Criminal Law — Murder — Mass Conviction — Acquittal — Sixteen persons charge-sheeted for brutal assault on deceased on 08.07.2008, causing death with cutting weapons and severing his left hand — Twelve accused convicted by trial court under Sections 147, 341, 326, 307, 323, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC — High Court upheld convictions — On appeal, Supreme Court finds eyewitnesses unreliable, injuries of alleged injured witnesses unproved, FIR delayed and suspect, investigation procedurally deficient, and seizure documents doubtful — Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt — All appeals allowed, convictions set aside, appellants acquitted [Paras 2, 23].

FIR — GD Entry — First Information — Delayed Registration — Police reached the place of occurrence on 08.07.2008 at 9.30 P.M. on the basis of a GD entry made on telephone information from VDP Secretary — Neither the informant nor the recording Inspector examined — FIR registered only on 10.07.2008 on written complaint of PW1 naming 13 accused — PW1 not an eyewitness — High Court erroneously treated GD entry as FIR — Held: GD entry cannot constitute FIR as neither the informant nor the recording officer was examined; delay in registration of FIR renders the arraignment of accused suspect as it was made after due deliberation [Paras 8–9, 20].

Eyewitness Testimony — Credibility — Related Witnesses — Five eyewitnesses (PW2, PW7, PW13, PW14, PW15) all close relatives of the deceased — Incident on a public road; their collective presence not natural — PW18 (IO) does not speak of the presence of eyewitnesses at place of occurrence or recording of any statement from them — Eyewitnesses claimed to have been questioned by police at the spot, not corroborated by PW18 — No Section 161 CrPC statements recorded from any eyewitness promptly — Statements under Section 164 CrPC recorded nine days after incident — Held: Presence of eyewitnesses at place of occurrence highly improbable and not unequivocally established; testimonies not credible [Paras 10–12, 16–19].

Injured Eyewitness — Proof of Injury — Evidentiary Value — PW14, alleged injured eyewitness, spoke of injuries to hand, legs, wrist, and waist — No wound certificate from Solace Hospital or GMCH produced — PW18 examined PW14 on 22.07.2008, long after FIR — PW14 stated he regained consciousness at hospital on 09.07.2008 and was referred to GMCH, contradicting PW18's statement — No intimation to police from hospital — PW6 likewise disbelieved by trial court and High Court — Held: Injuries of alleged injured witnesses not proved; their testimonies cannot be accorded higher credibility of injured eyewitnesses; very presence at place of occurrence rendered doubtful [Paras 13–16].

Seizure — Motorbikes — Weapons — Forensic Analysis — Seizure list (Annexure P4) purportedly detailed ownership and riders of four motorbikes at place of occurrence — No documents produced to prove vehicle ownership — Bikes never produced before court or confronted to witnesses — Weapons seized (beki dao, lathi, spike) neither sent for forensic analysis nor confronted to eyewitnesses or the doctor conducting postmortem — No blood collected from scene for matching — Held: Seizure documents doubtful in genesis; prosecution story of five witnesses travelling with deceased on four bikes not substantiated by credible evidence [Paras 17–18, 21].

Investigation — Failure of Due Procedure — Scripted Enquiry — IO (PW18) reached spot at 9.30 P.M. on the night of the incident, conducted inquest, yet failed to register FIR or record statements from eyewitnesses present at spot — GD entry informant and recording officer not examined — Eyewitnesses present at spot not named in any FIR promptly — FIR filed two days later after deliberation — Held: Whether ignorance, inefficiency, or malicious motivation, due procedure under CrPC was not followed, leaving the crime unresolved and resulting in wrongful prosecution of sixteen persons — State urged to better equip investigating officers [Paras 8, 10, 22].

Decision: All appeals allowed — Convictions and sentences under Sections 147, 341, 326, 307, 323, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC set aside — Appellants acquitted — Bail bonds of accused on bail cancelled — Pending applications disposed of [Paras 23–24].

Right to Education — Neighbourhood School — Obligation to Admit RTE Students — SLP Dismissed — Petitioner school refused admission to a student duly selected and forwarded by the State Government under the RTE Act, 2009 and UP RTE Rules, 2011 citing uncertainty about eligibility — High Court directed immediate admission holding that schools cannot sit in appeal over the State's selection decision — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order — Held: Once the State Government completes the selection process and forwards the list to the school, the school is mandatorily bound to grant admission without waiting for the outcome of any representation it may make to the concerned authority — SLP dismissed [Paras 2, 14, 15].

