High Courts judgments

Bombay High Court rules that arrest and bail denial under the NDPS Act cannot rely solely on a co-accused's custodial statement if no contraband is recovered from the accused. The judgment reinforces that Section 29 conspiracy charges require corroborative evidence beyond mere statements, impacting bail jurisprudence in non-commercial quantity cases.

Allahabad High Court dismisses habeas corpus petition where the marital relationship was already dissolved by a mutual consent divorce decree, holding that no illegal detention exists if the corpus is a major and expresses free will. The ruling clarifies that habeas corpus cannot be invoked for custody disputes once a divorce decree is in effect.

Allahabad High Court sets a high bar for conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, requiring unequivocal proof that the accused knew their act was likely to cause death. The ruling acquits the appellant after 41 years, emphasizing that mere probability of death is insufficient without clear mens rea.

Bombay High Court holds that delays in filing appeals due to illness or lack of knowledge of impugned orders must be condoned under slum rehabilitation laws, ensuring petitioners are not denied statutory remedies. The ruling directs authorities to reconsider eligibility afresh, setting aside eviction proceedings until merits are adjudicated.

Bombay High Court denies bail in a massive economic fraud case, emphasizing that the scale of financial misconduct and societal harm supersede the accused's long pre-trial detention. The ruling reinforces that economic offences involving breach of trust and large-scale fraud may justify stringent bail conditions despite prolonged incarceration.

Bombay High Court rules that detaining authorities must consider bail conditions and the accused's conduct post-bail before invoking preventive detention under the MPDA Act. The judgment underscores that mere repetition of offences, without assessing bail compliance, does not justify detention, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action.

Bombay High Court grants bail in an NDPS case, ruling that a seized greenish leafy substance did not prima facie meet the statutory definition of 'Ganja' under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act. The decision underscores that intermediate quantity cases hinge on precise statutory interpretation, impacting bail eligibility for similar offences.

Bombay High Court rules that mere financial irregularity in GST fund handling does not automatically constitute an offence under IPC Sections 409, 420, 464, 468, or 471. The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was unnecessary where the accused had issued cheques to a tax consultant and was willing to provide specimen signatures.

Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail, holding that custodial interrogation is not mandatory when weapons are already recovered and allegations appear exaggerated. The ruling emphasizes that continued detention is unjustified where investigation is complete and false implication is likely.

Bombay High Court rules that passive signatory status in government tender irregularities, without proof of active involvement, does not justify prolonged detention under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The ruling reinforces bail jurisprudence by distinguishing nominal participation from culpable conduct, impacting public officials facing similar allegations.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in an SC/ST Act case, ruling that a sudden quarrel without premeditated common intention reduces culpability under Section 3(5) BNS. The court distinguished between spontaneous altercations and planned offenses, impacting bail considerations in atrocity cases.

Bombay High Court ruled that the State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) cannot restrict tiger corridor identification solely to NTCA's 2014 report and DSS, ignoring six statutory parameters under the Wildlife Protection Act. The judgment reinforces statutory compliance in wildlife conservation, impacting tiger habitat protection and administrative law.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that guest faculty under the Vidhya Sambal Scheme cannot be displaced until regular appointments via RPSC are made, reinforcing their legitimate expectation to continue service. The honorarium is fixed at Rs. 800/hour, ensuring contractual employment rights are protected pending regularization.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that when a statutory appeal against a short-term licence suspension is delayed, the remedy becomes meaningless - mandating that appellate authorities hear such appeals expeditiously or at least decide stay applications within four weeks. This sets a critical precedent for administrative litigants facing time-sensitive licensing penalties, ensuring statutory rights are not nullified by bureaucratic inertia.

Bombay High Court restrains the Maharashtra Government from interfering with the Nursing Council's statutory functions, including appointing a Registrar and incurring day-to-day expenses. The court held that government sanction is not required for temporary appointments under Section 15(3) of the Act, reinforcing the autonomy of statutory bodies in discharging their duties.

Bombay High Court revises compensation norms in fatal motor accident cases, establishing Rs. 30,000 as notional annual income for deceased graduates assisting in family businesses and awarding Rs. 48,000 consortium per dependent. The ruling reduces personal expense deduction to 1/2 for bachelors with unmarried siblings, impacting future claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail, holding that an FIR lodged as a counterblast to prior litigation and absence of prima facie evidence of misappropriation undermine the prosecution's case. The ruling reinforces that bail cannot be denied merely on allegations without material proof, especially when the account in question was closed before the accused's resignation.

Allahabad High Court dismisses a Public Interest Litigation for failing to comply with Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad HC Rules, which mandates a sworn affidavit disclosing the petitioner's credentials, public cause, and absence of personal interest. The ruling reinforces procedural compliance as a prerequisite for PIL maintainability, impacting all future PIL filings in the Lucknow Bench.

Bombay High Court holds that employees on ad-hoc contractual tenure are not entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, after their contract expires. The ruling clarifies that the Act's protections do not extend beyond the employment period, impacting contractual workers' rights.

Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail in a rape case, holding that prior serious disputes between parties and absence of corroborative medical evidence raise strong doubts about false implication. The ruling underscores the need for prima facie evidence beyond mere allegations in sexual offence cases under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The NCDRC has set aside a State Commission order for failing to examine critical evidence - including affidavits and the operation theatre register - in a medical negligence complaint. This reinforces that procedural fairness in consumer forums demands full appreciation of all material evidence, even when parties dispute involvement. Healthcare providers and insurers must now ensure all documentary defenses are formally recorded and evaluated.

Rajasthan High Court grants bail to an accused under Section 439 CrPC after 3+ years of incarceration, holding that prolonged trial delays-with only 4 of 35 witnesses examined-override the gravity of NDPS offences. The ruling underscores that undue delay attributable to the prosecution violates the right to speedy trial, entitling the accused to bail even in serious drug cases.

Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that seniority in government service must be determined strictly by inter-se merit in common selection lists, as per Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules 1971. The ruling mandates compliance with established precedents, ensuring fairness in service appointments and promotions for similarly situated candidates.

Rajasthan High Court reinforces that state governments must adhere to prescribed legal procedures in recruitment, striking down an arbitrary appointment advertisement. The court directed issuance of appointment orders within three weeks for petitioners in Baran, Sirohi, Dholpur, and Pratapgarh districts, setting a precedent for compliance with natural justice in public employment.