Constitution of India - Article 215 - High Court Powers - Inherent Jurisdiction - High Court directed criminal investigation into siphoning of estate funds during testamentary suit - Held - High Court while exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not cease to be a Constitutional Court of record - It retains undiminished inherent and plenary powers to prevent abuse of process and safeguard the estate from depletion - Court is not a silent spectator to glaring irregularities or mischief played by an executor - [Paras 15-18 27-29 33 43]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 247 - Administrator Pendente Lite - Status and Duties - Administrator appointed under Section 247 due to intermeddling by rival Will propounder - Held - Administrator is an officer of the court and is the hand of the court - Status of the estate is in custodia legis - Administrator is duty bound to take all reasonable steps for preservation and maintenance of the estate including drawing attention of the court to facts necessitating criminal action - [Paras 7-8 30-31]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 340 and 341 - Procedure - Investigation - Appellants contended High Court bypassed Section 340 CrPC mandate - Held - Direction for criminal investigation was not passed strictly under Section 340 CrPC for offences affecting administration of justice alone - Court exercised broader inherent powers to investigate a larger conspiracy of siphoning estate funds through shell entities - Procedural bars under Section 341 CrPC are inapplicable - [Paras 40-41]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Sections 211 and 307 - Executor Authority - Limitations - Propounder of rival Will transferred estate funds to dormant trusts before probate - Held - While an executor derives authority from the Will such authority is not a license to plunder - Where rival Wills are contested and estate is in medio an executor cannot unilaterally dispose of assets - Appointment of Administrator pendente lite suspends the powers of the executor - [Paras 30 39]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 269 - Protection of Property - Parsi Testator - Bar under Section 269-2 - Held - Testator being a Parsi the bar in Section 269-2 is not applicable - High Court as a court of record has inherent power to ensure the Administrator is not impeded and the estate is not misappropriated - [Paras 34-35]

Decision: Appeals dismissed - High Court order upheld - Investigating authority directed to proceed expeditiously and submit progress reports as per High Court

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted by Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of four members of the family of deceased Rajesh Shukla on the night of 18/20.07.2002, the accused group having administered calmpose injections and thereafter causing fatal stab injuries – Trial Court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- – High Court dismissed the appeal and directed sentences on all four counts to run concurrently – Held: Prosecution established its case through a chain of circumstantial evidence including recovery of incriminating articles, postmortem report, and viscera report – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–8, 21].

Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Panch Witnesses Turning Hostile – Section 27, Indian Evidence Act – Investigating Officer's Testimony – Appellant contended that recovery of phials, clothes, and rope allegedly effected at his instance was not proved as both independent panch witnesses turned hostile; further that recovery was made two months after the incident and was procured under force – Held: It is well settled that merely because panch witnesses turn hostile does not vitiate recovery if the same is proved through the testimony of the Investigating Officer – Recovery at appellant's instance proved through testimony of Investigating Officer Arun Singh (PW 24) – Relied upon: Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111; Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 8 SCC 359 [Paras 15–19].

Postmortem Report – Calmpose/Diazepam – Cause of Death – Postmortem conducted by team of doctors proved through PW 17 Dr. B.L. Gupta – Report disclosed multiple penetrative wounds on the deceased and established that death was caused by shock due to external and internal injuries and excessive blood loss within 24 to 36 hours – Viscera report (Ex. P-52) confirmed presence of Diazepam in Articles A, B, C, D, E, G, H and JK – Findings consistent with prosecution case of administration of calmpose injection prior to assault [Paras 16–17].

Faulty Investigation – Effect on Prosecution Case – Appellant contended that both courts below had noted the investigation to be faulty – Held: Faulty investigation per se is not a ground to discard other material evidence brought by the prosecution; the recovery of the phial at the instance of the appellant, supported by the postmortem report and medical evidence, constituted sufficient material to sustain conviction [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by Trial Court and upheld by High Court confirmed.

Criminal Law – Criminal Intimidation – Section 503/506 IPC – Independent Examination of Charges – Acquittal Under Sections 376, 493, 354C IPC – Conviction Under Part II Section 506 IPC Upheld – Appellant acquitted of rape and allied charges as relationship was held consensual, but convicted for criminal intimidation by threatening to upload video of prosecutrix taken while bathing – High Court confirmed conviction – Held: Each charge must be examined separately and independently; acquittal on interconnected charges does not invariably lead to acquittal on other charges if the evidence pertaining to such charge is separable and independently proved [Paras 21-23].

