Criminal Law – Bail Under UAPA – Supreme Court Reverses High Court's Bail Grant – Appellant challenged High Court's order granting bail to accused charged with offenses under IPC and UAPA related to activities of Popular Front of India (PFI) – Accused were allegedly involved in promoting terrorism, imparting weapon training, and conspiring to establish Islamic rule in India – High Court's order granting bail was found to be perverse and not in accordance with Section 43D(5) of UAPA – Supreme Court emphasized that accusations against the accused must be presumed true until contradicted by evidence – Appeal allowed and bail granted by High Court set aside [Paras 1-24].

Evidence Evaluation – Statements of Protected and Listed Witnesses – Supreme Court held that statements of witnesses collected during investigation showed prima facie involvement of accused in alleged offenses – High Court erred in discarding evidence at bail stage – Court must consider totality of material presented by investigating agency – Prima facie case against accused established through witness statements and incriminating documents – Statements corroborated the role of accused in furthering PFI’s alleged terrorist activities [Paras 13-17, 22].

Decision – Bail Cancellation – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's order granting bail to respondents set aside – Respondents directed to surrender – Special Court to expedite trial without being influenced by observations of Supreme Court – Emphasized the importance of national security and stringent scrutiny under UAPA – Bail order found illegal and perverse, requiring intervention to maintain law and order [Paras 22-24].

Conviction and Sentencing of Juvenile - Thirumoorthy, a juvenile, convicted for various offenses by the trial court and High Court without adherence to Juvenile Justice Act provisions – Conviction for offenses under IPC and POCSO Act – Sentences ranging from 1 to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment [Para 2, 9, 31].

Non-Compliance with JJ Act - Flagrant violation of JJ Act - Mandatory procedures under the Act not followed – Charge sheet filed directly before Sessions Court, not Juvenile Justice Board – Lack of preliminary assessment for trial as an adult [Paras 28, 37-39, 46].

Invalid Trial Proceedings - Entire proceedings from investigation to trial declared invalid due to non-compliance with JJ Act – Direct trial by Sessions Court without reference to Juvenile Justice Board [Paras 40-42].

Lack of Feasibility for Reassessment - Impracticality of conducting a retrospective assessment of appellant's mental and physical capacity at the time of offense, now aged 23 years [Paras 47-48].

Judgment and Order - Supreme Court quashes all proceedings against appellant – Orders immediate release, unless required in another case – Appeal allowed [Para 50].

Background of Case – FIR lodged based on allegations of using obscene photographs for extortion and blackmail by Sabita Paul and her son Supratim Paul – Supratim already granted anticipatory bail [Para 2, 3, 7]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Principle of Parity in Bail Grant –  principle of parity in granting anticipatory bail in the context of a mother-son duo accused of extortion and blackmail. The Court weighed the role of each accused and the necessity of custodial interrogation. [Para 6-9, 10]

Anticipatory Bail for Secondary Accused – Held – Granted anticipatory bail to the secondary accused, Sabita Paul, underlining the interconnectedness of her actions with the primary accused, Supratim Paul. The Court underscored that her actions were not independent but an extension of the prime accused's initial conduct. [Para 7, 9-10]

Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Reversed – The Supreme Court reversed the Division Bench's decision canceling Sabita Paul's anticipatory bail. The Court stressed the importance of examining the specific role of each accused and the absence of a challenge to the prime accused’s bail. [Para 8, 10]

Conditions for Bail – Reiterated – The Court reaffirmed the condition of complete cooperation with the investigation and trial as an integral part of the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant. [Para 10]

Decision – The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and confirming the order granting anticipatory bail to Sabita Paul, with specific conditions for cooperation in the ongoing investigation and trial. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC) – Quashing of Proceedings –  applicability of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of the appellant’s involvement in the alleged abetment of suicide. The Court examined the evidence and allegations to ascertain the presence of incitement or instigation leading to the suicide. [Para 1, 7-11]

