Criminal Law – Post-arrest Bail – Appellant charged with serious offences under IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA – Charges framed in June 2019, appellant in custody since July 2012 – Trial progress slow with 298 prosecution witnesses – Supreme Court granted bail considering prolonged incarceration and slow trial – Directed State of West Bengal to designate more Special Courts for speedy trial under NIA Act – Central Government advised to consult Chief Justice for expediting trials [Paras 1-23].

Bail Jurisprudence – Long Incarceration – Liberty under Part III of the Constitution includes speedy trial – Prolonged pre-trial detention inconsistent with Article 21 – Courts obligated to grant bail when trial delay evident – Appellant's nine and half years of detention significant for bail consideration [Paras 12-14].

Special Courts – NIA Act, 2008 – Section 19 mandates day-to-day trial for offences under NIA Act – Existing delay and single Special Court in West Bengal noted – State and Central Government directed to ensure compliance with legislative intent for speedy trials [Paras 10-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Appellant to be released on post-arrest bail with conditions imposed by trial court – State of West Bengal and Central Government directed to address trial delays [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction on Sole Testimony – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix – Supreme Court upheld conviction, noting her testimony was consistent, credible, and unblemished – Court reiterated that the sole testimony of a trustworthy prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction, without requiring corroboration unless there are compelling reasons [Paras 1-6].

Medical Evidence and Delay in FIR – Lack of injuries on the prosecutrix and delay in filing FIR – Court noted delay explained by victim’s circumstances and familial disbelief – Medical examination conducted three days post-incident, explaining lack of injuries – Delay and absence of injuries not grounds to disbelieve prosecutrix’s testimony [Paras 4-9].

Alibi Defense – Accused’s plea of alibi rejected – Court found alibi unsupported by credible evidence – Defense witnesses and alleged circumstances disbelieved due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration [Para 8].

Sentence – Appellant sought reduction of seven years rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment – Supreme Court rejected plea, finding no exceptional reasons to reduce sentence – Court upheld minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment as appropriate for the gravity of the offense [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC confirmed [Para 11].

Insolvency Law – Timely Resolution – Appeal arose from the NCLAT’s order directing liquidation due to delays in the insolvency resolution process – Supreme Court emphasized mandatory completion within 330 days as per Section 12 of IBC, including extensions and litigation time – Allowed further time for resolution due to unique circumstances and previous litigations, stressing no further delays in implementation [Paras 9-10].

Resolution Plan Implementation – DVI’s Commitment – DVI committed to implementing the approved resolution plan, with Rs. 500 crores already transferred to Corporate Debtor’s account – Supreme Court directed all parties to complete the implementation within four weeks, ensuring transfer to lenders as per the plan [Paras 6-11].

Legal Framework and Judicial Observations – Section 12 IBC mandates a strict timeline for the resolution process – Court highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines to uphold the objectives of IBC – Emphasized serious consequences for any further lapses in implementation [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – All parties directed to complete implementation of the approved resolution plan within four weeks – Rs. 500 crores to be transferred to lenders/financial creditors as per the plan [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302/149 IPC for causing fatal injuries to the deceased – High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC – Supreme Court restored the original conviction, emphasizing the severity of the injuries and the intent behind them [Paras 1-22].

Nature of Injuries – Vital Parts – Evidence showed injuries to vital organs, including the right lung and liver, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – High Court's finding of no intent to kill was deemed erroneous given the nature and location of the injuries [Paras 6-13, 17-19].

Section 300 'Thirdly' IPC – Application – Court emphasized the applicability of 'thirdly' in Section 300 IPC, stating that the intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was evident in this case – High Court's error in applying Section 304 Part II IPC noted [Paras 16-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court restored the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC as determined by the Sessions Court – High Court's order set aside [Paras 21-22].

Medical Negligence – No fault found with hospital operation theatre availability – Operation theatres were occupied during the patient's surgery timeframe – Non-availability during other ongoing surgeries not a ground for hospital negligence [Paras 18-19].

Doctor's Absence – Doctor's absence due to attending medical conferences abroad cannot infer negligence – The hospital had multi-specialty facilities and specialists attended the patient [Para 24].

Patient's Critical Condition – Patient admitted with severe conditions, impending gangrene noted before hospital admission – Despite surgery and re-exploration, the patient's survival was beyond the hospital's control – No negligence found in post-operative care [Paras 18, 22-23].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Not applicable in this case – The principle does not establish medical negligence merely due to an unfavorable outcome or patient's death – Clear evidence required to substantiate negligence, which was lacking [Paras 27, 36].

Decision – Appeals allowed – National Commission’s order set aside – Complaint dismissed – Interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs provided to complainant treated as ex gratia [Paras 37-38].

Second Appeal – Dismissal without Reasons – High Court must provide reasons for dismissing a second appeal at the admission stage – Essential for understanding and transparency – The absence of reasons invalidates the dismissal order [Paras 14-15].

Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – High Court to determine if the appeal involves a substantial question of law – Mandatory to formulate and address such questions – Dismissal without formulation of questions requires recorded reasons [Paras 9-11, 13].

Order 42 CPC – Application of Order 41 – Procedures of Order 41 applicable to second appeals to the extent possible – Emphasizes procedural adherence for fairness [Paras 12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s dismissal order set aside – Case remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law and observations made [Para 16].

Forest Conservation – Felling of Trees – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) required to seek permissions under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for construction of Phase-IV MRTS Project – Directions issued to file applications for diversion of forest land [Paras 1, 3-4, 18, 19].

Sustainable Development – Balancing Development and Environment – Emphasis on the need for environmental protection while undertaking development projects – Public interest in providing efficient transport versus ecological impact [Paras 28-34].

Citizen Participation – Reafforestation Efforts – Directive for a comprehensive plan involving citizens for planting and nurturing trees to offset environmental impact – Collaboration between government departments and civil society [Paras 39, 47(ix)].

Decision – Applications allowed – Directed DMRC to file applications for diversion of land, seeking permissions from Chief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer, GNCTD, and MoEF&CC – Interim compliance measures outlined [Paras 47(i)-(vii)].

Public Contracts – Evaluation of Public Interest – State's claim of loss of public money cannot override contractual obligations without evidence – Contracts must uphold fairness and sanctity to ensure business confidence and economic stability [Paras 1-14].

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Government bound by its promises unless substantial public interest is at stake – Mere change of government or executive head cannot invalidate prior commitments without proven public harm [Paras 55-60].

Judicial Review – Scope – Courts should ensure that administrative decisions are free from arbitrariness and bias – Reviewing tender processes requires balancing public interest with the need for procedural fairness [Paras 25-30].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's order upheld – CIDCO directed to honor the contractual obligations and permissions previously granted [Paras 72-73].

Civil Procedure – Fraud Allegations – General allegations of fraud without specific particulars are insufficient to sustain a suit – Merely using the words "fraud" or "fraudulent" does not meet the legal standard for pleading fraud under Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations must be supported by material particulars to be legally valid [Paras 7.2-7.3].

Bar Under Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining suits challenging measures taken under SARFAESI Act unless there is specific and particularized pleading of fraud – Clever drafting to avoid statutory bar is impermissible – Courts must not entertain suits that circumvent statutory provisions through vague allegations [Paras 7.2, 8].

Jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal – Appropriate forum for disputes involving secured creditors and debt under SARFAESI Act – Issues such as validity of the assignment deed and enforceability of debt to be decided by the DRT – Civil court's jurisdiction excluded in such matters [Paras 7.5, 8].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s dismissal of suit upheld – Appellant permitted to file proceedings before DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Observations on the merits of fraud claims reserved for determination by DRT [Paras 9].