayed – Limited Provisions Stayed – Directions Issued – Court declined stay on impugned Act – Issued specific directions to limit possible misuse or ambiguity – Observations held prima facie and not binding for final adjudication on merits [Para 209].