Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – Habitual Offender – Accused was involved in four criminal cases and had been convicted – While on bail, accused committed another offence and hatched a conspiracy from jail to commit murder – High Court cancelled the bail in another case due to involvement in heinous crimes while on bail – High likelihood of threat and danger to the life and safety of the complainant and his family members – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-42].

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion in granting bail must be judicious, considering the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and nature of evidence – High Court failed to appreciate the seriousness of the offence, antecedents of the accused, and threat perception to the complainant – High Court’s order granting bail set aside [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order granting bail to respondent set aside – Respondent directed to surrender forthwith – Trial Court to take respondent into custody by issuing arrest warrants if he fails to surrender – Observations made for the purpose of deciding bail will not affect the trial's merits [Para 13-14].

Externment Order – Legality – Appellant challenged externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act – Order based on complaints by those targeted by appellant for misappropriation of public funds – Externment used as retaliatory measure – Supreme Court held externment order arbitrary and mala fide – Appellant’s complaints led to inquiries proving some of his allegations – Externment order set aside [Paras 1-42].

Right to Information and Retaliation – Appellant used RTI to expose corruption – Lodged complaints leading to inquiries – FIRs against appellant filed after complaints – Allegations against appellant appeared retaliatory – Right to use RTI Act protected – Externment as suppression of appellant’s rights not justified [Paras 7-14, 23-24, 33-41].

Public Interest and Protection of Whistleblowers – Importance of protecting individuals exposing corruption emphasized – Whistleblowers should not face punitive actions – Courts must ensure protection from retaliatory actions – Externment orders in such contexts require careful scrutiny and justification [Paras 33-41].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Externment order quashed – Authorities directed to consider facts and circumstances surrounding complaints and FIRs against appellant – Protection of fundamental rights to reside and move freely upheld [Paras 42].

Service Law – Selection – Post of Police Constable – Involvement in Criminal Cases – High Court's lenient approach towards youth involved in petty crimes criticized – Supreme Court emphasizes that generalizations leading to condoning misconduct should not influence judicial verdicts – Importance of maintaining public confidence in the police force highlighted – Screening Committee's decisions to decline appointments upheld [Paras 1-31].

Judicial Review – Public Service – Courts should not second-guess the suitability of candidates for public office absent evidence of malice or illegality – Judicial review should ensure fairness and non-discrimination in applying norms but should not interfere with the executive's discretion in assessing suitability – Importance of maintaining the credibility and integrity of the police force emphasized [Paras 26-31].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the orders of the Screening Committee set aside – Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal also set aside – Screening Committee's decisions to decline appointments based on criminal antecedents upheld – No order as to costs [Para 31].

Encroachment – Jurisdiction – Show Cause Notices – Appellants challenged the show cause notices issued under the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001 – Contended that the authority under the State Act did not have jurisdiction post enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Supreme Court held that the appropriate legislation for removal of encroachments on National Highways is the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 – Notices issued under State Act are unauthorized – Authority must proceed under Section 26 of the Act of 2002 [Paras 1-14].

Statutory Framework – National Highways – Power under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 allows Central Government to delegate functions to State Governments – However, the enactment of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 provides a detailed framework for dealing with encroachments – Central legislation prevails over State Act in matters of National Highways – Show cause notices under the State Act lack jurisdiction [Paras 6-12].

Procedural Requirements – Highway Administration – The authority to issue notices for removal of encroachments lies with the Highway Administration established under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 – Notices must follow procedure under Section 26 of the Act of 2002 – Lack of jurisdiction constitutes valid ground for interference with show cause notices [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and show cause notices set aside – Competent authority under Section 26 of the Act of 2002 may take appropriate action as per law – No orders as to costs [Para 14].

Arbitration – Bank Guarantee – Refusal to Accept – High Court refused to accept irrevocable Bank Guarantee of Rs. 30 Crores issued by ICBC, a Scheduled Bank included in the Second Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act – High Court insisted on a fresh Bank Guarantee from a "Scheduled Indian Bank" – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its direction – Legally valid Bank Guarantees from Scheduled Banks, including foreign banks operating in India, should be accepted unless there is specific statutory requirement or proven credibility issues with the bank [Paras 1-60].

