Criminal Law - Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Married Prosecutrix – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of repeated sexual intercourse on assurance of marriage – Prosecutrix admittedly a married woman with subsisting marriage and pending divorce proceedings – Promise of marriage, even if assumed, not legally enforceable due to statutory bar under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act – Held: Consent not vitiated by misconception of fact – Allegations disclose consensual relationship gone sour and not rape – FIR and criminal proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 19–24, 27–28].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Section 90 IPC – Distinction between false promise and breach of promise reiterated – For vitiation of consent, promise must be false from inception and intended solely to obtain sexual favours – Prosecutrix being an advocate, aware of her marital status and legal incapacity to remarry – Held: No material to show deception from inception or inducement by fraud [Paras 17–18, 22–24].

Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Repeated Rape – Scope – Expression “repeatedly” contemplates multiple distinct acts of sexual assault under coercion, fear, captivity or continued deception – Not attracted to prolonged consensual relationships between adults – Present facts do not satisfy statutory ingredients of repeated rape [Paras 16, 19, 22].

Inherent and Constitutional Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – FIR and charge-sheet even if taken at face value do not constitute offence under Section 376 IPC – Continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law – Case squarely falling within categories laid down in Bhajan Lal – High Court erred in refusing to quash proceedings [Paras 26–28].

Misuse of Rape Law – Broken Relationships – Courts must guard against criminalisation of failed consensual relationships – Giving colour of rape to personal discord trivialises the gravity of the offence and causes grave injustice to accused – Strong caution sounded against misuse of criminal justice machinery [Paras 21, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court dated 03.03.2025 set aside – FIR No. 213/2025 dated 06.02.2025, Chargesheet No. 269/2025 and Sessions Case No. 89/2025 quashed.

Hindu Law – Joint Hindu Family Property – Presumption – Burden of Proof – Suit for partition filed by coparcener claiming share in 79 items of agricultural lands – Admitted existence of joint family and ancestral properties – Item Nos. 14 and 15 proved to be ancestral income-yielding lands – Acquisitions made during subsistence of joint family – Held: Once existence of ancestral nucleus capable of yielding income is shown, burden shifts to person asserting self-acquisition to establish independent source – Mere proof of some independent income of Karta insufficient to rebut presumption [Paras 29–31].

Joint Family – Karta – Properties Standing in Name of Karta – Character – Properties purchased in name of Karta during continuance of joint family – Hindu law does not require coparceners to establish exact source of funds for each acquisition – Held: Properties acquired in name of Karta during subsistence of joint family ordinarily bear joint family character unless contrary is proved by clear evidence [Paras 29–30].

Self-acquisition – Independent Income – Proof – Appellant claimed several suit properties as self-acquired based on alleged independent income from contracting and business activities – Evidence showed appellant was a student till mid-1960s – Courts below found claim of substantial independent income during relevant period improbable – Held: Findings based on realistic appraisal of evidence cannot be interfered with in appeal [Paras 31–32].

Partition – Prior Partition or Severance of Status – Proof – Plea of prior partition based on separate enjoyment, borrowings and irrigation facilities – Held: Separate possession or enjoyment does not constitute partition – Clear intention to sever joint status must be established – Absence of mutation, division of liabilities or declaration negates plea of prior partition [Para 32].

Alienation by Karta – Legal Necessity – Sale in Favour of Coparcener – Multiple sale deeds executed by Karta in favour of one son – Courts undertook item-wise scrutiny – Alienations upheld only where legal necessity such as medical expenses or debt discharge was proved – Held: Alienations by Karta in favour of one coparcener must be strictly proved to be for legal necessity – General or vague recitals insufficient to bind interests of other coparceners [Para 33].

Guardian Sale – Minor’s Property – Court Permission – Effect – Properties belonging to branch of deceased coparcener sold by Karta as guardian of minors – Though court permission obtained, surrounding circumstances and use of sale proceeds scrutinised – Held: Sale does not automatically lose joint family character – Courts justified in setting aside such alienations where necessity and benefit to minors not proved [Para 34].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Proof – Unregistered Will allegedly executed three days prior to death of Karta – Testator habitually signed documents but used thumb impression – Will scribed by close relative – Attesting circumstances doubtful – Held: Presence of suspicious circumstances justified rejection of Will – Rejection having attained finality cannot be reopened at later stage [Para 35].

Admissions – Estoppel – Partition Suits – Admissions relied upon by appellant regarding payments and transactions – Held: Such admissions did not conclusively establish self-acquisition nor operate as estoppel against asserting joint family character [Paras 23, 35].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – High Court granted limited relief by excluding certain items proved to be purchased from third parties – Otherwise affirmed concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Held: Supreme Court will not interfere with well-reasoned concurrent findings unless perversity shown [Paras 37–38].