Constitutional Mandate — Article 21A — Right to Free and Compulsory Education — Transformative Purpose of Section 12, RTE Act — Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009 mandates that neighbourhood schools admit not less than twenty-five percent of entry-level class strength from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups — This legislative choice is a deliberate constitutional strategy to operationalise equality of status, dignity, and social integration among children in their formative years — Held: The neighbourhood school concept is designed to break down entrenched barriers of caste, class, and gender and to advance substantive social justice — Earnest implementation is a national mission binding on all duty bearers [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12].

Duty Bearers — Five Categories Identified — RTE Framework — Drawing from Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated five categories of duty bearers under the RTE Act: (i) the appropriate Government, obligated under Sections 6 and 8 to establish neighbourhood schools; (ii) the local authority, obligated under Section 9 to maintain records and monitor admissions; (iii) the neighbourhood school, bound under Section 12(1)(c) to provide free and compulsory education to at least twenty-five percent of class strength; (iv) parents/guardians, duty now constitutionally recognised under Article 51A(k); and (v) elementary school teachers, who bear the most important role in nation-building — Held: Courts must also walk the extra mile to provide effective and expeditious relief to parents complaining of denial of the right [Paras 10–10.5, 12].

School's Limited Role — No Power to Sit in Appeal over State's Selection — Accountability and Transparency — Rule 8 of the UP RTE Rules, 2011 mandates that the admission process be totally transparent — Schools are bound to follow the State Government's prescribed process and must inform in writing with reasons any child not admitted — The school's window to reconsider the Government's decision is consciously limited by the State to avoid delays — Held: Schools disagreeing with the selection may make a representation to the concerned authority but must grant admission in the interregnum — This immediacy is essential to actualise the promise of Article 21A [Paras 7, 13, 14].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed — High Court's direction to grant admission affirmed — No orders as to costs.

Environmental Law — Wildlife Conservation — Deer Translocation — A.N. Jha Deer Park — Central Zoo Authority — Carrying Capacity — Petitioner-NGO challenged translocation of hundreds of deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi to Mukundara Hills Tiger Reserve (MHTR) and Ramgarh Vishdhari Tiger Reserve (RVTR) in Rajasthan — Central Zoo Authority cancelled recognition of the Park as a "mini zoo" under Section 38H(6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, on account of persistent non-compliance with zoo management norms, failure to regulate deer population, and expiry of licence in August 2021 — Court had earlier directed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to conduct on-ground survey and submit report — CEC report (428 pages, dated 06.03.2026) assessed carrying capacity of existing enclosure at approximately 38 spotted deer based on CZA norms, with optimal sex ratio of 15 males to 23 females — CEC affirmed that scientifically managed translocation to ecologically suitable tiger reserves is scientifically justified, ethically defensible, and consistent with national statutory framework and IUCN Guidelines — Held: Deer, being a wildlife species, ought not to be confined to restrictive enclosures save in exceptional and compelling circumstances — Continued retention of large deer population at the Park, after cancellation of its "mini zoo" recognition and in the absence of requisite infrastructure, is impermissible in law — Prior translocation, undertaken without soft-release protocols, was unduly harsh and inconsistent with established principles governing wildlife translocation — Orders of Delhi High Court permitting translocation upheld — All recommendations of CEC accepted — SLPs closed with comprehensive directions [Paras 5–12].

Wildlife Translocation — Soft-Release Protocol — Mandatory Compliance — Prior translocation of captive-managed deer to tiger reserves was carried out in a manner inconsistent with established wildlife translocation principles — Deer, having been confined to a controlled habitat for a considerable period, had no exposure to open forest ecosystems, rendering abrupt hard release unsuitable and potentially detrimental — CEC underscored the necessity of a carefully structured and scientifically informed mechanism for future translocations — Held: All future translocations shall mandatorily follow soft-release protocols — Direct hard release shall not be resorted to — Telemetry collars shall be deployed on a representative subset of translocated deer for scientific monitoring of survival, dispersal, and mortality — Systematic and standardised post-release monitoring protocols shall be institutionalised at all release sites [Paras 7, 11 — CEC Recommendations xiii, xiv].