Absence of Proximate Incitement – held – emphasized that for establishing the charge of abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear act of instigation or incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations or indirect insinuations are insufficient. In this case, the Court found no proximate or direct incitement by the appellant leading to the suicide of the deceased. [Para 10-11]

Significance of Temporal Proximity – applied – underlined the necessity of temporal proximity between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide. The Court noted the absence of evidence indicating the appellant's involvement or communication with the deceased near the time of the suicide, leading to the conclusion that there was no abetment. [Para 9-11]

Quashing of Proceedings – Decision – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the proceedings against the appellant, citing insufficient evidence to sustain the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court clarified that this decision pertains exclusively to the appellant, allowing the trial court to proceed against other accused in accordance with the law. [Para 12]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against the appellant, Amudha, in the context of the alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. [Para 13]

Transfer of Civil Suit – Jurisdiction –  Court considered the appropriate jurisdiction for a civil suit involving specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding related to immovable property. The suit was filed by respondent no.1 in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, with a counter-suit by petitioner in Calcutta, West Bengal. The Court evaluated the principles under Sections 16 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to determine the competent court for adjudicating the dispute. [Paras 1-6, 8-9]

Jurisdiction Determination under CPC – held – emphasized that jurisdiction for suits concerning immovable property is primarily determined by the location of the property as per Section 16, CPC, and not by the place of execution of the agreement or the residence of the parties. Section 20, CPC, was found to be a residuary provision not applicable in the current scenario. [Para 6]

Precedence of Filing and Section 10, CPC – applied – The Court noted the application of Section 10, CPC, mandating that no court shall proceed with a trial if the matter in issue is already pending before another competent court. The precedence of filing and the consequent stay of later suits were considered vital in adjudicating the transfer petitions. [Para 7]

Decision – Transfer of Suit to Sehore, Madhya Pradesh – The Supreme Court dismissed Transfer Petition (C) No.2664 of 2023, thereby upholding the jurisdiction of the Sehore court for the suit filed by respondent no.1. Concurrently, Transfer Petition (C) No.499 of 2024 was allowed, transferring the suit filed by the petitioner in Calcutta to Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, for consolidated proceedings. [Paras 8-9]

Directive for Consolidated Proceedings – The Court directed the transfer of relevant records to the Court of Principle Judge, Sehore, and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the transferred suit or file a counterclaim in the existing suit in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh. The matter was ordered to proceed from the stage it was left at the City Civil Court, Calcutta, West Bengal. [Paras 9-11]

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Dismissal – The Supreme Court deliberated on the bail granted to the accused in a murder case by the High Court, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning in bail decisions. The case involved the alleged involvement of the respondent in a murder, not initially named in the FIR but later implicated through investigation. [Para 2-8]

Consideration of Bail Applications – held – the Supreme Court underscored the importance of detailed examination and reasoning in bail applications, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. It criticized the High Court's cursory analysis and reliance on the respondent's arguments without thorough consideration of the materials against him. [Para 4, 8]

Reversal of High Court’s Bail Order – applied – The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order granting bail lacked proper legal foundation and detailed reasoning. This omission was deemed particularly significant given the gravity of the crime involved. [Para 8]

Decision – Cancellation of Bail – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and canceling the bail of the respondent. The respondent was given three weeks to surrender, with the clarification that this order would not prejudice future proceedings related to the crime nor prevent the respondent from applying for bail anew. [Para 9]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Rape Charges –  Appeal by accused challenging conviction by the Trial Court under Sections 342, 376, and 201 of IPC – High Court affirmed the conviction – Supreme Court analysis based on evidence, including WhatsApp conversations and circumstantial aspects – Held, the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence due to the consensual nature of the relationship and lack of evidence of forcible intercourse – Conviction overturned and appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-24]

Consent in Rape Cases – Analysis and Consideration – Court examines consent in rape allegations – Considered continuous and consensual communication between the appellant and prosecutrix, mutual travel, and absence of resistance or complaint – Noted absence of injuries or resistance – Held, circumstances and evidence indicate consensual relationship rather than rape – Acquittal based on failure of prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 12-16, 18-19]