Imputing Unchastity – Evolved Understanding – Section 506 Part II IPC – Digital Age – Dignity and Sexual Autonomy – Threat to upload secretly recorded bathing video on social media held to constitute threat to impute unchastity within Part II of Section 506 IPC – Held: Chastity is not to be assessed solely through the lens of traditional moral values but must be understood through the prism of a woman's dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy – Any act that interferes with a woman's control over her sexual choices and the dissemination of intimate personal information amounts to imputing unchastity – Publication of images depicting nakedness taken in a bathroom violates privacy and dignity and sullies chastity even in the context of a consensual relationship [Paras 29-41].

Non-Recovery of Mobile Phone/Videography – Not Fatal – Recovery Not Sine Qua Non – Where the victim genuinely believed in the existence of the video based on her intimate relationship with the accused and the accused's own admission of having recorded it, non-production of the video before the court is not fatal to the prosecution case – Held: Law does not mandate recovery of article of crime as sine qua non for conviction; if credible testimonial evidence establishes existence of the object of crime, absence of recovery does not defeat prosecution [Paras 52-54].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Especial Knowledge – Intimate Relationships – Burden of Proof – Held: The concept of "especial knowledge" under Section 106 is not confined to physical spaces but extends to interpersonal relationships where only the accused and the victim are privy to events occurring within their private realm – Once prosecution establishes foundational facts making out a prima facie case, burden shifts to the accused to explain or deny incriminating allegations; mere denial without leading any defence evidence or impeaching the prosecutrix's testimony does not discharge this burden [Paras 59-68, 79-81].

Credibility of Prosecutrix – Cross-Examination – Sections 162 CrPC and 145 Evidence Act – Section 313 CrPC Examination – Prosecutrix's testimony not impeached, contradicted, or discredited by reference to prior Section 161 CrPC statement – Accused's examination under Section 313 CrPC answered entirely with the phrase "false evidence" without leading any defence – Held: Oral testimony of prosecutrix, having passed through statutory filtrations of Sections 162 CrPC, 145 Evidence Act, and 313 CrPC unscathed, is reliable and can be acted upon; corroborated by PW-5, PW-7, and PW-10 whose evidence was natural, cogent, and consistent [Paras 74-93].

Standard of Proof – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: Reasonable doubt must be actual and substantial, not imaginary, trivial, or speculative – Law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, not proof beyond all doubt – On facts, oral testimonial evidence of prosecutrix satisfies the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt despite non-recovery of video [Paras 94-96].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference Under Article 136 – Held: Where trial court and appellate court have concurrently found the charge proved, Supreme Court will not interfere unless there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, which is absent here [Para 97].

Failure of Investigating Officer – Digital Evidence – Held: Non-recovery of mobile phone in a case involving digital evidence reflects a serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer; competent authorities directed to take note to ensure IOs do not commit such lapses in future [Para 98].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Part II of Section 506 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified to period of custody already undergone – Bail bond and surety discharged.

Writ Law - Constitutional Validity - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Section 63(4) - Admissibility of electronic records - Petitioner Pune Bar Association challenged Section 63(4) read with the Schedule as unconstitutional for imposing undue hardship on litigants - Specifically challenged the requirement of disclosing hash values in Part A and obtaining an expert signature in Part B of the Schedule - Court noted that digital records have replaced physical documents and necessitated updated laws - Observed that hash values are electronic fingerprints providing a sure way of identifying and verifying digital data - Found that such requirements ensure authenticity and integrity - Held - The provision has a clear rational nexus with the object of the law and is not hit by the vice of manifest arbitrariness - [Paras 1-4].

Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Section 39 - Qualification of Expert for Part B Certificate - Dispute over whether an expert under Part B of the Schedule must strictly be an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the IT Act - Petitioner relied on a Madras High Court judgment to argue that restricted notification causes hardship - Supreme Court applied harmonious construction to Section 39(1) and Section 39(2) of the BSA - Noted that Section 39(2) is not prefaced by a non-obstante clause to exclude Section 39(1) - Held - In addition to entities notified under Section 79A of the IT Act - if a Court is satisfied on the basis of unimpeachable material that any other person has special skill and expertise in computer science and cyber forensics - such person may sign Part B of the Schedule as an expert - [Paras 5-7].

