Bail Application in Serious Offences – Rejection by High Court and Subsequent Appeal to Supreme Court – Involvement in offences under IPC and Arms Act – FIR No. 77/2019 from Police Station I.P. Estate, Delhi. [Para 1-3]

Duration of Custody and Health Issues – Appellant in custody for over four and a half years and facing health issues – Considered significant in granting bail. [Para 4]

Supreme Court’s Decision – Bail granted considering the duration of custody and appellant's health condition – Appellant directed to be produced before the Trial Court for release on bail, subject to conditions imposed for ensuring presence in trial proceedings and not misusing liberty. [Paras 5-6]

Conditions for Bail – Emphasis on cooperation with trial and prohibition against misuse of liberty – Warning that any violation may lead to cancellation of bail. [Para 6]

Service Law - Prospective Resignation Withdrawal – Case involving Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain's right to withdraw her resignation before the effective date – Appellant’s prospective resignation could be withdrawn at any time before it became effective as there was no legal, contractual, or constitutional bar preventing such action – No prior consent to treat resignation as 'final, binding, and irrevocable' – The judgment of the College Tribunal and the High Court set aside – The appellant's service from 24.09.2003 to 01.10.2007 to be regularized without backwages, counting towards pension eligibility. [Paras 1, 17-21, 27, 29-30]

Legal Principles on Resignation – The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing prospective resignation – The principle of 'locus poenitentiae' allows withdrawal of resignation before the effective date, subject to specific governing rules – The judgment of Gopal Chandra Misra and Srikantha S.M. applied, establishing that an employee could withdraw a prospective resignation before its effective date. [Paras 22-23, 26]

Pension and Retiral Benefits – Direction for regularization of service period and treating it as period spent on duty for pension purposes – Appellant entitled to pension and other retiral benefits from the combined tenure at both institutions, subject to minimum service requirement under the rules – The Trust directed to calculate and pay the pension and retiral benefits, including arrears, within four months. [Paras 29-30]

Murder of Child & Extra-Judicial Confession – Appellant (younger brother of PW-1) allegedly confessed to murdering his nephew and disposing of the body in a well – Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession formed the basis of conviction by High Court, overturning Trial Court's acquittal – Supreme Court scrutinizes the reliability and consistency of the confession and other evidence. [Paras 1, 3-5, 14-17, 19, 21-23, 25]

Testimony of PW-1 (Father of Deceased) – Multiple inconsistencies in PW-1's statements regarding the confession, its circumstances, and subsequent actions – Non-examination of key witnesses present during the confession, raising doubts on its existence – Supreme Court finds PW-1's testimony unreliable. [Paras 6-7, 16-18, 20, 23]

Circumstantial Evidence Analysis – Discrepancies in chain of circumstances, including doubts about the identity of the deceased's body, arrest procedures, and last seen theory – Recovery of body and arrest of the appellant marred by inconsistencies – Supreme Court finds circumstantial evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 8, 20-24, 27]

Legal Principles in Circumstantial Evidence Cases – Need for a complete and consistent chain of circumstances, leading to only conclusion of guilt – Supreme Court finds prosecution's circumstantial evidence incoherent, thereby failing to establish guilt. [Paras 25-27, 29-30]

Reversal of Acquittal Standards – High Court's re-appreciation of evidence deemed inappropriate without finding perversity or illegality in Trial Court's order – Supreme Court emphasizes the reinforced presumption of innocence post-acquittal and the necessity of resolving doubts in favor of the accused. [Paras 25-26]

Decision – Supreme Court sets aside High Court's judgment, reinstating Trial Court's order of acquittal – Appellant acquitted from all charges, reinforcing the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal jurisprudence. [Para 30]

Constitutional Law – Administrative Arbitrariness – Judicial Review – The Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the High Court regarding an appeal by the appellant for a primary school teacher position. The Court examined the administrative actions of the Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped in their recruitment process and the arbitrariness of their criteria. [Para 2, 10-11, 13, 26]

Advertisement and Selection Criteria – Institute's advertisement for primary school teacher post in 2016, stipulating qualifications and selection process including an interview – Modification in 2016 replacing interview with allocation of marks for additional qualifications [Para 3, 4].

Judicial Review in Public Law – The Court distinguished between judicial review in public law and civil law, emphasizing the role of constitutional courts in controlling the exercise of power by the state and its instrumentalities. It clarified that the primary purpose of quashing administrative actions is to prevent excess and abuse of power. [Para 17-18, 20]

Arbitrary and Illegal Administrative Actions – The Court found the Institute's action in denying the appellant marks for his PG Degree as arbitrary and illegal. It rejected the submission that the PG Degree must be in a "relevant subject" for additional qualification marks. [Para 11-12]

Remedial Measures for Arbitrary Actions – Addressing the limitations in providing restitution for arbitrary actions due to systemic delays in the judicial process, the Court highlighted the need for appropriate measures to compensate for injurious consequences arising from such actions. [Para 19, 23-25]

Compensation in Lieu of Specific Performance – Owing to the closure of the school for which the recruitment was conducted, the Court could not direct employment for the appellant but acknowledged the need for an alternative form of restitution. Consequently, the Court directed monetary compensation to the appellant for the arbitrary denial of appointment. [Para 16, 25-26]

Decision – Appeal allowed, High Court's judgment set aside, and compensation awarded to appellant [Para 27].

