Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Scope and Limit – Grant of bail to accused Rajveer on the sole ground of parity with co-accused Suresh Pal – High Court failed to assess role, gravity, or impact of offence – Supreme Court reiterates that parity must be grounded in similarity of role, not just involvement in same offence – Held: Grant of bail solely on parity is erroneous [Paras 6–12, 14–15].

Criminal Law – Role-Based Bail Analysis – Appellant alleged that Rajveer instigated shooting of deceased Sonveer – FIR disclosed active participation and instigation – Role of Rajveer distinct from Suresh Pal, who was merely part of armed group – Held: No basis for equating both on parity – Orders granting bail quashed [Paras 3, 15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Requirements for Grant – Bail order must reflect judicial application of mind – Parity cannot override factors like role, gravity, antecedents, and potential to influence trial – High Court erred in granting bail without recording reasons or distinguishing roles – Held: Orders bereft of reasoning violate principles of natural justice [Paras 10–13, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Precedents on Parity – Supreme Court surveys decisions from various High Courts and apex court confirming that parity is not an absolute ground for bail – Must be examined with full context, role, and factual similarity – Uniform view against mechanical grant of bail on parity alone [Paras 13.1–13.7].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail to Prince – Co-accused Prince granted bail by High Court without assigning reasons – No analysis of role, gravity, or applicability of cited precedents – Held: Such non-speaking order violates settled principles – Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Bail granted to accused Rajveer and Prince set aside – Rajveer directed to surrender within two weeks – Matter of Prince remanded to High Court for reconsideration as per law.

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Appellants convicted for murder based on statements of informant (PW-3) and deceased’s sisters (PW-1 and PW-2) alleging oral dying declaration – First information report dated 12 May 1990 (Fardbeyan) did not name the accused – Informant later filed embellished report naming appellants due to previous enmity over land acquisition employment – Prosecution failed to justify contradiction or explain delay in naming accused – Held: Fardbeyan was the true FIR and subsequent statement could not override it – Names of accused introduced belatedly – creates serious doubt [Paras 5-6, 24-35].

Criminal Procedure – Examination under Section 313 CrPC – Violation – Trial Court recorded only three generic questions – High Court failed to address this defect – Supreme Court held that the defective recording caused serious prejudice to the accused – omission to put specific incriminating circumstances undermines a fair trial – Remand not ordered due to long passage of time – Held: Trial vitiated due to violation of principles under Section 313 CrPC [Paras 18-23].

Evidence – Non-examination of Investigating Officer – Adverse Inference – Investigating Officer (ASI R. Paswan) recorded both FIRs but was not examined without explanation – Supreme Court held this withholding was deliberate – His testimony was crucial to explain discrepancies – Held: Adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 12, 25-30].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Informant’s testimony inconsistent with FIR and Section 164 CrPC statements – Multiple improvements including alleged oral dying declaration introduced at different stages – Deceased’s sisters examined after 1.5 months and failed to inspire confidence – Medical evidence did not support ability of deceased to make any dying declaration – Held: Prosecution evidence wholly unreliable and inconsistent [Paras 30-45].

Defence Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Defence examined two eyewitnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) named in prosecution’s own report – They did not implicate appellants and supported a different version – Courts below failed to consider their testimonies – Held: Defence version plausible – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 47-51].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – To be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 52-53].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC by Trial Court – Conviction upheld by High Court – Deceased wife and infant child found dead in well – Alleged demand for gold ring and chain at ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony held as insufficient to constitute a "dowry demand" under Section 304B – Supreme Court held that demands made post-marriage and not in connection with the marriage do not qualify as dowry – Conviction under Section 304B set aside [Paras 7–7.2].

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498A IPC – Conviction Sustained – Evidence of prosecution witnesses supported consistent ill-treatment and harassment of deceased by accused following unmet demand of gold – Sessions Court and High Court found ingredients of Section 498A proved – Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 498A [Para 7.3].

Sentence – Imprisonment Already Undergone – Appellant had served more time in prison than imposed under Section 498A IPC – Fine already paid – Supreme Court held that further incarceration not warranted – Appeal partly allowed with conviction under Section 304B set aside and sentence under Section 498A treated as already undergone [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld – Sentence already undergone – No further imprisonment required.

Service Law – Disciplinary Action – Suppression of Criminal Proceedings – Appellant dismissed from Railway Protection Force for not disclosing involvement in a criminal case and subsequent detention – Criminal case ended in honourable acquittal with categorical finding that appellant was on duty at the time of alleged offence – Held: Dismissal from service was disproportionate to charges – Lesser punishment should have been imposed [Paras 6, 14–15].