Evidence Law - Precedent - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Section 63(4) - Binding nature of High Court findings - Reference made to R. v. B & Anr 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6084 - The Madras High Court had held that certificates under Part B must only be filled by Section 79A IT Act examiners - Supreme Court observed the High Court failed to consider Section 39(1) of the BSA - Held - The finding of the High Court regarding the restrictive definition of an expert under Section 79A of the IT Act for the purposes of the BSA Schedule shall not be treated as a binding precedent - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Clarified that experts beyond those notified under Section 79A IT Act can sign Part B of the Schedule – Question of law kept open.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and sentence confirmed by High Court for murder of the son of the de-facto complainant, whose body was found in a field on 01.11.2012 – Prosecution relied on last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapons and motorcycle, serological report and oral testimonies – Supreme Court, on examination of each circumstance, finds none of them to qualify as incriminating and reverses the conviction – Appeals allowed – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 3, 18].

Last Seen Together – Time Gap – Proximity to Death – The last seen together theory is a relevant incriminating circumstance only when the gap between the accused and the deceased being seen together and the death is proximate – Where the time gap is large, intervening circumstances may snap the link and prevent adverse inference against the accused merely on account of failure to explain when they parted company – In the present case, PW14 saw the deceased with the accused at 5 PM on 30.10.2012 and the body was recovered at around 10 AM the next day, the post mortem report placing death within 24 hours of examination — time frame too large to treat last seen as a proximate incriminating circumstance [Paras 7, 9].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability – Conflicting Versions – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence by its very nature – Where the confession spoken of by one witness is directly contradicted by three other prosecution witnesses who speak of only an exculpatory statement absolving the maker and implicating co-accused, the confession is not proved – An exculpatory statement implicating co-accused is unreliable and cannot be used against those co-accused for want of opportunity for cross-examination – Confession made when the accused was in the custody of a mob raises grave doubt of duress, further undermined by injuries found on the accused at the time of medical examination after arrest [Paras 10, 11].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Requirements – Concealment and Knowledge – For a recovery to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the statement of the accused must specifically disclose a concealment and lead the police to the place of concealment from which the object is recovered – Where the seizure list merely records that objects were recovered "on being shown and certified by accused" without recording any statement of concealment, the recovery does not qualify under Section 27 – Recovery from an open field with free public access, without proof of concealment, is of no evidentiary value – Alleged weapons not produced in Court and not shown to the doctor to elicit medical opinion on causation, further rendering the recovery of no consequence [Paras 12–15].

Recovery of Motorcycle – Evidentiary Value – Motorcycle said to have been recovered prior to arrest of the accused and on information from PW12 — house owner PW9 failed to identify the accused — motorcycle not produced before the Court nor were its registration details placed on record — PW1 not questioned about recovery — discrepancies identical to those in the recovery of alleged weapons – Recovery of motorcycle of no evidentiary value [Para 16].

Witness Testimony – Credibility – PW11, a crucial witness to the last seen drinking together theory, unable to specify her employer, the name or locality of the house she claimed to be returning from — BDO office locality thickly populated reducing probability of open drinking — testimony does not inspire confidence — PW13 turned hostile — PW4, aunt of A3, admitted to being threatened by PW1 to depose falsely and gave contradictory answers even in re-examination — no credence can be placed on these witnesses [Paras 6, 17].

Motive – Absence – While motive is not imperative where the chain of circumstances is complete, absence of motive in a case of brutal murder is yet another circumstance adding to reasonable doubt when no link in the chain of circumstances has been established [Para 17].

Legal Services – Third Accused – Direction to NALSA – A3, who did not file an appeal despite having been convicted and imprisoned along with A1 and A2, directed to be provided legal assistance — Member Secretary, NALSA directed to coordinate with the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority to ensure an appeal is filed before this Court on behalf of A3 within two months — matter posted for compliance on 20.07.2026 [Para 20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled – NALSA directed to facilitate filing of appeal by A3 within two months.

Bail — Cancellation — High Court granting bail without engaging prior Supreme Court order cancelling bail — Duty to identify supervening circumstances or fresh grounds — High Court's impugned order failed to advert to the earlier Supreme Court order dated 27.01.2025 cancelling bail, failed to identify any changed factual matrix or supervening circumstances justifying departure, and failed to engage with CCTV evidence, weapon recovery, and Trial Court's rejection of second bail application — Held: While no absolute bar exists against a High Court granting bail after cancellation by the Supreme Court, such bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating change in circumstances or fresh grounds — impugned order is perverse and unsustainable [Paras 23–24, 34–35].

