Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation by High Court – Section 376 IPC – Anticipatory Bail Restored - The appellant, a practicing advocate, was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC – Later, Section 376 was added only through a statement under Section 164 CrPC – High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail, but Supreme Court found cancellation unwarranted – Held: Order of High Court set aside, anticipatory bail restored [Paras 3-4, 9-11, 16-17].

Delay and Addition of Serious Charge – Victim’s Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Section 376 Allegation Introduced Later - The FIR originally contained no allegation of rape – Allegation under Section 376 was introduced for the first time in the Magistrate’s statement nearly three weeks later – Held: In absence of initial mention in FIR, subsequent addition of serious charges requires careful scrutiny at anticipatory bail stage [Para 9].

Cross-FIR and Counter-Allegations – Mutual Allegations by Parties – Relevance for Bail - The appellant had lodged a counter FIR alleging criminal assault and attempt to murder against the complainant and her husband – The existence of cross-FIRs raised doubts regarding the bona fides of the complaint – Held: Sessions Court rightly considered all circumstances in granting anticipatory bail [Paras 6-8, 14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Anticipatory Bail Restored – Compliance Directed - Supreme Court permitted the appellant to appear before the territorial Sessions Court and furnish bail bonds – Restored the original anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court and nullified High Court’s cancellation order [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Bail Law - Bail Granted to Accused in Brutal Murder Case Set Aside – Serious Offences, Abscondence, and Witness Intimidation Ignored – Judicial Discretion Misapplied – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant against the Delhi High Court's order granting regular bail to accused Sushil Kumar, a renowned wrestler, in a case involving abduction, assault, and murder – The Court found that the High Court failed to consider key factors such as the accused’s abscondence, seriousness of allegations under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Arms Act, and a recurring pattern of prosecution witnesses turning hostile during temporary bail – Held: The order granting bail was perverse and devoid of legal justification and thus liable to be set aside [Paras 1-3, 20-27].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction Between Grant and Cancellation – Misapplied Judicial Discretion – The Supreme Court clarified that the appeal concerned the correctness of the bail grant order, not a cancellation post-conduct – Bail granted to the accused was set aside as the High Court failed to consider crucial parameters like abscondence, seriousness of allegations, and the possibility of witness tampering [Paras 14-21].

Prima Facie Material – High Court Erred in Overlooking Evidentiary Details – Charge sheet revealed strong prima facie evidence including video footage, blood-stained weapons, firearms, and MLC/post-mortem confirming brutal assault – Despite these facts, the High Court did not consider the gravity and nature of the offence, rendering its bail order unsustainable [Paras 5-10, 20-23].

Witness Intimidation – Pattern of Hostile Witnesses Linked to Bail Periods – Accused allegedly influenced witnesses while on temporary bail – Out of 35 examined, 28 turned hostile – Although Court refrained from affirming motive, it noted the serious possibility of trial interference justifying denial of bail [Paras 24-25].

Public Influence – Olympian’s Societal Impact Considered – Court acknowledged the accused’s status as a celebrated wrestler and held that his societal influence could not be disregarded in assessing risks of witness coercion and trial delay [Para 24].

Legal Principles – Bail Order Must Reflect Relevant Considerations – A bail order must show application of mind, including factors such as gravity of offence, past conduct, and risk to trial integrity – A perverse or unreasoned order is open to appellate interference – High Court’s order was devoid of such assessment and was thus quashed [Paras 15-19].

Final Decision – Bail Set Aside – Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender within one week – Liberty granted to apply for bail afresh upon change in circumstances – Appeal allowed [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance – Conviction and Sentence – Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Appeal Partly Allowed – A-1 (Village Administrative Officer) convicted for demanding and directing acceptance of ₹500/- bribe for issuing community certificate; A-2 (Village Assistant) convicted for accepting bribe on A-1’s instructions – Supreme Court held: Demand and acceptance duly proved against A-1 by PW-1 & PW-2; conviction upheld – Considering offence committed in 2004, small bribe amount, and prolonged trial, sentence reduced to statutory minimum of 1 year for each offence – A-2 never demanded bribe, no proof of connivance, and no charge of abetment; conviction set aside [Paras 15–18, 20–23].

Absence of Abetment Charge – Mere Acceptance on Directions – Conviction Unsustainable – Accepting money on behalf of another may amount to abetment, but in absence of a specific charge and proof of connivance, conviction under Sections 7 & 13 cannot be sustained – Reliance placed on Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 357 [Paras 15–17].

Reduction of Sentence – Article 142 – Court may reduce sentence to minimum prescribed by statute considering mitigating factors without overriding statutory provisions – Long pendency of trial (since 2004) and petty amount justify reduction [Paras 19–22].

Decision – A-1: Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to 1 year RI for each offence – A-2: Conviction and sentence set aside; acquitted – Appeals disposed accordingly [Paras 22–23].

Matrimonial Dispute – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC – Section 482 CrPC – Appeal Allowed – Appellants (husband and in-laws) sought quashing of FIR No.67/2019 alleging cruelty, assault, breach of trust, and intimidation – Parties divorced by mutual consent on 19.01.2024; all claims settled; complainant stated no objection to quashing – High Court refused citing allegations of child victimisation – Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, held continuation of proceedings served no purpose, given divorce, settlement, and absence of proximate allegations – FIR, chargesheet, and consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 17–18, 23].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Implication of In-laws – Judicial Caution – Reiterated principle from Dara Lakshmi Narayana and similar precedents that family members should not be unnecessarily roped in absent specific allegations – Criminal law not to be used as harassment tool in matrimonial discord [Paras 13–14].

