Criminal Law – Double Murder – Acquittal – Appellant alleged to be driver of vehicle used by shooters in twin murders – Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court found evidence of key witnesses (PW-7 and PW-10) against appellant to be inconsistent and lacking – No overt act or recovery attributable to appellant – Conviction set aside [Paras 3-8, 11].

Evidence Act – Witness Credibility – PW-7 and PW-10 alleged appellant drove vehicle, but failed to implicate him in original police statements under Section 161 CrPC – Testimony regarding dragging of victim introduced for first time during trial – Court held omissions were fatal to prosecution case against appellant [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant not originally named – Later summoned under Section 319 CrPC – Defense witness DW-1 (DSP) testified appellant was found innocent in initial investigation – DW-2 (owner of vehicle) confirmed vehicle not entrusted to appellant – Absence of link to vehicle or scene of crime [Paras 7, 9-10].

Gang Rivalry – Animosity and Cross-Litigation – Evidence of ongoing gang rivalry and false implications between families of accused and deceased – History of narcotic raids and mutual enmity undermined credibility of prosecution’s narrative – Court declined to uphold conviction based on vague, delayed statements [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – If in custody, to be released forthwith – If on bail, bail bonds to stand cancelled – Judgment limited only to appellant [Paras 12-13].

Family Law – Transfer of Proceedings – Allegation of Bias – Transfer Not Justified – Appellant-wife challenged High Court’s ex parte order transferring proceedings in C.C. No. 136/2023 from Sangareddy to Hyderabad – Transfer sought by husband on grounds that wife’s relatives were employed as Head Constable and Junior Assistant in local police station and District Court respectively – Supreme Court held that such employment by itself did not establish bias or influence on judicial process – Observed that judicial independence cannot be presumed to be compromised by mere proximity of litigant’s relatives in administrative roles – High Court erred in granting transfer without hearing the wife – Held: Order of transfer unsustainable and directed restoration of case to Sangareddy Court [Paras 2-10].

Family Law – Divorce Decree – Suppression and Deceit – Allegation of Husband – Divorce obtained ex parte by husband in 2013 without informing wife despite settlement and compromise application under Section 482 CrPC filed days later – Wife became aware only in 2022 – Delay of 2709 days in filing appeal against divorce decree condoned by High Court – Supreme Court noted husband’s conduct could not be ignored while considering transfer – Held: Circumstances did not justify transfer sought by husband [Paras 4-7].

Security Concerns – Accused’s Apprehension of Threat – Remedy – Supreme Court held that husband-accused can seek permission to appear through counsel or via video conferencing – If personal appearance needed, application for protection to be considered by Magistrate – Transfer not warranted solely based on perceived threats without objective basis [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Case to be restored to Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy – If closed due to complainant’s non-appearance, to be restored by Magistrate and taken up afresh – Directions to appear on 16.02.2026, including via counsel [Paras 10, 12-13].

Civil Law – Impleadment – Necessary and Proper Party – Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Appellant sought impleadment in a suit for recovery of service charges against respondent No.3, claiming to be its successor under Part IX of Companies Act, 1956 – Trial Court allowed impleadment – High Court reversed under Article 227 – Held: Appellant failed to establish valid succession or extinguishment of respondent No.3 – Respondent No.3 continued to exist as partnership firm – Appellant not a necessary or proper party [Paras 29–31, 37–38].

Civil Procedure – Dominus Litis – Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead a party unless such person proves to be a necessary party – No relief sought against the appellant – Decree would not bind non-party – Plaintiffs’ autonomy in choosing parties upheld [Paras 25, 39–40].

Impleadment – Delay and Knowledge – Appellant had knowledge of suit since 2008 through summons acknowledgment bearing its seal – Application for impleadment filed after nearly 9 years in 2018 – Held: Delay unjustified – Application rightly dismissed by High Court [Paras 42].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Although High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited, once it has intervened to correct an erroneous impleadment order, Supreme Court declined to reverse it – Held: Interference by High Court not illegal or perverse [Paras 20, 43].

Civil Procedure – Successorship – Mere production of certificate of incorporation does not prove legal succession to a partnership firm – No proof of compliance with requirements under Part IX of Companies Act – Appellant failed to prove conversion or continuity from respondent No.3 [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order refusing impleadment upheld – Clarified that any decree in the suit will not be enforced against the appellant – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Disputes beyond original notice – Tribunal appointed on State’s request to arbitrate only one dispute – Appellant later raised additional disputes (2 to 4) before Tribunal – High Court set aside award holding lack of notice under Section 21 was fatal – Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction – Arbitration clause was wide – Respondent’s conduct amounted to waiver of objections – Tribunal rightly adjudicated all four disputes – Setting aside award on new grounds not urged before Tribunal or District Court improper [Paras 5.17–5.20, 14–15, 18].