Wildlife Law — CEC Report — Institutional Directions — CZA Recognition — DDA Infrastructure — Retention of up to 38 deer at A.N. Jha Deer Park shall be permissible only subject to grant of requisite approvals and clearances by the Central Zoo Authority — DDA directed to develop and upgrade necessary logistical capacity, infrastructure, and trained human resources — DDA to fill all vacant sanctioned posts including Veterinary Officer, Wildlife Biologist, and Curator — DDA directed to constitute independent advisory committee comprising subject-matter experts and civil society representatives — CZA to exercise continuous regulatory oversight and conduct inspection at least twice a year [Paras 11 — Directions B, C, D; CEC Recommendations v, vi, vii].

Protected Forest — A.N. Jha Deer Park — Inviolability — A.N. Jha Deer Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi stands declared as a protected forest — Held: Under no circumstances shall the nature or status of the said area be altered — The same shall continue to be maintained as a protected forest at all times in the future [Para 11 — Direction E].

Wildlife Translocation — National Statutory Framework — IUCN Guidelines — Draft Comprehensive Roadmap — CEC prepared comprehensive draft guidelines for future wildlife translocations incorporating scientific methodology, identification and tagging protocols, procedural safeguards, transportation and veterinary requirements, ecological feasibility assessment, and post-release monitoring framework in conformity with domestic statutory regime and IUCN Guidelines — Held: Draft guidelines shall be examined by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and implemented, with such modifications as deemed appropriate, within six months — These guidelines shall be imparted statutory status — Compliance report to be submitted to the Court — Matter listed on 19.01.2027 for receiving compliance report [Paras 11 — Directions F, G; Para 13].

Invasive Alien Species — Absence of National Legal Framework — CEC noted that invasive alien species such as Lantana camara and Parthenium are rapidly colonising forest patches within MHTR, RVTR, and adjoining landscapes, posing a serious threat to native biodiversity — CEC observed that there is presently no comprehensive national or state-level legal framework addressing the prevention, control, or management of invasive alien species — Court's attention drawn to the need for a coordinated legal, policy, and management framework at the national level [Para 11 — CEC Recommendation xxii].

Decision: SLPs closed — All recommendations of CEC report dated 06.03.2026 accepted — DDA directed to relocate surplus deer in a time-bound manner under CEC supervision in strict adherence to draft Animal Translocation Guidelines — Retention of up to 38 deer permitted subject to CZA approval — A.N. Jha Deer Park to continue as protected forest — MoEF&CC directed to implement CEC's draft translocation guidelines with statutory backing within six months — Matter listed on 19.01.2027 for compliance report.

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Murder Conviction — Acquittal of Accomplices — Appellants, accused nos. 2 and 4 in the trial, were convicted along with two co-accused for the abduction and murder of the deceased Bebakka and destruction of her body by burning in Mullur forest — Prosecution's case rested on: motive attributable to accused no. 1 (financial disputes with deceased); last seen together testimony of PW-7; discovery of incriminating articles and places at the instance of accused; DNA identification of skeletal remains — High Court dismissed appeals and affirmed conviction and life imprisonment — Held: Prosecution failed to prove case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt — Both appeals allowed, conviction set aside, appellants acquitted [Paras 3, 18, 69–71].

Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — "May be" vs "Must be" — Five Conditions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda — The entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence — Law requires that: (i) circumstances must be fully established; (ii) consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (iii) of conclusive nature; (iv) excluding every other hypothesis; and (v) forming a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground consistent with innocence — Prosecution's case against appellants "may be true" but cannot be said to be "must be true" — Long distance between "may be" and "must be" cannot be ignored in a murder trial [Paras 25, 30, 31, 69].

Last Seen Together — Insufficient Sole Basis for Conviction — PW-7 deposed that at approximately 5:30 PM on the day of the incident, he saw the deceased in accused no. 1's silver Maruti 800 car at Ranna Circle, Mudhol, and the appellants along with accused no. 3 got into the said car which then proceeded towards Lokapur — Last seen theory requires corroboration; it does not by itself lead to inference of guilt — Where no discovery at the instance of appellants is established, it would be too risky to affirm conviction for a serious offence like murder solely on the circumstance of last seen together [Paras 40–44, 69].

Section 27, Evidence Act — Discovery Evidence — Joint Disclosure Statements — Admissibility and Reliability — Conditions Explained — Discovery panchanama was not drawn in accordance with law — PW-4, the panch witness, deposed nothing as to the exact statement made by the appellants in his presence — All discoveries including the spot of murder, place of burning, car, wire rope, plastic can and gold ornaments were at the instance of accused no. 1-Kalappa, who has not appealed — No distinct fact was discovered at the instance of the appellants — Joint discovery of the same facts from the same places by all four accused simultaneously makes it impossible to identify which accused's statement distinctly relates to which discovery — In absence of safeguards contemplated by Section 27, discovery evidence cannot be utilised against the appellants [Paras 45–68].

