Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law – CIRP Deferral – Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order deferring the CIRP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited after denying the respondents’ request for consolidation of CIRP with two other entities – Held: The High Court erred in deferring the CIRP despite refusing consolidation – The High Court’s direction to defer the CIRP under Article 226 is unwarranted as it breaches the discipline of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – CIRP deferral quashed [Paras 6-11].

Consolidation of CIRP – High Court Declined Relief – The respondents had sought consolidation of the CIRP of three corporate entities before the NCLT, which was rejected – The High Court also declined the same relief but, paradoxically, deferred the CIRP process – Held: The High Court had no basis to issue the deferral order after rejecting the primary relief, and such a direction is beyond the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 [Para 10].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the High Court directing the deferment of the CIRP is set aside – The CIRP shall continue as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Paras 11-12].

Suspension of Sentence – Section 389(1) CrPC – Denial of Parity in Bail – The appellants sought suspension of sentence and release on bail, similar to co-accused Pappu, who was granted bail despite being the primary accused in the murder – High Court rejected the plea on grounds of differing periods of imprisonment served by the appellants and co-accused – Held: The appellants have served less time compared to Pappu, and no parity could be claimed in such a scenario – Bail denial upheld [Paras 4-6].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail Consideration – Appellant Narendra Singh was alleged to have prior criminal cases, one for which he was on bail – Held: Mere pendency of a trial should not automatically disqualify the appellant from suspension of sentence as he remains innocent until proven guilty – Argument accepted, and bail granted with conditions [Paras 7-12].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and suspended the life imprisonment sentences of the appellants. The appellants were granted bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized that failure to participate in the pending criminal appeal proceedings would result in cancellation of the bail [Paras 12-16].

Criminal Law – Bail in NDPS Cases – Section 21(c) NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The appellant had been in custody since April 2023 in connection with the seizure of Codeine Phosphate syrup. Despite the filing of the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, the trial was not set to commence until January 2025. The Supreme Court granted bail, considering the prolonged pre-trial detention and the uncertainty surrounding the trial’s conclusion – Held: The appellant to be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – Right to Liberty – The Court noted that the appellant had been incarcerated for over a year and five months, with the trial yet to begin. The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention, without concrete progress in trial proceedings, impinges on the appellant’s right to liberty.

Conditions for Bail – Ensuring Compliance – The Court directed the appellant to cooperate with the trial proceedings and not misuse the liberty granted by bail. Any violation of the conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to be determined by the Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prolonged Detention – PMLA Case – Bail Granted – The appellant had been in custody for over two years, facing charges under the PMLA based on an FIR that initially alleged non-scheduled offenses. With the addition of Section 384 IPC, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court, considering the prolonged detention and the lack of a scheduled offense at the time of filing the complaint, granted bail – Held: Continuation of custody would violate the appellant’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Paras 6-10].

Scheduled Offense Requirement under PMLA – FIR Analysis – The Court observed that the initial FIR registered under IPC Sections 186, 204, 353, and 120-B did not contain scheduled offenses. Even after the addition of Section 384 IPC, the charge-sheet failed to establish the commission of a scheduled offense, and therefore, the appellant’s detention under PMLA was unjustified [Paras 5-7].

Constitutional Rights – Article 21 – Right to Liberty and Prolonged Custody – The Court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial, especially when no scheduled offense was established at the time of filing the PMLA complaint, infringed upon the appellant's right to personal liberty under Article 21 [Para 8].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Charges under IPC and POCSO Act – Appellant arrested under Sections 354(D), 506, 363, 366, 376, 511, and 34 IPC, and Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act – High Court rejected bail due to seriousness of the charges and age of the victim – Supreme Court grants bail considering the appellant’s young age and fact that the victim was in a consensual relationship – Held: Trial will be prolonged, and the appellant has been in jail since May 2024 – Bail granted with strict conditions to ensure compliance.

Consensual Relationship – Alleged Offences under POCSO Act – Appellant contends that the victim and he were in a consensual relationship – Prosecution disputes this, stating the victim was a minor (16 years old) at the time – Supreme Court grants bail based on the prolonged nature of the trial and the age difference between the parties, subject to conditions, including prohibition on re-associating with the victim .

Bail Conditions – Risk of Flight or Influence – Supreme Court emphasizes that the appellant must not misuse his liberty or attempt to influence witnesses – Strict conditions imposed: Appellant must not contact the victim in any manner, and any violation will lead to cancellation of bail.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant – Supreme Court directs the trial court to release the appellant on bail with appropriate conditions to ensure his compliance and presence during the trial.