Section 114A of Evidence Act – Inapplicability  – Court discusses applicability of Section 114A of the Evidence Act, which presumes absence of consent in rape prosecutions – Held, Section 114A not applicable as the appellant was not charged under the specific clause of IPC required for the presumption to operate – Prosecution required to prove non-consent, which it failed to do. [Paras 11, 17]

Admissibility of WhatsApp Conversations – Legal Principles – Court addresses the admissibility of WhatsApp conversations without a Section 65B certificate under the Evidence Act – Found that even if admitted, such evidence does not conclusively prove non-consent or forcible intercourse in the present case. [Paras 20-21]

Decision – Acquittal on Rape Charges –  Court acquits appellant Pankaj Singh of all charges due to insufficient evidence of non-consensual intercourse – Sets aside lower courts’ convictions – Appellant’s bail bond cancelled and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 22-25]

Challenge to EC Notifications - Exemption for Extraction of Ordinary Earth – Appeals against the National Green Tribunal’s decision on the exemption for extraction, sourcing, or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects - Impugned notification and amended impugned notification dated 28th March 2020 and 30th August 2023, respectively, under scrutiny - EC exemptions granted by these notifications examined for legality and arbitrariness under the Environment (Protection) Act and Constitution [Paras 1-4, 6-7, 20-21, 25-27].

Non-Compliance with Rule 5 Procedure - Failure of Central Government to follow the mandatory procedure under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Dispensing with public notice requirement without proper justification - Issue of legality in invoking sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 during the COVID-19 lockdown without evident public interest or urgency [Paras 18-24].

Arbitrary and Vague Exemptions - Exemption under item 6 in impugned notifications deemed arbitrary due to lack of clear guidance and safeguards - Unspecified quantum and area for earth extraction, undefined scope of "linear projects," and lack of regulatory authority or mechanism for enforcement - Violation of Article 14 due to unguided blanket exemption [Paras 25-27, 31-32].

Environmental Protection Obligations - Importance of public participation in environmental matters emphasized - Protection and improvement of environment as fundamental objectives under the Environment (Protection) Act - Need for detailed regulatory framework to balance development with environmental protection [Paras 15, 22-23, 28-29].

Decision - Supreme Court partly allows the appeals - Strikes down item 6 in both the impugned notification dated 28th March 2020 and the amended impugned notification dated 30th August 2023 - Item 6 deemed illegal and struck for non-compliance with Rule 5 and arbitrariness under Article 14 [Para 32].

Preventive Detention – Validity – Analysis of Legality – validity of the preventive detention order passed under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The appellant was preventively detained on the grounds of involvement in a series of thefts and robberies, purportedly disturbing public order. The court scrutinized the role of the detaining authority and the Advisory Board in issuing and affirming the detention order. [Para 3, 35, 49-59]

Role of Advisory Board in Preventive Detention – Emphasized – Court emphasized the significant role of the Advisory Board in preventive detention cases. It noted that the Board should not merely act as a rubber-stamping authority for detention orders but must actively scrutinize the legality and necessity of detention, keeping in mind constitutional safeguards and judicial precedents. [Para 50-63]

Order of Preventive Detention – Quashed – Based on the analysis, the Supreme Court quashed the order of preventive detention for lacking sufficient grounds to assert that the appellant's activities affected public order. The court also set aside the High Court's judgment affirming the detention order and ordered the appellant's immediate release, subject to any other lawful detention. [Para 64-67]

Guidance to State Authorities – Issued – The court issued guidance to state authorities on exercising preventive detention powers judiciously, cautioning against their routine or mechanical use. It underscored the need for a thorough and lawful process in deciding preventive detentions, aligning with constitutional mandates. [Para 44, 47, 67]

Decision – Appeals allowed; preventive detention orders against appellants quashed – Emphasis on proper scrutiny by the Advisory Board and adherence to legal standards in passing detention orders under preventive detention laws. [Paras 64-67]