Post-Divorce Proceedings – Futility – Courts may quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences where dispute is private, settlement reached, and likelihood of conviction is minimal – Exercise of Article 142 appropriate to bring quietus [Paras 14, 15–22].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of High Court dated 01.08.2024 set aside – FIR No.67/2019 dated 15.05.2019 and chargesheet dated 07.11.2019 quashed qua appellants – All criminal proceedings terminated [Para 23].

Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations against Father-in-law – Sections 498A IPC & 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act – Quashing under Article 142 – Appellant, father-in-law of complainant, sought quashing of FIR alleging dowry demand and physical assault – FIR lodged nearly two months after alleged incident and after husband filed divorce petition – Complainant and husband divorced in 2021 – Held: Continuation of proceedings serves no purpose post-divorce; allegations against father-in-law not proximate or specific enough to justify trial – FIR and charge sheet quashed [Paras 22–24, 28, 33–34].

Misuse of Criminal Law in Matrimonial Discord – Judicial Caution – Courts must guard against tendency to implicate all in-laws absent clear role – Reference made to precedents emphasising prevention of abuse of process where allegations are general or motivated – Power under Article 142 may be exercised to bring quietus to stale personal disputes [Paras 25–27, 31–33].

Delay and Conduct – Belated FIR – Alleged slapping and dowry demand at railway station not mentioned during prior counselling sessions; complaint lodged after divorce petition filed – Such conduct undermines credibility of accusations and supports inference of counterblast [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s refusal to quash set aside – FIR No. 58/2019, dated 21.07.2019, and charge sheet quashed qua appellant – Proceedings against father-in-law terminated [Para 34].

Judicial Service Law - Appointment of District Judges – Interpretation of Article 233(2) – Reference to Constitution Bench – Civil Appeal and Connected Matters – Multiple petitions sought review/clarification of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401, wherein a three-judge bench held that only persons not in judicial service are eligible for direct recruitment from Bar as District Judges – Petitioners contended that judicial officers with seven years’ Bar practice prior to joining service should also qualify for Bar quota – Supreme Court held that the issue involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation requiring hearing by a Bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3) – Matter referred to Constitution Bench [Paras 1–3, 16–24].

Scope of Article 233(2) – Two Key Questions Identified – (i) Whether judicial officers with seven years’ prior Bar practice can be appointed as Additional District Judges against Bar vacancies, and (ii) Whether eligibility is to be assessed at the time of application or appointment or both – Both held to be substantial questions of constitutional law [Para 23].

Effect of Earlier Precedents – Distinction drawn between present issue and Constitution Bench rulings in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab (1961) 2 SCR 874 and Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1967) 1 SCR 77 – Noted that Dheeraj Mor was decided by three judges despite earlier order indicating reference to Constitution Bench – Such questions under Article 233(2) warrant hearing by five judges [Paras 12–15, 19–21].

Decision – Reference Allowed – Two questions framed and directed to be placed before Constitution Bench of five judges – Registry to place matter before CJI on administrative side – Present petitions to be heard after decision on reference [Para 24].

Criminal Law  – Acquittal in Dowry Harassment and Abetment to Suicide Case – Sections 498A & 306 IPC – Appeal Allowed – Appellants (husband and co-accused) acquitted by trial court in case involving death of wife due to burns allegedly caused by gas leak – High Court, in revision by complainant, set aside acquittal and remitted case for fresh consideration citing non-consideration of dying declaration – Supreme Court held: Revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence as appellate court – Dying declaration stated incident was accidental due to gas regulator left open; no accusation against accused – Statement of deceased’s father alleging threat unsupported by scientific report – Remand would be futile; acquittal restored [Paras 6–11].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Statement recorded before doctor indicated gas leak accident affecting entire family – No imputation of homicidal intent – High Court erred in inferring culpability from unrelated statements [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Impugned High Court order set aside – Trial court’s acquittal upheld – Pending applications disposed [Para 11–12].

Civil Law - Confiscation of Caste Certificate - Caste Verification – Koli Mahadev Tribe – Pre-Independence Documentary Evidence – Higher Probative Value – Appeal Allowed – The appellant’s caste claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court despite producing a 1943 school admission record showing his grandfather’s caste as Koli Mahadev – Held: Pre-Independence records enjoy greater probative value and cannot be discarded on presumptions – The document was found free from interpolation, corroborated by school records of appellant’s father and uncle – Claim upheld and caste validity certificate directed to be issued [Paras 9–12, 16–17].

Affinity Test – Not a Litmus Test – Cannot Solely Determine Caste Status – While the appellant failed the affinity test, the Court reiterated that migration, modernisation, and societal integration may alter traditional traits – Affinity test may corroborate but not override credible documentary evidence – Claim cannot be rejected solely for lack of traditional ethnological traits [Paras 7–8, 13–14].

Evidentiary Principles – Pre-Independence Records – Greater Weight – Court affirmed that documents predating Independence have higher evidentiary value in caste verification – Such records, if credible, should be preferred over post-Independence evidence – Supported by earlier decisions in Anand and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti [Paras 7–8, 15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of the High Court and Scrutiny Committee set aside – Appellant held to belong to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe – Scrutiny Committee directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate within six weeks [Paras 16–17].

Company Law - IBC Appeal – Limitation and Filing Requirements – Section 61(2) IBC and Rule 22(2) NCLAT Rules – Appeal Barred – Respondent No. 1 e-filed appeal before NCLAT on 25.07.2023 without certified copy of impugned order or application for condonation of delay – Certified copy applied for only on 23.08.2023 and delay condonation sought on 22.09.2023 – Limitation commenced from date of pronouncement (23.06.2023) and not date of uploading (26.06.2023) – Held: Appeal defective and barred by limitation, NCLAT erred in ignoring mandatory procedural requirements; its judgment on merits set aside [Paras 5-13].