Arbitration – Section 21 Notice – Non-issuance not fatal – Section 21 only fixes limitation – Not a bar to raising new or additional claims before tribunal if arbitration clause permits – Respondent’s reference to arbitration and conduct showed acceptance of full reference – Claimant can raise other disputes even if not mentioned in Section 21 notice – Held: High Court erred in treating Section 21 notice as jurisdictional bar [Paras 16, 18].

Arbitration – Conduct of Parties – Waiver – Respondent failed to object before adjudicator regarding limitation – Later sought to challenge all adjudicator findings – Respondent invited constitution of Tribunal and treated all four disputes as open – Held: Having participated and made submissions, respondent estopped from questioning Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Parties cannot take advantage of their own wrong [Paras 15, 28–29].

Arbitration – Finality of Adjudicator’s Decision – Clause requiring 28-day reference to arbitration for adjudicator’s decision to be challenged – Respondent delayed and later challenged decision – High Court itself found 28-day clause contrary to Section 28(b), Contract Act – Tribunal justified in treating disputes as unsettled – Adjudicator’s decision not binding [Paras 5.18, 15, 26].

Arbitration – Widely Worded Clause – Clause 25.3 allowed reference of any dispute arising out of or in connection with contract – Held: No restriction that only disputes raised in Section 21 notice could be decided – Claimant/respondent both entitled to raise/amend claims/counterclaims under Section 23 of Arbitration Act – Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction [Paras 18, 36–38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 07.01.2025 in Arbitration Appeal No. 56/2012 set aside – Award of Arbitral Tribunal dated 29.06.2006 upheld in entirety – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Section 11(6A) – Arbitrability of Disputes – Leave and License Agreement – Monetary Claims – Arbitrator Appointment – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Section 41 of 1882 Act – Valid Arbitration Clause Not Rendered Inoperative by Statutory Bar – Clause 33 of Agreement Held to Exist and Operative – High Court Rightly Appointed Arbitrator – Appeal Dismissed – Dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement for premises in Malad, Mumbai – Appellant terminated the agreement and claimed refund of security deposit – Respondent claimed arrears of license fees for the lock-in period – Arbitrator appointed under Section 11, Arbitration Act – Appellant objected citing Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, contending exclusive jurisdiction of Small Causes Court – Held: Court under Section 11(6A) to only examine the existence of arbitration agreement – Clause 33 validly provides for arbitration – Dispute on nature of claim (debt vs. license fee) to be determined by arbitral tribunal under Section 16 – Reliance on Central Warehousing judgment distinguished based on facts – Arbitration clause not rendered non-existent by Section 41 of 1882 Act – Appeal dismissed – Arbitrator to conclude proceedings in 6 months [Paras 1-28].

Judicial Service – Misconduct – Bail Orders – Appellant, a judicial officer with 27 years of unblemished service, dismissed solely on basis of four bail orders under Excise Act allegedly passed without referring to Section 59-A – Held: Mere omission to cite statutory provision does not amount to misconduct – Orders contained legal reasoning and were supported by material – No evidence of corrupt motive – Dismissal unsustainable [Paras 2–3, 9–16, 40]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Standards for Judicial Officers – Supreme Court reiterates that mere erroneous orders or different conclusions are not sufficient to infer misconduct – Strong protection must be extended to trial judges from frivolous or motivated complaints – Perversity, mala fides, or extraneous considerations must be clearly established before taking punitive action [Paras 18, 27–30, 33–39]

Natural Justice – Flawed Inquiry – Complainant not examined – Stenographer allegedly involved not examined – Departmental witnesses did not support charges – Inquiry officer acted like appellate authority reviewing correctness of bail orders – Findings held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 10, 14–16, 40]

Judicial Independence – Protection of Trial Judiciary – Court cautions against chilling effect of unjustified disciplinary action – Emphasizes need to insulate judicial officers from fear and external pressure – High Court directed to protect upright officers and act only on credible, proven misconduct [Paras 27–29, 36–37, 43–44]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of removal and rejection of appeal set aside – Appellant deemed to have continued in service until superannuation – Directed to be paid full back wages and consequential benefits with 6% interest – Judgment to be circulated to all High Courts.

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Sole Eye-Witness – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 307, and 504 IPC for indiscriminate firing resulting in two deaths and injuries to several others – Conviction based solely on the testimony of PW-1 – All other witnesses, including injured eyewitnesses, turned hostile and stated that lights were off during the incident – Held: Testimony of PW-1 riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions – Not sufficient to sustain conviction in the absence of corroboration [Paras 11–21, 26–34]

Appreciation of Evidence – Doubtful Circumstances – PW-1’s testimony contradicted by medical evidence and conduct – Injury on PW-1 minor and not corroborated by medical documents or recovery of blood-stained clothes – Prosecution failed to explain motive for killing two unrelated individuals – Rifle magazine recovered from spot did not match seized weapon – Country-made pistol allegedly used by appellant not recovered – Held: Serious gaps and unexplained circumstances – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 20–23, 34–36]