Bail — Conduct of Accused Post-Cancellation — Absconding — Accused failed to surrender for approximately 42 days after Supreme Court's direction — NBW issued by Trial Court — Section 82 CrPC proceedings initiated — Plea that delay was due to pendency of Review Petition rejected — Held: Filing of a Review Petition does not operate as automatic stay upon the original order; accused was bound to comply forthwith — Contumacious conduct is a crucial factor in determining whether bail ought to be granted afresh [Paras 25–27].

Bail — Parity with Co-Accused — Not an Inflexible Rule — Accused Jeeshan attributed specific role of firing with country-made pistol and charged under Arms Act — Co-accused Aurangzeb attributed role of assault by knife with no Arms Act charge — Appellant's withdrawal of SLP against Aurangzeb's bail after his conviction in murder case not a dismissal on merits and creates no precedent — Held: Parity in bail cannot be mechanically applied where roles of accused are materially different [Paras 30].

Criminal Law — Section 307 IPC — Absence of Firearm Injuries Does Not Negate Charge — Accused fired weapon at victims who escaped by chance — Held: Section 307 IPC requires the doing of an act with intent or knowledge that it can cause death; if victims escape by chance, the offence is nonetheless made out — Argument that CCTV does not show actual firing is a matter for trial evaluation and not determinative at bail stage [Para 29].

Bail — Reasoned Orders — Duty of Court — Held: Bail orders must engage with material on record; mere recitation of "facts and circumstances of the case" without more does not constitute a reasoned order — Courts must also recognise the potential threat to life and liberty of victims and witnesses if an accused is released on bail [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned order dated 22.09.2025 set aside — Bail of Respondent No. 2/accused Jeeshan cancelled — Respondent No. 2 directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith, failing which the Trial Court shall take necessary steps including issuance of NBW to secure his custody [Paras 36–37].

Civil Law — General Power of Attorney — Alleged Misuse — Sale Deeds Challenged as Collateral Security Arrangement — Burden of Proof — Appellant executed registered GPAs in favour of respondents alleging they were merely security for loans — Respondents executed sale deeds pursuant to GPAs in favour of close relatives — Appellant failed to produce any documentary proof of loan, payment of interest, or repayment — Trial Court itself found discharge of loan not proved — Held: Burden of establishing that transactions were not genuine sale transactions rested upon the appellant; before burden could shift to respondents under fiduciary misuse principle, appellant was required to establish foundational facts of fraud — Foundational evidence being absent, initial burden remained with appellant [Paras 43–46].

Civil Procedure — Order XLI Rule 31, CPC — Non-Examination of Appellant — Adverse Inference — Appellant levelled serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and misuse of blank signed papers but abstained from entering the witness box — Attesting witnesses to receipts and GPAs, admittedly appellant's own relatives, were also not examined — No expert evidence adduced to establish forgery — Held: Adverse inference drawn by First Appellate Court and High Court was justified; a party possessing special knowledge of facts who fails to enter the witness box invites adverse inference [Paras 48–52].

Civil Procedure — Order XLI Rule 31, CPC — Substantial Compliance Sufficient — First Appellate Court framed points for determination and undertook detailed reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence on all issues including loan transactions, receipts, possession, mutation entries, limitation, and conduct of parties — Held: Requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is one of substantial compliance and not mere technical formality; judgment not liable to be set aside solely on ground of non-compliance where substance of appellate adjudication is present [Paras 40–42].

Civil Law — Mutation Entries — Evidentiary Value — Prolonged Inaction — Mutation entries stood in names of purchasers for nearly a decade, unchallenged before any authority — GPAs remained uncancelled — Further registered transactions took place without objection — Held: Mutation entries alone do not confer title, however when continued for many years, supported by registered transactions and remaining unchallenged for a prolonged period, they become relevant factors on possession and conduct — Unexplained delay of ten years in filing suit inconsistent with conduct of a person alleging fraudulent alienation [Paras 53–54].

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Section 100 CPC — Scope of Interference — First Appellate Court being final court on facts undertook independent reappreciation and reversed Trial Court decree with reasoned findings — High Court found no substantial question of law — Held: No perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference; scope of High Court under Section 100 CPC is well settled and does not permit reassessment of factual findings [Para 55].

Decision: Appeal dismissed [Para 57].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Grievous Hurt – Alteration of Conviction – Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC – Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court under Section 307/34 IPC for assaulting informant Amar Singh with lathis causing fractures in both parietal bones, neurological complications and prolonged hospitalisation – Supreme Court, on examination of the concurrent findings, holds that prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea under Section 307 IPC while grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC stood conclusively proved – Conviction altered accordingly – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 24, 38].