Criminal Law – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Quashing of Proceedings – The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the proceedings under the Gangsters Act should continue against the appellants, Farhana and Sadarul Islam, following the quashing of the predicate offences. The appellants were initially charged under the Gangsters Act based on their alleged involvement in certain IPC offences. [Para 3, 5, 8]

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Interpretation of Section 2(b)(i) – The Court examined the definition of 'gang' under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, which requires involvement in specific IPC offences. The Court noted that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act must clearly establish the involvement in antisocial activities as defined in the section. [Para 12, 13]

Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – The Court found that since the High Court had quashed the FIRs against the appellants for the predicate offences under the IPC, the foundation for their prosecution under the Gangsters Act was removed. As such, continuing their prosecution was deemed unjustified and an abuse of court process. [Para 14, 15]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings under Gangsters Act – The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders of the High Court and the FIR against the appellants under the Gangsters Act. It held that the continued prosecution of the appellants was unjustified following the exoneration in the predicate offences. [Para 16, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Appeal against rejection of bail application by High Court – Appellant facing trial for multiple offences – Appellant in custody for over five years – Only two witnesses examined out of 35 prosecution witnesses – Co-accused granted bail by Supreme Court – Bail application allowed by Supreme Court – Conditions imposed for bail – Appellant directed to cooperate in trial proceedings – Misuse of liberty cautioned against – Bail to be cancelled in case of any violation of conditions – Appeal allowed. [Para 1-3, 5-6]

Bail Conditions – Trial Court directed to release appellant on bail – Conditions to be imposed by Trial Court to ensure appellant's presence in trial proceedings – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 2, 6]

Criminal Law – Malicious Prosecution – Quashing of FIR – The Supreme Court addressed the challenge against the High Court's dismissal of a petition for quashing FIR No. 248 of 2022. The FIR involved allegations of financial impropriety and deceit related to a job offer. The court scrutinized the circumstances under which the FIR was lodged, considering the delay in filing, lack of substantiation of claims, and the nature of the transaction involved. [Para 3, 8-13]

Analysis of Unlawful Contract and Delay in Action – Held – The Court observed that the transaction in question was unlawful, involving payment for securing a job. It highlighted the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the failure of the parties to produce relevant documents, raising questions about the genuineness of the claims. [Para 12-13]

Role of Police in Civil Disputes – Advisory – The Court advised caution for the police in dealing with disputes involving unethical transactions between private parties. It emphasized the importance of discerning genuine criminal cases from those driven by malicious intent, to ensure proper allocation of law enforcement resources. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – The Supreme Court, finding the FIR to be motivated more by the desire for recovery of money through coercion than by a genuine need for criminal prosecution, set aside the High Court's order and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it. The Court underscored the misuse of criminal proceedings in this context. [Para 16-17]

Public Interest – Resource Allocation – The judgment reiterates the need for judicious use of law enforcement resources and the avoidance of their entanglement in disputes of a private nature with dubious legal standing. [Para 14-15]

Issuance of Summons without Order – Summons issued to the appellant (Accused No. 10) without an order by the Special Court, contrary to the procedure under PMLA and CrPC. The appellant voluntarily surrendered and applied for bail, which was rejected. [Paras 2, 4, 7]

High Court Dismissal – High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the Special Court’s order, leading to the current appeal. [Para 3]

Question of Law – Appellant’s surrender and bail application based on a misconception of fact and law. Special Court entertained the bail application despite the absence of an order for summons or arrest warrant. [Paras 5, 9-10]

Supreme Court’s Observation – Court found a fundamental flaw in the proceedings before the Special Court. Summons served without an official order for issuance. [Para 9]

Decision – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the release of the appellant on bail, subject to terms imposed by the Special Court. Noted the possibility for the Special Court and the respondent – ED to pass appropriate orders or file proceedings as required by law. [Paras 11-15]

Consumer Law – Obligations of Companies – Role in Recovering Lost Products – The Supreme Court considered whether a company is obligated under the Consumer Protection Act to act as a law enforcement agency in recovering lost products. The case involved Apple India Private Ltd., challenging a State Commission's order that required the company to trace a stolen mobile phone.

State Commission's Order – Paragraph 14 – The court examined Paragraph 14 of the State Commission's order, which imposed an obligation on the company to trace the stolen mobile phone using its unique identity number. This was considered a deficiency of service on the company's part.

Supreme Court’s Decision – Obliteration of Paragraph 14 – The Supreme Court held that the obligations imposed by Paragraph 14 of the State Commission’s order were unwarranted. Consequently, the court directed the removal of Paragraph 14 from the order, thereby relieving the company of the responsibility to act as a law enforcement agency in recovering lost products.