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – All key prosecution witnesses, including those injured in incident, deposed that electricity was off during firing – Majority failed to support prosecution version – Held: Version of sole eyewitness insufficient when others contradict crucial facts such as visibility and identification – Courts must be cautious in upholding convictions based on uncorroborated sole testimony in such cases [Paras 11–21, 35–38]

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Prosecution version found untrustworthy – FIR prompt but not backed by forensic or independent evidence – Presence of multiple shooters and unexplained weaponry raised alternative possibilities – Held: Conviction of appellant unsustainable – Acquitted by extending benefit of doubt [Paras 36–38]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant Anjani Singh acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Contempt of Court – Compliance – Supreme Court in earlier judgment directed Agra Development Authority to return ₹3,99,100 worth of non-judicial stamp papers – Respondent returned expired original stamp papers but did not refund the monetary value – Held: Act amounts to non-compliance in spirit, even if not in letter – Contempt petition maintainable [Paras 2-3]

Stamp Duty – Refund – Rejection by Registration Department – Department cited Rule 218 of U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, which bars refund of physical stamp papers after eight years – Petitioner’s application rejected on limitation grounds – However, Court found that directions in earlier order warranted refund [Paras 4-5, 7]

Equity and Justice – Bonafide Interpretation and Apology – State of U.P. impleaded later and admitted mistake – Offered unconditional apology and stated readiness to comply with Court's order – Supreme Court inclined not to pursue contempt but to ensure compliance [Para 7]

Relief – Refund Ordered – Without entering into merits of limitation, Court directed State of U.P. to refund ₹3,99,100 to petitioner upon return of original stamp papers – Time of two months granted for compliance – Contempt petition against Agra Development Authority closed [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Contempt petition partly allowed – Respondent No. 2 (State of U.P. through Collector, Agra) directed to refund ₹3,99,100 to the petitioner within two months – Contempt proceedings against Agra Development Authority closed – Pending applications disposed.

Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Declined for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – The Supreme Court held that while prolonged incarceration implicates Article 21, it does not automatically displace the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The Court found that the prosecution material, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the alleged conspiracy, involving planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction beyond episodic or localised acts. The complexity of the prosecution, nature of evidence, and stage of proceedings did not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and ensure timely examination of protected witnesses. The appeals for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid were dismissed, and their prayers for bail rejected [Paras 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 193, 194, 195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 430, 431, 432].

Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Granted for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals for these appellants, holding that their continued incarceration was not indispensable for a fair trial, given their attributed roles, the nature of material relied upon, and the current stage of proceedings. The Court found that their roles were primarily operational or facilitative, distinct from the conceptual and directive roles attributed to the principal conspirators. The Court emphasized that while the gravity of the incidents was serious, it could not eclipse the constitutional demand for individualized assessment of necessity in pre-trial detention. Stringent conditions were imposed to secure their presence, prevent witness interference, and restrain public commentary. The Court clarified that the grant of bail did not reflect any dilution of the seriousness of allegations or amount to a finding on guilt, but represented a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion. The appeals were allowed, and bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Woman Accused – Article 21, Constitution of India – The Court also considered Gulfisha Fatima's status as a woman as a relevant factor in the proportionality assessment under Article 21 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Article 14, Constitution of India – The Court noted that the prosecution's evidentiary foundation against Gulfisha Fatima, including witness statements and electronic evidence, mirrored that against co-accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who were already on bail, thus invoking the principle of parity. The Court found that denying bail to Gulfisha Fatima in the absence of distinguishing material would constitute hostile discrimination, offending Article 14 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy – UAPA – Individualized Assessment – The Court emphasized that in conspiracy cases, particularly under special statutes like UAPA, an individualized assessment of each accused's role, nature of involvement, and necessity of further detention is crucial. Differentiation is intrinsic to criminal adjudication and operates irrespective of the uniformity of charges framed. The Court must distinguish between conspiratorial centrality and mere association or peripheral presence. The law does not demand that every conspirator execute the terminal act; it demands a prima facie nexus between the accused and the unlawful design, inferred from cumulative conduct [Paras 74, 75, 76, 77, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 262, 266, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 278, 280, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 321, 325, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 357, 358, 360, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 387, 390, 392, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 421, 423, 424, 429, 430, 433, 437].

Criminal Law – Bail Conditions – UAPA – Safeguards – The Court imposed stringent conditions for the release on bail, including personal bonds, restrictions on leaving Delhi without permission, surrender of passports, furnishing residential and contact details, prohibition on contacting witnesses or participating in related activities, and abstention from public commentary on the case. These conditions were deemed substantive safeguards for national security, public order, and trial integrity [Paras 434, 435].

Decision: Appeal allowed for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – Appeal dismissed for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – [Paras 431, 433].