Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – High Court issued oral directions to restrain arrest without written order – Supreme Court highlights that oral observations are not part of judicial record – Written orders are binding and enforceable – Administration of criminal justice involves public interest, not just a private matter between parties – Oral directions can lead to serious misgivings and are open to abuse – High Court's procedure of issuing oral directions was irregular and must be eschewed [Paras 22-25].

Judicial Order – Necessity of Written Text – Oral directions, especially in criminal matters, must be avoided – Importance of written orders for accountability and reliability – Supreme Court emphasizes the need for written records in judicial proceedings to prevent dangerous precedents [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Law – Serious Allegations – FIR involved allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents – Serious nature of offenses under Sections 405, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC – High Court must consider the nature and gravity of allegations while granting interim relief – Interim stay of arrest must be justified with reasons reflecting judicial application of mind [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's oral direction restraining arrest set aside – High Court to proceed with the petition under Section 482 CrPC pending consideration – Interim orders must provide reasons for granting relief – Ensuring judicial accountability and public confidence in the judicial process [Para 33].

Land Grabbing – Title and Possession – Union of India claimed possession over land from 1958 – Respondents challenged under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – Tribunal found in favor of respondents based on previous suit findings – Supreme Court held the title to the land validly transferred to Union of India by Government Grants Act, 1895 and Section 17(2)(vii) of Registration Act, 1908 – Title in previous suit restricted to 4971.5 sq. yards, not entire land – Tribunal and High Court's findings overturned [Paras 24-37, 42-44].

Presumption of Correctness – Official Records – Military and general land registers maintained by Union of India – Public documents under Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Presumption of correctness under Section 114 – No evidence to contradict official records – Continuous possession and assertion of title by Union of India upheld [Paras 44].

Res Judicata – Application – Previous suit decreed ownership of 4971.5 sq. yards – Not applicable to remaining land – Explanation IV of Section 11 CPC considered – No counterclaim by respondents in previous suit regarding remaining land – Doctrine of constructive res judicata not applicable – Previous findings do not bind remaining land [Paras 25-26, 29-38].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside – Union of India declared owner and in possession of disputed land – Respondents' claims dismissed – Costs awarded to Union of India [Paras 45].

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].