Contract Law – Tender Process – Rejection of Technical Bid – Appellant’s technical bid was rejected by BCCL for non-compliance with Clause 10 of the NIT, while Respondent No. 8’s bid was accepted despite non-submission of essential documents at the time of bidding – Held: The rejection of the appellant’s bid was arbitrary and discriminatory as Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit shortfall documents after the bid opening – The impugned decision was set aside, and BCCL was directed to initiate a fresh tender process [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness in Government Contracts – The Supreme Court reiterated that while courts exercise restraint in reviewing administrative actions, government bodies must ensure fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination in the award of contracts – BCCL's decision-making process lacked transparency and violated the principle of equal treatment of bidders, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 22-23].

Scope of Judicial Review – Government Tenders – The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, focusing on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the contract – However, deviations from mandatory tender conditions must apply equally to all bidders, and any element of arbitrariness or discrimination in the process justifies interference [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – BCCL's rejection of the appellant's technical bid and the award of the contract to Respondent No. 8 were quashed – BCCL directed to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with law [Paras 20, 21, 24].

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversal – Acquittal – The appellants were convicted by the High Court for abduction and murder under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 IPC – The Supreme Court reversed this conviction, holding that the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court's acquittal of two accused (A-6, A-7) – The High Court’s decision lacked proper reasoning to reverse acquittals, especially when the Trial Court’s view was plausible – Appellants were acquitted as prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-30].

Witness Testimonies – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – The testimonies of prosecution witnesses (PW18, PW2, PW4, and PW5) were inconsistent and unreliable – Discrepancies regarding their presence at the crime scene raised doubts – Non-examination of natural witnesses such as tenants and neighbors further weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court found that PW18’s statement regarding the involvement of A-6 and A-7 was an improvement over the FIR, casting serious doubt on the prosecution’s version [Paras 12-26].

Motive and Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution’s case largely rested on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of evidence was incomplete – The presence of property disputes provided a motive, but this alone could not prove guilt – The prosecution failed to link the accused directly to the murder, and no reliable evidence of abduction was found – Thus, the Court ruled that the conviction for murder could not be sustained [Paras 27-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – All seven appellants acquitted – They are to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 35-40].

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria – Quashing of Selection Process – The appellant and others challenged the cancellation of the recruitment process for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts in Bihar, initiated through an advertisement dated 08.03.2019 – The State Government canceled the process following litigation on the eligibility of candidates with diplomas from universities not approved by AICTE – The High Court allowed the cancellation without fully adjudicating the issues – The Supreme Court held that altering the rules after the selection process violates established principles – Fresh merit list ordered with age relaxation provisions [Paras 1-30].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Participation in Selection Process – Appellants argued that the writ petitioners, having participated in the recruitment process, could not challenge the eligibility criteria after being unsuccessful – The Supreme Court cited established precedents that altering criteria post-selection is impermissible, affirming the vested rights of successful candidates in the selection process [Paras 27-32].

Rule of Law – Arbitrary State Action – The cancellation of the recruitment process, despite completion and the preparation of a final select list, was deemed arbitrary and unjustified – The Court ordered the preparation of a fresh select list considering prior High Court directions and AICTE’s stand on eligibility, providing relief to candidates who were previously disqualified under the 2017 rules [Paras 30, 32].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Cancellation of the recruitment process set aside – Fresh select list to be prepared within three months, and appointments to follow within 30 days thereafter – Provision for age relaxation as a one-time measure for candidates affected by the delayed recruitment process [Paras 30-32].

Income Tax Law – Revision of Returns – Limitation – Appellant filed revised returns multiple times for the assessment year 1989-90, the last of which was submitted on 29th October 1991 – Assessing Officer refused to consider the return, citing Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, which barred the revised return due to the lapse of the one-year time limit – Appeals were filed but the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the revised return could not be entertained as it was barred by limitation – Held: Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return [Paras 1-3].

Appellate Powers of Tribunal – Section 254 of the IT Act – Appellant contended that the Tribunal could consider claims omitted from the original return during assessment proceedings – Reliance placed on Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax – However, Tribunal did not invoke its powers under Section 254 and instead remanded the case to the Assessing Officer, who had no authority to consider the time-barred return – High Court upheld the decision, finding no fault in the Tribunal's approach [Paras 5-7].

Judgment: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision affirmed – Revised return filed after the time limit could not be considered by the Assessing Officer – Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, as it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim [Paras 9-11].