Service Law – Posthumous Relief – Modification of Penalty – Appellant died during pendency of appeal – Considering seventeen years of service and honourable acquittal, Court modified punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement – Directed payment of pension arrears from date of dismissal and family pension from date of demise [Paras 16–17].

Judicial Review – Disproportionate Punishment – Court found that proven misconduct (non-disclosure of arrest) did not warrant extreme penalty of dismissal – Held: Alternative penalty of compulsory retirement sufficient to meet ends of justice [Para 14].

Compassionate Grounds – Legal Representatives’ Entitlement – Legal heirs entitled to pensionary benefits due to modified penalty – Directed computation and release of arrears and family pension within six weeks [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Order of dismissal modified to compulsory retirement – Appellant’s legal representatives entitled to arrears of pension from 24.06.2011 and family pension from 03.10.2023 – Arrears to be paid within six weeks.

Wildlife Law – Translocation of Captive Deer – Ecological and Welfare Standards – DDA’s decision to translocate approximately 600 spotted deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park, New Delhi, to Rajasthan and Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary upheld by the High Court – Petitioner (NGO) alleged violations of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and IUCN guidelines – Supreme Court found chronic managerial lapses, expired zoo licence, and overcrowding at Deer Park but noted prima facie irregularities in translocation including transfer of pregnant and juvenile deer, overcrowded transport, lack of tagging, and absence of habitat feasibility study – Held: Translocation violated CZA and IUCN protocols – Independent scientific assessment required before further action [Paras 17–21].

Animal Welfare – Captive Management – Welfare safeguards under Section 38H of the Wild Life Act and National Zoo Policy, 1998 – Record revealed absence of sterilisation, inadequate veterinary infrastructure, and overcrowding leading to distress among deer – Held: Continued retention of all deer in park contrary to animal welfare; however, future relocation must be scientific and humane under CZA supervision [Paras 18–19].

Administrative Lapses – Failure of Oversight – Central Zoo Authority’s repeated extensions despite DDA’s non-compliance noted – Absence of pre-translocation genetic screening, veterinary certification, and post-release monitoring – Held: Authorities failed to apply due diligence; need for oversight by Central Empowered Committee (CEC) under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [Paras 20–21].

Constitutional Law – Articles 48A, 51A(g), and 21 – Environmental protection and compassion for living creatures form part of constitutional duty – Held: Wildlife management must reflect ecological prudence, dignity of life, and intergenerational equity; conservation cannot be treated as administrative expediency [Paras 23–24].

Directions – Supreme Court directed:

(i) CEC to conduct on-ground survey of Deer Park and Rajasthan reserves (Ramgarh Vishdhari & Mukundra Hills Tiger Reserves) within 8 weeks and report on deer numbers, habitat suitability, and compliance with CZA/IUCN norms;

(ii) DDA to furnish land-use report and refrain from commercial use of park premises;

(iii) No further translocation of deer till further orders [Paras 22(A–G)].

Decision: Matter listed for monitoring; further translocation stayed; CEC and DDA to file compliance reports by March 2026 [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation and Modification – Judicial Discipline – Finality of Orders – Appellant (accused in a murder case) sought modification of condition restricting him to city limits of Kolkata – Co-applicant sought cancellation of his bail alleging intimidation of witnesses and political interference – Court held that no breach of bail terms shown; cancellation unwarranted – Repeated modification petitions after earlier rejection viewed as forum-shopping – Held: Judicial orders must attain finality; bail conditions once upheld cannot be relaxed absent significant change in circumstances – Judicial discipline and certainty of verdicts must prevail [Paras 45–52].

Bail – Condition of Restricted Movement – Reasonableness under Article 21 – Restriction confining accused to Kolkata while on bail not unreasonable – Condition justified considering his influence, prior attempts to derail trial, and ongoing witness protection concerns – Held: Restriction serves public interest and fair-trial objective; liberty under Article 21 subject to procedural and societal safeguards [Paras 50–52].

Criminal Procedure – Cancellation of Bail – Political Patronage and Witness Intimidation Allegations – Complainant’s brother alleged that accused misused political clout, caused witnesses to turn hostile, and obtained undue police protection – Court observed irregularities in State conduct but found no conclusive evidence linking accused to witness tampering – Held: Mere apprehension insufficient; cancellation must rest on proof of breach or misuse of liberty [Paras 42–43].

Judicial Ethics – Finality of Verdicts – Consistency in Supreme Court Decisions – Court deprecated growing trend of reopening settled issues before differently constituted Benches – Emphasized that finality of decisions under Article 141 essential to preserve judicial authority and prevent endless litigation – Held: Later benches should defer to prior coordinate decisions unless glaring error warrants review or curative process [Paras 47–49].