Decision – Civil Appeals dismissed – Judgment of High Court affirmed with limited exclusions already granted – No order as to costs [Paras 38–39].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legally Enforceable Right – Outcome: Affirmed – Dearness Allowance (DA) is a compensatory measure against inflation, not a bounty, designed to protect the real value of wages and maintain a minimum standard of living – The High Court's finding in the first round of litigation that DA is a legally enforceable right, having attained finality due to no appeal, is binding on the parties – Once a legal right to DA is established, the State's financial inability or paucity of funds cannot be a ground to deny its payment, as constitutional duties cannot be evaded on such grounds – DA is an integral part of salary and its denial impacts the right to life and livelihood under Article 21 – The State, as a model employer, must honor its statutory obligations – The argument of financial difficulty is rejected [Paras 2, 22, 23, 48, 50, 52, 59.2].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legislation by Incorporation (AICPI) – Outcome: Affirmed – The West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009 (RoPA Rules), promulgated under Article 309, incorporated the definition of 'existing emoluments' from Central Government Rules, thereby adopting the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) as the standard for DA calculation – This constitutes 'legislation by incorporation', meaning the AICPI, a statistically rigorous measure compiled by the Labour Bureau, becomes the determinative standard – Once the State incorporated AICPI into its rules, it cannot deviate from this mechanism without a proper study or formal amendment to the rules – The incorporation of AICPI is not a one-time measure but a dynamic standard for DA determination [Paras 10, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 59.3].

Constitutional Law – Executive Instructions vs. Statutory Rules – Article 309, Article 162 – Outcome: Memoranda held ultra vires – Rules made under Article 309 have statutory force and cannot be overridden or contradicted by executive instructions issued under Article 162 – Executive instructions can only fill gaps in statutory rules, not deviate from or amend them – The First Memorandum and subsequent memoranda issued by the State, which prescribed DA rates without reference to the AICPI standard stipulated in the RoPA Rules, were an improper exercise of power and are ultra vires the substantive rules – The doctrine of severance applies, ensuring the RoPA Rules remain unaffected despite the invalidity of these memoranda [Paras 27, 35, 36, 37, 39, 62, 75, 76, 77, 87, 88].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrariness – Article 14 – Outcome: State action held arbitrary – State action must be reasonable, rational, and not arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious – The doctrine of 'manifest arbitrariness' applies to both subordinate and plenary legislation – The State's deviation from the AICPI standard, explicitly incorporated into its RoPA Rules, without any reasoned basis or independent study, constitutes 'manifest arbitrariness' and violates Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 38, 39, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87].

Service Law – Legitimate Expectation – Outcome: Affirmed – A legitimate expectation arises from a public authority's representation or established practice, founded on law or custom – The enactment of the RoPA Rules and the explicit recognition of AICPI as the determinative factor for DA computation created a legitimate expectation among employees for DA to be calculated and paid accordingly [Paras 40, 88, 89, 93].

Constitutional Law – Federalism – Financial Autonomy – Outcome: State's defence rejected – India's federal structure ensures constitutional division of powers and financial autonomy for States, meaning State Governments are not obligated to automatically adopt Central Government DA rates – However, when a State, in its independent wisdom, incorporates Central Government definitions (like AICPI) into its own statutory rules, it cannot then invoke the defence of separation of powers or financial autonomy to justify arbitrary deviation from its own adopted standard – The argument of pan-India implications for other States is not relevant to this lis as the appellant-State's actions were based on its own legislative choice [Paras 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 59, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Frequency of Payment – Outcome: Not a right – The RoPA Rules do not explicitly mandate that DA be paid twice a year – This omission is a matter within the State's discretion and fiscal policy, and judicial direction cannot introduce such a provision where the statutory text is silent – The Tribunal's direction for DA to be paid twice a year was without authority of law [Paras 49, 106, 107].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Fundamental Right – Outcome: Question left open – While the High Court held DA to be a facet of Article 21, the parties before the Supreme Court jointly agreed not to press this question, leaving it open for determination in an appropriate future case [Para 56, 118].

