Bail Cancellation – Specific Allegations – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision to grant bail to the second respondent – Supreme Court finds specific allegations that the second respondent aided the crime by providing information to the killers and was involved in the conspiracy – High Court's failure to consider the seriousness of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent – Bail cancelled [Paras 1-20].

Considerations for Bail – Nature and Gravity of Offence – Court emphasizes the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence, and circumstances peculiar to the accused when deciding bail – Highlights that previous bail applications were denied due to the serious allegations and lack of cooperation in the investigation [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Discretion – Error in High Court's Decision – Supreme Court holds that the High Court erred in granting bail by not considering relevant circumstances and the specific role of the second respondent – Observations of no overt act attributed to the second respondent were found to be incorrect based on the charge-sheet and investigation findings [Paras 12-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail order of the High Court set aside – Second respondent to surrender by 7 November 2021 – Observations made are for bail consideration and do not affect the merits of the case or pending trial [Paras 20-22].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision to quash the FIR and investigation into the alleged abetment of suicide by the respondent – Supreme Court emphasizes that the suicide note detailed the role of the accused in events leading to the deceased’s suicide, warranting investigation and possible trial – High Court's quashing of proceedings found erroneous [Paras 1-32].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Discretion – Supreme Court outlines the limited scope of the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC, which should be exercised with caution and not to assess the veracity of the complaint – Observes that the High Court erred by substituting its own perception and conducting a de facto trial at the quashing stage [Paras 16-19, 25-28].

Mental Health Considerations – The judgment addresses the importance of considering individual mental health variations and criticizes the High Court for diminishing the gravity of mental health issues by labeling the deceased a "weakling" based on behavior patterns before suicide – Emphasizes that behavioral responses to threats vary widely among individuals [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment and order dated 29 May 2020 set aside – Investigation and proceedings to continue as per law – Petition for quashing the FIR dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31-32].

Forest Land Demarcation – Section 3 and 8 of the Vesting Act – Appellants challenge the High Court's decision that only 100 hectares and 155.90 acres were forest land, with the rest being plantations – Supreme Court finds no error in High Court's judgment – High Court correctly relied on surveys, reports, and evidence showing the land's status on the appointed date – Confirms 402 acres as forest and the remainder as plantation [Paras 1-45].

Evidentiary Value of Land Board's Determination – Weight of Evidence – Court emphasizes that Land Board’s findings, while not res judicata, hold considerable evidentiary weight unless proven otherwise – High Court appropriately gave due weight to the Board's determination and other supporting documents, such as the Commissioner’s reports and balance sheets showing agricultural income [Paras 36-45].

Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Discretion – Court underlines limited scope of Section 482 CrPC, cautioning against testing the veracity of allegations at the quashing stage – High Court's findings based on plausible inferences from the evidence deemed sound and just, warranting no interference [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – No interference with the findings and conclusions of the High Court – Costs not ordered [Para 45].

Detention Order – Procedural Safeguards – Appellant challenges the detention order for delays in considering the representation and failure to communicate the decision – Supreme Court quashes the detention order, emphasizing the constitutional right under Article 22(5) for expeditious consideration of the representation by the appropriate government – Holds that both Central and State Governments failed to communicate the rejection of the representation in a timely manner, rendering the detention order invalid [Paras 1-56].

Constitutional Safeguards – Right to Representation – Court underscores the constitutional safeguards in preventive detention cases, noting that timely communication and consideration of the representation are critical to ensuring the detenu's rights – Affirms the necessity of expeditious action and independent assessment by the detaining authority, distinct from the Advisory Board's proceedings [Paras 17-40].

Delay in Representation Consideration – Impact on Validity of Detention – Analyzes precedents emphasizing the requirement for immediate action on the detenu’s representation – Highlights the failure of the State Government to consider the representation promptly, compounded by the lack of timely communication, which vitiates the detention order [Paras 31-46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Detention order dated 11 May 2021 and subsequent extensions quashed – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith – Emphasizes that the failure in procedural compliance concerning the representation consideration and communication invalidates the detention [Paras 55-57].

Right to Notice – Mandatory Nature – Appellant challenges the grant of bail to the first respondent on the grounds that mandatory notice under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act was not issued – Supreme Court emphasizes the mandatory nature of these provisions, ensuring victims' right to notice and to be heard – The failure to issue notice invalidates the bail proceedings [Paras 1-18].