Section 27, Evidence Act — Joint and Simultaneous Disclosure Statements — Not Per Se Inadmissible — However, Credibility Subject to Evaluation — Joint or simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible under Section 27 — However, they are of limited evidentiary value when it is impossible to depose which accused uttered which words and in what sequence — Where the discovery of different facts from different places by different accused provides a guarantee of truthfulness, reliance may be placed — In the present case, all accused pointed to the same spots and same articles, with no distinct discovery referable to the appellants, and Section 27 therefore provides no assistance to the prosecution [Paras 57–68].

Accomplice — Role and Criminal Liability — The appellants had no personal motive against the deceased — They could at best be characterised as accomplices to the principal offender i.e., accused no. 1-Kalappa — An accomplice is one who voluntarily and knowingly participates in the commission of crime with the principal offender — Even for establishing the guilt of an accomplice, cogent and reliable evidence is required — No independent evidence connecting the appellants with the crime was established [Paras 32–37].

Section 27, Evidence Act — Contents of Panchanama Not Substantive Evidence — What Is Admissible — Contents of a panchanama are not substantive evidence — Only what has been stated by the panchas or concerned persons in the witness box constitutes substantive evidence — Confessional statements of accused hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act could not have been exhibited — Reading out contents of panchanama or confessional statements at the appellate stage as evidence is impermissible in law [Para 67].

Decision: Both appeals allowed — Impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka set aside — Appellants acquitted of all charges — Appellants directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case — Pending applications including applications for intervention disposed of [Paras 71–72].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Section 498A and 494 IPC read with Section 34 – Accused-appellants (father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant's husband) sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – High Court declined, holding prosecution records did not justify quashing – On appeal, Supreme Court examined whether FIR and chargesheet prima facie disclosed commission of offences against accused-appellants specifically, and whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Held: Allegations against accused-appellants were vague, general and unsupported by specific acts of cruelty or active participation – Proceedings quashed [Paras 2, 12, 22, 28].

Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Specific Allegations Required – Father-in-law alleged to have been present during incidents of harassment and to have received money paid by complainant's brother – Mother-in-law similarly alleged to have been present – Sister-in-law alleged to have received proceeds of gold sale for flat purchase – No specific acts of demand, threat or physical assault attributed to any of the accused-appellants – Allegations consisting merely of presence and encouragement insufficient to constitute offence of cruelty under Section 498A – Held: General and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence cannot form basis for criminal prosecution – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 23, 24, 25].

Bigamy – Section 494 IPC – Overt Act Required – Liability under Section 494 IPC cannot extend to persons other than the contracting spouse – In order to implicate family members, complainant required to prima facie establish overt act or omission in second marriage ceremony – Prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence of any such overt act on part of accused-appellants – Inferential knowledge of second marriage, without more, insufficient to establish requisite common intention under Section 34 IPC – Held: Accused-appellants cannot be prosecuted solely on basis of familial relationship with accused-husband [Paras 16, 26, 27].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Settled principles governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC restated with reference to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Courts cautioned against permitting continuation of proceedings where allegations against family members in matrimonial disputes are vague and not supported by material evidence – Mere reference to names of family members without specific allegations of active involvement should be nipped in the bud [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala set aside – Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1318 of 2016 registered at Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram quashed qua the accused-appellants.

Arbitration Law – Section 9 – Post-Award Interim Relief – Maintainability by Unsuccessful Party – Conflict of High Court Views Resolved – Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Courts had held that an unsuccessful party in arbitral proceedings cannot maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Act at the post-award stage – Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts took the contrary view – Supreme Court resolves the conflict and holds that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, may invoke Section 9 of the Act at the post-award stage – Judgments of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Courts on this point held to not lay down good law – Views of Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts affirmed as correctly reflecting the statutory position [Paras 3, 61, 62]

Statutory Interpretation – Meaning of 'A Party' under Section 9 – Plain Language Rule – Section 9 opens with the expression 'a party', which by virtue of Section 2(h) is defined as 'a party to an arbitration agreement' – Neither Section 2(h) nor Section 9 draws any distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party – To contextually modulate the meaning of 'a party' depending upon the outcome of arbitral proceedings would amount to judicial amendment of the statute – The meaning of the expression 'a party' cannot be varied or narrowed based on the outcome of the arbitral proceedings [Paras 28–33]