Service Law – Delay and Laches – Outcome: Rejected – The State's contention regarding delay and laches is rejected because the non-payment of appropriate DA rates constituted a continuing wrong and recurring cause of action – Legal redressal was pursued while the cause of action subsisted, and employees were relentlessly pursuing their remedies [Paras 57, 58, 118, 119, 120].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Contempt petitions disposed of – Dearness Allowance is a legally enforceable right – AICPI is the standard for determining 'existing emoluments' – Employees are entitled to arrears for the period 2008-2019 – Amounts disbursed in compliance with this judgment shall not be recoverable – A Committee comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra (Retd. SC Judge), Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Goutam Bhaduri (Former CJ/Judge HC), and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (or his nominee) is constituted to determine the total amount and payment schedule by March 6, 2026, with the first installment to be paid by March 31, 2026 – Retired employees are also entitled to these benefits – The State is directed to file a status report by April 15, 2026 – No order as to cost [Paras 59.1-59.9, 60].

Service Law – All India Services – IPS Cadre Allocation – Insider Vacancy – Appellant selected to IPS in 2004 Civil Services Examination and allocated Tamil Nadu cadre – Claim raised for re-allocation to Rajasthan cadre against an ‘insider’ vacancy on ground that two candidates senior in merit did not accept the vacancy – Tribunal and High Court rejected the claim – Supreme Court upheld rejection – Held: Once cadre allocation is made in accordance with merit and applicable rules, it attains finality and cannot be reopened after several years [Paras 6, 9–11].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Non-Joining by Senior Candidate – Effect – Senior candidate Rishikesh Meena did not accept ‘insider’ vacancy for Rajasthan cadre in 2004 batch – Next senior Rajesh Kumar obtained favourable order from Tribunal but subsequently joined IAS and did not claim IPS vacancy – Appellant, being third in merit, sought allocation after six years – Held: Junior candidate does not acquire an automatic or vested right to claim such vacancy when senior candidates decline to join – Process cannot be stretched indefinitely [Paras 7–9, 11–12].

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Laches – Vacancy pertained to 2004 batch – Appellant raised claim only in 2010 after six years – Supreme Court held that cadre allocation cannot be kept fluid for years together – Long delay disentitles the appellant to relief – Finality of selection and cadre allocation is essential for stability in services [Paras 9–12].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Doctrine of Finality – Acceptance of appellant’s claim would lead to chain reaction resulting in reshuffling of cadres and vacancies of subsequent years – Supreme Court held that such an approach would open a “Pandora’s box” and make cadre allocation perpetually unsettled – Held: Finality must attach to cadre allocation once made [Paras 4, 10–12].

Service Law – Insider Vacancy – Consumption of Vacancy – Union of India contended that once an ‘insider’ vacancy is offered and allocation is made, the vacancy stands consumed irrespective of acceptance – Supreme Court accepted the stand – Held: Appellant failed to show that the insider vacancy of 2004 batch continued to remain vacant even after more than two decades [Paras 4.1, 12].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – No merit found in claim for re-allocation of cadre – Orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13–14].

Family Law - Child Custody – Paramount Welfare Principle – Scope and Application – Custody dispute between divorced parents concerning two minor children removed from Qatar to India by the mother without consent of the father and without permission of Qatar Courts – High Court held welfare of children as sole consideration and restored custody to mother – Supreme Court held that while welfare of the child is paramount, other relevant factors such as conduct of parties, education, comfort, standard of living, foreign court orders, and contempt findings cannot be ignored – Held: High Court erred in excluding relevant considerations while deciding custody [Paras 22–24, 31].

Child Custody – Removal of Children from Foreign Jurisdiction – Effect – Respondent-mother removed minors from Qatar mid-academic session without consent of father who was guardian and without original passports – Custody granted earlier by Qatar Court revoked due to such misconduct – Supreme Court held that impact of such unilateral removal and revocation of custody by foreign court was a material factor mandatorily required to be considered – Failure of High Court to do so vitiated its judgment [Paras 23–25].

Child Custody – Foreign Court Orders – Relevance – Qatar Court revoked custody granted to mother and ordered custody to father on account of mother’s misconduct – Supreme Court held that there was no subsisting custody order in favour of the mother at the time High Court passed impugned judgment – Such foreign custody orders were highly relevant and could not be ignored while determining custody in India [Paras 25–26].

Contempt of Court – Breach of Undertaking – Effect on Custody Proceedings – Respondent-mother gave undertaking before High Court to return to Qatar with children for continuation of education but violated the same – Held guilty of contempt – Supreme Court held that contempt finding had attained finality and conclusively established misconduct of the respondent – Such conduct was a relevant factor in custody determination and was wrongly ignored by the High Court [Paras 26–27].

Child Custody – Preference of Children – Evidentiary Value – Minor children expressed inclination to accompany father to Qatar before Family Court and during mediation – Mediation report indicated children were comfortable with father, distressed otherwise, and faced linguistic and cultural difficulty in India – Supreme Court held that while children’s preference is not determinative, it is a relevant factor and must be cumulatively assessed – High Court erred in ignoring such material [Paras 29–31].