Section 307 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Mens Rea – Intention to Commit Murder – To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, both intention or knowledge to commit murder and an overt act in execution thereof must be established – The nature of injury, though an important consideration, is not by itself determinative; intention may be inferred from the type of weapon used, motive, parts of the body targeted, manner and force of blows, and surrounding circumstances – Gravity of injury and its being dangerous to life does not, without more, establish the requisite intention [Paras 25–32].

Intention – Inference from Circumstances – Spontaneous Assault vis-à-vis Premeditation – The incident arose suddenly when the injured intervened in an altercation involving a jeep driver – No history of prior enmity, no evidence of planning or premeditation, and no conduct showing a determined effort to cause death – Weapons used were ordinary lathis, not inherently deadly – Object of appellants appears to have been to deter interference rather than to cause death – Held: Requisite intention under Section 307 IPC not established [Paras 33–35].

Grievous Hurt – Section 320 IPC – Clauses Seventhly and Eighthly – Fractures in both parietal bones near the midline, neurological complications, prolonged hospitalisation and loss of power in right wrist brought within the definition of grievous hurt – Injury squarely covered under Clause Seventhly (fracture of a bone) and Clause Eighthly (injury dangerous to life/prolonged incapacitation) – Ingredients of Section 325 IPC fully satisfied [Paras 36–37].

Sentence – Period Already Undergone – Appellants sentenced to the period already undergone — Roshan Lal: 2 years 7 months; Sajjan Singh: 2 years 8 months; Satya Prakash: 1 year 1 month — Fine of Rs. 50,000/- each imposed, payable to the injured-informant, in default, six months' simple imprisonment – Bail bonds discharged upon payment; in event of non-payment, discharged only after serving default sentence [Paras 40–42].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference by Supreme Court in Criminal Appeals by Special Leave – This Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence – Interference is warranted where findings are vitiated by an error of law or procedure, misreading of evidence, inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, or where conclusions are manifestly perverse and based on no evidence [Para 2].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC altered to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellants sentenced to the period already undergone – Fine of Rs. 50,000/- each imposed payable to the injured-informant, in default six months' simple imprisonment – All pending applications disposed of.

Bail – UAPA – Reference to Larger Bench – Divergence in Application of Binding Precedent – Appellants charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 sought bail – During hearing, State counsel pointed to a perceived divergence among coordinate Benches in the application of the three-Judge Bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb – A coordinate Bench in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA expressed serious reservations on the manner Gulfisha Fatima applied K.A. Najeeb – Held: Where a coordinate Bench entertains reservations of a fundamental character about the application of a binding larger Bench decision, the matter must be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench – Registry directed accordingly [Paras 3, 14–16, 23, 25].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 vs. Section 43D(5) UAPA – Correct Approach to Bail – K.A. Najeeb holds that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) do not per se oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail where continued detention violates Part III – However, the ratio is neither a charter for indefinite incarceration nor a mathematical command that mere passage of time must automatically result in bail – Held: The true question is how Article 21 is to be applied in a statutory field where Parliament has consciously imposed bail restrictions in respect of offences affecting national security – Neither extreme — mechanical bail on delay alone nor absolute insistence on Section 43D(5) — is constitutionally permissible [Paras 7–8, 20–21].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Coordinate Bench Cannot Unsettle Earlier Coordinate Bench – A coordinate Bench may distinguish, explain, or express doubt about an earlier coordinate Bench decision, but where the doubt goes to the root of the legal principle applied — particularly regarding the application of a larger Bench decision — the matter cannot rest at the stage of criticism – A doubt expressed in emphatic terms is still a doubt and not a declaration of law – Held: Disagreement must be resolved by reference to a Bench of appropriate strength; uncertainty in matters touching personal liberty and national security is itself an institutional cost [Paras 15–18].

Interim Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Pending Reference – Appellants having undergone substantial incarceration and the trial not likely to conclude immediately, it would be unjust to make them suffer continued detention merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement – Held: Interim bail granted for six months subject to stringent conditions including personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two local sureties, surrender of passport, restriction on leaving NCT of Delhi, prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses, and fortnightly reporting to the Investigating Officer [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Leave granted – Matter referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench to settle the correct approach to bail under special statutes where Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and Section 43D(5) of UAPA intersect – Appellants directed to be released on interim bail for six months subject to conditions – Trial Court directed to proceed with utmost expedition.