Trial Practice – Role of Public Prosecutor – Sessions Court Criticism Quashed – Sessions Court’s remarks against Special Public Prosecutor for alleged laxity termed uncalled for and unjustified – Supreme Court expunged comments and reference to Legal Remembrancer – Directed prosecutor to continue trial with fairness and diligence – Held: Judicial officers must exercise restraint and avoid demoralizing remarks against prosecution unless warranted by record [Paras 61–67].

Directions: Application for cancellation of bail rejected – Application for modification of bail condition rejected – Adverse observations by Sessions Court against Special Public Prosecutor set aside – Sessions Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously but without undue haste or prejudice. [Paras 43, 52, 65–69].

Decision: Applications dismissed – Restriction on movement of accused to continue – Proceedings before Sessions Court to continue in accordance with law – Trial Court’s reference to Legal Remembrancer quashed.

Civil Law – Execution Sale – Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 CPC – Executing court is under a statutory obligation to consider whether sale of a part of the property would satisfy the decree – High Court erred in invalidating the auction sale solely on the ground that such consideration was absent without examining if the ground was raised earlier – Held: Judgment debtors, having had full notice and opportunity, failed to raise the issue of partial sale before the sale proclamation – Hence, barred by Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC from raising it post-sale [Paras 9, 10, 17-19] – High Court judgment set aside – Auction sale held on 12.09.2002 restored.

Execution Proceedings – Judgment Debtor’s Conduct – Repeated opportunities were granted and judgment debtors were aware of ongoing reduction of upset price – They chose not to contest the sale terms at relevant stages – Held: Once due notice was given and participation made, failure to raise objections amounts to acquiescence – Belated challenge under Rule 90 CPC is barred [Paras 13, 18].

Interpretation of CPC – Rule 90(3) – Bar against post-sale objections on pre-sale grounds – Judgment debtor cannot challenge sale on a ground that could have been taken before the proclamation of sale – High Court’s assumption that this bar does not affect the duty of executing court under Rule 64 CPC is erroneous – Held: Bar under Rule 90(3) is applicable in present facts [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Precedents – Ambati Narasayya and Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi – Held to apply to pre-1976 cases – In post-1976 cases, Desh Bandhu Gupta case applies – Absence of notice is crucial to invalidate sale – But if notice was given and judgment debtor took no action, Rule 90(3) bars challenge – Present case involved full notice and failure to act – Hence, bar under Rule 90(3) applies [Paras 11-13, 15, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order dated 10.02.2009 set aside – Orders of Executing Court dated 15.10.2004 and Appellate Court dated 13.07.2007 restored – Auction sale dated 12.09.2002 declared valid.

Service Law – Withdrawal of Resignation – Review Dismissed – Respondent-employee had resigned on 05.12.2013 with effect from 05.01.2014 but withdrew resignation on 26.05.2014 before it was finally accepted – Konkan Railway contended that acceptance was communicated on 16.04.2014 and employee only reported for relieving – Court found that final acceptance was by letters dated 23.06.2014, 01.07.2014, and 15.07.2014, all after withdrawal – Held: Resignation not effective as it was withdrawn before final acceptance – Review petition dismissed [Paras 1, 2, 4]

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Errors Alleged by Review Petitioner Not Found Substantive – Minor discrepancies in date of communication or presence in office did not alter the legal consequence of withdrawal before acceptance – Court reiterated that review cannot be an appeal in disguise – No error apparent on the face of record found – Held: No case made out for review under Article 137 – Review petition dismissed [Paras 3, 4, 6]

Back Wages – No Work No Pay – Partial Relief – Court had earlier directed payment of only 50% salary from 01.07.2014 to reinstatement, considering equity and fairness – Challenge to this direction rejected – Held: Employee had served 23 years with unblemished record and litigated consistently – Interests of justice justified partial back-wages – No change warranted [Paras 2, 5]

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – Judgment dated 13.09.2024 upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 6, 7]

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Sentence Modification – Appellant convicted under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act for sexual assault on a minor girl aged 15–16 years – Sentenced to life imprisonment till natural death by Trial Court – Conviction upheld by High Court – Supreme Court, while upholding conviction, modified sentence to 25 years of actual imprisonment without remission considering the appellant’s young age, lack of prior criminal record, and satisfactory jail conduct – Held: Court empowered to impose fixed-term sentence in place of natural life imprisonment under binding precedent [Paras 2-7].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Scope of Judicial Discretion – Though offence was grave and against a minor, Court held that judicial discretion allows sentence to be tailored considering mitigating circumstances – Applied principle from Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka – Sentence modified accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment until natural death reduced to fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment without remission [Paras 7-8].