Child Custody – Education and Welfare – Mid-Session Disruption – Children removed from school in Qatar mid-session and admitted to school in India after considerable delay – Allegation of educational disruption and irregular attendance – Supreme Court held that education and continuity are integral to child welfare and such disruption is a relevant consideration in custody matters [Paras 14–16, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 32–34].

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Definition of Consumer – Commercial Purpose – Appellants purchased residential flat in housing project – After taking possession, flat was leased to a third party – NCDRC dismissed complaint holding appellants were not ‘consumers’ as property was used for commercial purpose – Supreme Court reversed – Held: Mere leasing of residential property does not ipso facto establish that the dominant purpose of purchase was commercial – Determinative test is dominant intention behind the transaction [Paras 10, 12, 17].

Consumer Law – Commercial Purpose – Dominant Intention Test – Court reiterated that “commercial purpose” under Section 2(1)(d) is not defined exhaustively – Dominant purpose and close nexus between purchase and profit-generating activity must be established – Leasing by itself, without proof of profit-oriented intent at the time of purchase, is insufficient to exclude purchaser from definition of consumer [Paras 12–14, 17].

Consumer Law – Burden of Proof – Exclusion Clause – Service provider pleaded that complainants were not consumers as flat was leased out – Supreme Court held that burden of proving applicability of exclusion clause rests on service provider – Respondents failed to discharge burden on preponderance of probabilities – NCDRC erred in placing implicit burden on complainants [Paras 16–17].

Consumer Jurisprudence – Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation – Exclusion clauses must be construed strictly – Negative burden cannot be placed on complainant to prove that transaction was not commercial – Interpretation must advance consumer protection rather than defeat it [Para 16].

Consumer Disputes – Real Estate – Leasing of Flat – Effect – Mere act of purchasing immovable property and leasing it, even subsequently, cannot automatically attract exclusion under Section 2(1)(d) – Unless dominant purpose of purchase is shown to be commercial in nature, purchaser continues to be a ‘consumer’ entitled to invoke remedies under the Act [Para 17].

Consumer Disputes – Remand – Supreme Court set aside dismissal of complaint by NCDRC – Consumer Complaint restored to original number – NCDRC directed to decide complaint on merits in accordance with law [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 passed by the NCDRC set aside – Consumer Complaint No.74/2017 restored to file of NCDRC for adjudication on merits – No order as to costs.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 (Pre-2015 Regime) – Scope of Judicial Determination – Arbitrator appointed by High Court under Section 11 prior to insertion of Section 11(6A) – Supreme Court reiterated that under SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd., Section 11 Court was required to decide not only existence but also validity of arbitration agreement – Such determination is judicial in nature and attains finality between parties [Paras 19–22].

Arbitration – Arbitration Clause – Reopening of Validity at Section 34 Stage – Clause 23 of contract providing for reference to Standing Committee challenged as not being arbitration clause – Commercial Court and High Court set aside award holding Clause 23 was not arbitration agreement – Supreme Court held that once arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 and order attained finality, existence and validity of arbitration agreement could not be reopened at Section 34 stage – Orders below held unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 29–31].

Arbitration Law – Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Conceptual Distinction – Supreme Court explained distinction between precedent (operating in rem) and res judicata (operating in personam) – Section 11 order appointing arbitrator operates as res judicata between parties regarding existence and validity of arbitration agreement – Commercial Court erred in treating Section 11 order as lacking binding effect on parties [Paras 24–25, 30–31].

Arbitration – Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Limits – While Arbitral Tribunal has power under Section 16 to rule on its jurisdiction, it cannot override or reopen findings on existence and validity of arbitration agreement already conclusively determined by Section 11 Court under pre-2015 regime – Section 11(7) gives finality to such determination [Paras 20–22].

Arbitration – Effect of 2015 Amendment – Prospective Application – Supreme Court clarified that post-2015 amendment, scope of Section 11 is confined only to examination of existence of arbitration agreement – However, amendment not applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015 – Present disputes governed by SBP & Co. regime [Paras 19, 23].