Procedural Safeguards – Compliance at Each Stage – Court highlights that compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage, including the initial grant of bail – Subsequent compliance in cancellation proceedings does not cure the initial defect – Stresses the importance of issuing timely notice to allow victims to effectively participate and oppose bail [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Accountability – Reasoning for Bail – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's lack of reasoning in granting bail, noting that recording of reasons is a judicial duty ensuring accountability and transparency – High Court's order merely recorded submissions without assessing relevant factors like the gravity of the offence and the accused’s role [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent set aside – Respondent to surrender by 7 November 2021 – Observations made are limited to bail considerations and do not affect the merits of the case [Paras 25-27].

Abolition of Post – UGC Tenth Plan – Appellant challenges the termination of his services as an Assistant Professor, arguing that the post was sanctioned and financially supported by the UGC under the Tenth Plan and should not have been abolished – Supreme Court finds termination illegal, noting that the University had the power to abolish a department but not a post sanctioned by the UGC – Orders reinstatement with benefits for pension and retiral purposes [Paras 1-28].

Contractual Nature of Appointment – University’s Actions – Appellant's appointment was not contractual, as evidenced by the regular payment of increments – Supreme Court observes that the University misrepresented the status of the Department and the post to the UGC – Notes that the University had requested continued funding for the post under the Eleventh Plan, contradicting their claim of abolition [Paras 14-24].

UGC Expert Committee – Recommendations – Supreme Court relies on the findings of the UGC’s Expert Committee, which recommended the appellant's reinstatement, describing his termination as "perverse and incorrect" – Emphasizes the absence of any objections from the University to the Committee’s recommendations [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – University directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor with continuity of service for pension and retiral benefits – No back pay awarded due to the principle of "no work, no pay" – Appellant entitled to notional salary fixation and benefits if similarly situated individuals received them [Paras 27-28].

Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Requirement of Use of Deadly Weapon – Appellants challenge their convictions for not personally using deadly weapons during the commission of the robbery – Supreme Court upholds the need for the individual offender to have used the deadly weapon to be convicted under Section 397 IPC – Convictions under Section 397 IPC set aside, appellants convicted under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC instead [Paras 1-18].

Evidence and Identification – Procedural and Evidentiary Issues – Court analyzes the credibility and consistency of witness testimonies, including identification and the non-conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Holds that despite procedural lapses, the identification by witnesses and corroborative evidence suffices to maintain convictions under Section 395 IPC [Paras 6-12].

Impact of Acquittal of Co-Accused – Argument for Benefit of Acquittal – Appellants argue for acquittal based on the subsequent acquittal of a co-accused tried separately – Supreme Court rejects this argument, emphasizing independent assessment of each case based on its evidence and findings – Acquittal of one accused does not automatically benefit others when evidence against them is strong [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Convictions under Section 397 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, with an additional six months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment [Para 18].

Bail under UAPA – Mens Rea Requirement – Appellant challenges the denial of bail, arguing that mere association with a terrorist organization is insufficient for offenses under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA without proving intent to further terrorist activities – Supreme Court agrees, emphasizing that the accused must have associated with the organization with the intention to further its activities – Mere possession of materials related to CPI (Maoist) does not automatically imply such intent [Paras 1-34].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Section 43D(5) UAPA – The court reiterates that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) apply only to offenses under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA – Since the accused was charged under Sections 13, 38, and 39, normal bail provisions apply for Section 13, and the prosecution must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 are prima facie true [Paras 17-21].

Procedural Lapses and Timely Communication – The importance of timely communication and consideration of bail applications, especially under preventive detention laws, is underscored – The court notes procedural lapses in the case and emphasizes the need for expeditious handling of such matters to uphold the rights of the accused [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Special Court's order granting bail to the accused restored – Accused to complete bail formalities within one week – Observations made are limited to bail considerations and do not influence the trial [Paras 40-42].

Cheque Issued as Security – Legal Enforceability – Appellant challenges the High Court's discharge of the respondent under Section 420 IPC while maintaining the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act – Supreme Court emphasizes that a cheque issued as security can still be presented for payment if the debt becomes due and is not repaid by other means – Court distinguishes between cheques issued as security and those for discharge of legally recoverable debt [Paras 1-18].

Discharge from Criminal Proceedings – Section 420 IPC – Supreme Court agrees with the High Court's conclusion that mere dishonour of a cheque issued as security does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC, as there is no sufficient evidence of mens rea – Upholds the discharge under Section 420 IPC [Para 11].

Maintainability under Section 138 of NI Act – Security Cheque – Court clarifies that the issuance of a cheque as security does not preclude its presentation for payment once the debt is due – Cites previous judgments to support that a security cheque can attract Section 138 of the NI Act if the loan remains unpaid and the cheque is dishonoured [Paras 12-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order discharging the respondent under Section 420 IPC upheld – Order setting aside the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act reversed – Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act restored for trial – Trial court to consider the evidence independently without being influenced by observations in this judgment [Paras 23-24].