Section 9 – Object and Purpose – Right to Approach Court Till Judicial Process Reaches Culmination – Section 9 expressly permits any party to approach the Court for interim measures at three stages: before arbitration, during arbitration, and after the award but before enforcement – The provision does not expressly bar a party whose claims have been rejected from seeking interim relief post-award – Indian Parliament consciously expanded the scope of Section 9 beyond the UNCITRAL Model Law by adding the post-award stage, yet imposed no restriction on the category of parties entitled to seek such relief – Object of Section 9 is to ensure that parties retain the right to approach the Court for interim measures until the judicial process reaches its culmination [Paras 34–41]

Sections 34 and 36 vis-à-vis Section 9 – Distinct Spheres of Operation – Sections 34 and 36 provide remedies against an award or stay thereof, whereas Section 9 ensures protection of the subject matter or amount in dispute – An unsuccessful party cannot secure protection of its claim under Section 34 or Section 36 – To deny interim relief under Section 9 would leave such a party entirely remediless, particularly where the award under challenge is stayed and potentially liable to be set aside [Paras 42–43]

Dirk India and Allied Judgments – Fundamental Assumption Untenable – The premise underlying Dirk India, Nussli Switzerland Ltd., Padma Mahadev and A. Chidambaram that Section 34 permits only upholding or setting aside an award and that interim measures are confined to securing the fruits of the proceedings for the successful party – Held: Untenable in law in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Gayatri Balasamy which recognises the power of Courts under Sections 34 and 37 to modify a severable award – Expressions 'subject matter of arbitration' and 'amount in dispute' in Section 9(1)(ii) are broader in scope than 'fruits of arbitration' – Restrictive interpretation impermissible where statutory language is plain and categorical [Paras 44–48]

Purposive Interpretation – Even on Purposive Test, 'A Party' Means Any Party – Court can envisage situations where an unsuccessful party requires interim protection: where award was rendered without proper notice, or where fraud or corruption is prima facie demonstrated, or where interim protection obtained during proceedings such as restraint on bank guarantee invocation requires continuation pending Section 34 challenge – Non-prejudicial interim relief not affecting enforceability of the award but preserving ancillary rights is also permissible [Paras 49–52]

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (supra) – Not Binding Precedent on Present Issue – The Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. quoted Dirk India while rejecting a different contention and did not consider the question of whether an unsuccessful party may seek Section 9 relief post-award – A decision which does not proceed on consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution [Paras 53–54]

Threshold for Interim Relief – Higher for Unsuccessful Parties – Grant of interim relief under Section 9 continues to be guided by prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm – Threshold for grant of interim relief will be higher in the case of an unsuccessful party in arbitration – Courts shall exercise care, caution and circumspection while dealing with Section 9 applications filed by unsuccessful parties [Paras 59–60, 62]

Decision: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11139/2020 disposed of – Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29972/2015 and 26876/2014 listed for hearing on merits after four weeks – Judgments of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Courts on the point of maintainability of Section 9 petitions by unsuccessful parties held to not lay down good law.

Bail – Sexual Offences – Prolonged Incarceration – Delay in Trial – Appellant in custody since 10.09.2023 charged under multiple provisions including Section 376 IPC and Sections 66 and 67A of the IT Act – High Court denied regular bail – Before Supreme Court, State's counter affidavit disclosed that only 2 out of 22 witnesses had been examined with no possibility of early conclusion of trial – Cross-examination of complainant before Trial Court taken into account – Held: No grounds made out for continued incarceration pending conclusion of trial – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 4–7].

Bail Conditions – Non-Intimidation of Witnesses – Appellant directed not to intimidate or attempt to influence any witness during trial – Directed not to approach the complainant or seek to contact her through any family member – Directed to cooperate during trial and not delay proceedings [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 20.01.2026 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Trial Court – No observations made on merits of the case.