Arbitration – Section 34 Proceedings – Scope – Commercial Court wrongly set aside awards solely on ground that Clause 23 was not arbitration clause – Supreme Court set aside orders and remitted matters to Commercial Court for consideration of remaining objections under Section 34 – Validity of arbitration clause cannot be revisited [Paras 32, 36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of High Court and Commercial Court set aside – Arbitral awards restored to extent of validity of arbitration agreement – Matters remanded to Commercial Court for adjudication of other objections under Section 34 – Directions issued to decide proceedings expeditiously – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Leave of Court – Mandatory Requirement – FIR registered for serious offences including gang rape – After detailed investigation, closure report filed and accepted by Judicial Magistrate after notice to informant – Supreme Court held that once a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC is accepted by the Court, further investigation under Section 173(8) can be undertaken only with prior leave of the Magistrate/Court concerned – Police or executive authorities cannot unilaterally direct further investigation [Paras 25–28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 173(8) CrPC – Power to Order Further Investigation – Who Can Exercise – Under Secretary, State Government and Superintendent of Police directed CBCID to conduct further investigation without judicial order – Supreme Court held that power to direct further investigation vests exclusively in the Magistrate or a higher Court – Superintendent of Police or investigating agency lacks jurisdiction to order further investigation on its own [Paras 27–31].

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation vs Fresh / De Novo Investigation – Alleged further investigation ordered nearly seven years after acceptance of closure report and included steps from initial stage such as DNA sampling – Held: Such action amounted to impermissible fresh or de novo investigation and filling up lacunae in prosecution case, which is not permissible in law [Paras 21–22, 31].

Criminal Law – Acceptance of Closure Report – Legal Effect – Closure report accepted by Magistrate after repeated notice to informant and absence of protest petition – Supreme Court held that acceptance of closure report confers finality subject to remedies under law – Executive interference thereafter undermines judicial authority [Paras 7–8, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio – Supreme Court reiterated that though Section 173(8) CrPC does not expressly mandate prior permission of Court, long-standing judicial practice requires investigating agency to seek leave before conducting further investigation – Such requirement is a necessary implication to safeguard accused from abuse of process [Paras 26, 28].

Police Powers – Jurisdictional Excess – Superintendent of Police directing further investigation without court approval held to be an act in excess of jurisdiction – Supreme Court deprecated such conduct as undermining rule of law and authority of courts [Para 31].

Criminal Procedure – NHRC Directions – Effect – Directions issued by NHRC for fact-finding inquiry cannot override statutory criminal procedure – Further investigation in criminal case must still conform to CrPC and judicial supervision – Executive directions cannot substitute judicial order [Paras 9–11, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Reliance on Dharam Pal Case – Distinguished – Supreme Court distinguished Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana – Held: Said decision concerned powers of constitutional courts to direct fresh or de novo investigation – Does not empower police or executive authorities to order further investigation without leave of Magistrate [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench set aside – Orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 directing further investigation quashed – Clarified that observations shall not prejudice pending criminal revision or any other proceedings arising from FIR No. 70 of 2013.

Bail – Interim Bail – Economic Offences – Liquor Scam – Former Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh arrested in ACB and ED cases alleging receipt of ₹2 crores per month from illegal liquor syndicate and framing of tailor-made excise policy – Multiple FIRs and ECIR based on same set of allegations – Seven chargesheets/prosecution complaints filed against 37 accused including the petitioner – Large-scale scam involving entire State and other parts of the country – Proposed examination of 864 witnesses – Investigation still ongoing with possibility of supplementary chargesheets – Prolonged custody since 15.01.2025 (ED case) and 02.04.2025 (ACB case) – Balancing prosecution’s right to complete complex investigation and accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 – Held: Indefinite incarceration not justified at interim stage – Interim bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1–11].

Bail Jurisprudence – Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Complex and Multi-Agency Investigation – Court observed that directing time-bound completion of investigation in complex cases involving specialised agencies may adversely impact prosecution – At the same time, continued incarceration for an uncertain duration infringes personal liberty – Interim arrangement warranted on peculiar facts of the case [Paras 8–10].

Conditions of Bail – Restrictive Conditions – Non-entry into State – Travel Restrictions – Witness Protection – While granting interim bail, Court imposed strict conditions including prohibition on entering State of Chhattisgarh except for court appearances, surrender of passport, disclosure of place of stay and contact details, non-interference with witnesses, and restraint on public statements concerning pending investigations – Breach of conditions to entail cancellation of bail – Held: Conditions necessary to balance liberty with fair investigation [Paras 10(i)–(x)].

Public Office – Legislative Assembly Participation – Judicial Restraint – Question regarding petitioner’s participation in State Legislative Assembly during pendency of investigation left open – Decision to be taken by Speaker – Court declined to express any opinion on the issue [Para 10(vii)].

Nature of Order – Interim Bail – No Opinion on Merits – Court clarified that grant of interim bail does not amount to expression of opinion on merits of allegations or entitlement to regular bail – Order passed considering peculiar facts and circumstances [Para 10(xi)].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions disposed of – Interim bail granted in FIR No. 04/2024 (ACB/EOW) and ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 (ED) subject to stringent conditions – Pending applications closed.