Banking Regulation – Scheduled Banks – ICBC as Scheduled Bank – ICBC is a Scheduled Bank included in the Second Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act – No distinction in statutory provisions between a "Scheduled Indian Bank" and "Scheduled Bank located in India" – All Scheduled Banks are governed by the regulatory provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act and Banking Regulation Act – High Court’s insistence on a Bank Guarantee from a "Scheduled Indian Bank" is without basis in law [Paras 39-48].

Judicial Orders – Correction of Errors – Court can correct mistakes in its orders – High Court's correction should reflect the true intention and offer made by parties – Appellant's compliance with original order not to be penalized for subsequent clarifications by the Court – Financial expenditure incurred by appellant to obtain Bank Guarantee from ICBC must be considered [Paras 17, 20, 22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Bank Guarantee issued by ICBC accepted as valid – Appellant’s financial expenditure and compliance with court order acknowledged – Emphasis on legal recognition of all Scheduled Banks under Reserve Bank of India Act [Para 60].

Criminal Law – Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant challenged the High Court's decision rejecting his application to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC – Supreme Court held that powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the trial concludes – High Court and Trial Court erred in not summoning additional accused despite specific allegations in the FIR and examination-in-chief – Appeals allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Additional accused to be summoned [Paras 1-14].

Powers under Section 319 CrPC – Scope and Ambit – Detailed judicial principles discussed – Court emphasized that the provision aims to ensure no real perpetrator goes unpunished – Powers can be exercised on the basis of examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination – Ensures that any person appearing to have committed the offense can be tried together with the original accused – Courts must avoid appreciating evidence on merits at this stage [Paras 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Additional accused to be summoned and face trial – Directions to Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 15].

Criminal Law – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Necessity – Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to conduct a TIP – Supreme Court held that TIP was unnecessary as the appellant was known to the witnesses and was specifically identified by them during the trial – Identity of appellant established through eyewitness testimonies, corroborating his involvement in the crime – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Multiple witnesses identified the appellant as the person wielding the sword and inflicting injuries – Consistent identification by witnesses deemed reliable despite absence of TIP – Trial Court and High Court’s reliance on these testimonies upheld [Paras 11-18].

Conviction and Sentence – Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Appellant convicted for murder and participation in an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing death – Assault with sharp and dangerous weapons established – Conviction under Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148, and 324 IPC upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – State to consider appellant’s case for remission on its own merits at an appropriate stage [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Stage of Framing of Charge – Appellant challenged the High Court's decision to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court held that the High Court should not evaluate the evidence on merits at this stage – Strong suspicion against the respondent based on the FIR and investigation, including recovery of money and call details, suffices to frame charges – High Court erred in quashing proceedings by pre-judging the merits [Paras 1-14].

Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Court should determine if there is a prima facie case to proceed – Evaluation of evidence on merits is inappropriate at this stage – Allegations and material evidence should be taken at face value – High Court’s intervention at the charge-framing stage is limited to ensuring that prosecution is not frivolous or vexatious [Paras 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order quashing the chargesheet and proceedings set aside – Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law – Observations are confined to the decision under Section 482 CrPC and do not affect the merits of the trial [Paras 15].

Reservation – Successor States – Bifurcation of Bihar – Appellants originally from Bihar, residing and serving in Jharkhand post-bifurcation – Contention over entitlement to reservation benefits in Jharkhand – Supreme Court held appellants entitled to reservation benefits in Jharkhand based on Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – Appellants cannot claim benefits in both Bihar and Jharkhand simultaneously – Entitlement restricted to one state to prevent misuse of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution [Paras 1-60].

Service Conditions – Protection under Reorganisation Act – Employees working before bifurcation in areas now part of Jharkhand protected under Section 73 of the Act – Rights and privileges, including reservation benefits, to remain intact post-bifurcation – Appellants' rights to claim reservation in Jharkhand upheld – High Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 48-60].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Appellant Pankaj Kumar to be appointed with notional fixation of pay and allowances – Other appellants reinstated with notional pay and allowances – No arrears of salary granted – Compliance within six weeks [Paras 60-62].