Amendment of Plaint – Death of Original Landlord During Pendency of Appeal – Bonafide Need – Legal Heirs – Original landlord filed eviction suit on grounds including bonafide need for himself and family members – Trial Court dismissed the suit – During pendency of appeal, landlord died and legal heirs were impleaded – Legal heirs sought amendment of plaint to plead their own bonafide need, viz., appellant's wife (advocate) and son (intending to start medical practice) – Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court allowed amendment subject to costs – High Court set aside the order holding that original landlord had not pleaded need of family members and that with his death the claim for bonafide need was extinguished – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to notice Para 4 of the plaint which expressly pleaded need of the landlord and his family members – Held: Finding of High Court on pleadings was factually incorrect and vitiated the impugned order [Paras 3, 4, 8, 11, 14, 15].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 not competent to review or reassess the material considered by the subordinate court while passing the impugned order – Whether a proposed amendment should be allowed is not dependent upon whether the case sought to be set up will eventually succeed at trial – High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction by entering into the merits of the proposed amendment – Held: Discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench in allowing amendment not warranting interference under Article 227 in the absence of any error of jurisdiction or statutory bar [Paras 16].

Subsequent Events – Effect on Right to Relief – Bonafide Need – Death of Party – Proposition that with the death of original landlord his bonafide need comes to an end and legal heirs cannot continue eviction proceedings on that ground cannot have blanket application – Depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Where subsequent events having material bearing on the entitlement to relief occur, Court is not precluded from taking cognizance and moulding relief accordingly – Held: Legal heirs entitled to bring on record subsequent events to substantiate their bonafide requirement [Paras 17].

Appellate Court Powers – Order XLI Rule 25 CPC – Framing of Additional Issues – Appellate Bench having allowed the amendment of the plaint directed the issue of bonafide requirement and hardship to be remanded to the Trial Court for recording evidence – High Court held such exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 25 was uncalled for as the Trial Court had not omitted to frame or try the issue – Held: Appellate Court can always exercise power under Order XLI Rule 25 to frame an issue essential to the right decision of the suit on merits, even where the issue had earlier been tried, if circumstances warrant – No error committed by the Appellate Bench [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5976 of 2024 set aside – Order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dated 05.04.2024 restored – Parties directed to appear before the Trial Court on 08.06.2026 – Merits of claim of either party not examined – Parties to bear their own costs.

NDPS Act – Section 37(1)(b)(ii) – Twin Conditions – Mandatory Nature – Commercial Quantity – Bail Grant Set Aside – Respondents were apprehended during a vehicle check, from whose possession a total of 1.465 kilograms of heroin was recovered, admittedly a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act – The High Court enlarged both respondents on regular bail without recording satisfaction on the twin cumulative conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), namely, (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – High Court instead observed that 'the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial' – Held: The recording of twin satisfaction is not a mere formality but a mandatory jurisdictional pre-condition, non-observance of which vitiates the grant of bail – Impugned orders set aside [Paras 9–10 (SLP 5020); Paras 9–10 (SLP 5075)]

Article 21 vs. Section 37 NDPS Act – Harmonious Construction – Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Override Statutory Mandate in Commercial Quantity Cases – The constitutional right under Article 21 and the special provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition – In matters governed by the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, the right to a speedy trial must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it [Para 10 (SLP 5020); Para 10 (SLP 5075)]

Successive Bail Applications – Duty of Full Disclosure – Candour Required – In both cases the respondents' second petitions under Section 483 of the BNSS failed to disclose in adequate terms the fate of the earlier bail petitions, merely citing case numbers without stating the nature of the proceedings or their outcome – Held: A disclosure calculated to obscure rather than illuminate is not a disclosure in the eye of law – An applicant invoking the Court's discretionary jurisdiction must approach with clean hands and place the full picture before it – A Court entertaining a successive bail application under a special statute is bound to refer to the fate of the earlier petition and to record what change in circumstances justifies fresh consideration [Paras 12–13 (SLP 5020); Paras 11–12 (SLP 5075)]

Factual Errors in Impugned Orders – Non-Application of Mind – In SLP 5020/2026, the High Court recorded that the respondent was 'not involved in any other case', while the respondent's own bail petition admitted the existence of another FIR against him – Such a finding directly at odds with the respondent's own admission reflects non-application of mind – In SLP 5075/2026, the fact that the respondent was on bail in another case and that his earlier bail application had been dismissed went unnoticed by the High Court [Para 11 (SLP 5020); Para 11 (SLP 5075)]

Drug Menace – Punjab – Circumspection Required – Courts ought to be highly circumspect while granting bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity in the State of Punjab, particularly where the accused bears antecedents – The note of caution sounded in Parwinder Singh (supra) was not adverted to in the impugned orders [Para 6 (SLP 5020); Para 12 (SLP 5075)]

Decision: Both appeals allowed – Impugned orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside – Respondents directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week – Liberty reserved to apply afresh for regular bail before the competent Court on surrender.