𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #CriminalCases

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Registrar’s NOC for Commercial Use of Residential Society Flat
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Registrar’s NOC for Commercial Use of Residential Society Flat

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has held that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot issue, or compel a housing society to issue, a no-objection certificate (NOC) for converting a residential flat to commercial use when no such statutory duty exists.

The dispute

Surya Lok Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Mumbai housing society whose sanctioned building plan contained only residential flats, challenged an administrative NOC that supported commercial use of Flat No. 3 on the ground floor.

The flat had changed hands several times before being transferred in January 2016 to Fazal Abbas Sayed and Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed. The purchasers sought membership in the society and were ultimately admitted after an undertaking that the flat would be used for residential purposes. They later pursued permission to use it commercially.

Because the society declined to issue an NOC, the purchasers approached the Deputy Registrar. On 8 December 2016, the Deputy Registrar issued a letter stating that the office had no objection to commercial use of the flat. The society’s challenge to that letter was rejected in revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar in January 2018, leading to the writ petition before the High Court.

What the society argued

The society contended that the Deputy Registrar had no power under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to approve a change in the use of a flat from residential to commercial. It also argued that:
- Flat No. 3 was sanctioned for residential use under the municipal plan.
- The purchasers had expressly undertaken to use the premises only for residential purposes.
- The society had withdrawn an earlier 2000 resolution allowing commercial use of ground-floor flats through later resolutions in 2007 and 2014.
- The NOC was issued without notice to, or a hearing for, the society.
What the flat owners argued

The flat owners submitted that ground-floor premises in the area were commonly used commercially and that Flat No. 3 had allegedly been used for commercial activity in the past. They relied on municipal assessment records, electricity bills, stamp-duty valuation and transfer-deed recitals to support that position.

They also argued that the membership order issued in 2016 had already addressed the commercial-use issue, and that the society was improperly withholding its consent.

The Court’s ruling on the Registrar’s powers

Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to issue the NOC.

At the time of the 2016 NOC, Section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applied. That provision permits the Registrar to enforce action that a society is legally required to take under the Act, rules or bye-laws. The Court found that it does not create a duty requiring a society to issue an NOC for conversion from residential to commercial use.

The Court also examined Section 154B-27, introduced later for co-operative housing societies. It concluded that this provision similarly does not give the Registrar broad authority to resolve every dispute between a member and a society or to compel support for planning-related changes. Its scope is limited to enforcing obligations already created by co-operative law, rules or bye-laws.

The judgment emphasized a key distinction: even if a Registrar could direct a society to perform a legally mandated act, that would not empower the Registrar to issue the society’s NOC personally.

Why the NOC was invalid

The Court identified several defects in the Deputy Registrar’s action:
- No statutory authority: The Act, rules and bye-laws did not obligate the society to issue an NOC for change of user.
- Registrar acted beyond supervisory power: The Deputy Registrar directly stated that the office had no objection to commercial use, effectively substituting the Registrar’s view for the society’s decision.
- No hearing for the society: The NOC was issued after the purchasers’ request without giving the society notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- Lack of application of mind: The Court noted that the Registrar did not verify whether the building contained commercial premises or whether the society supported the proposed conversion.
The Court described the NOC as arbitrary, without jurisdiction and void from the outset.

Membership did not authorize commercial use

The Court rejected the argument that the 2016 membership order had conclusively allowed commercial use. That order dealt with admission to membership, not permission to alter the use of the premises.

The Court found that membership and use of a flat are distinct issues. Observations in the membership order about commercial activity in other flats or municipal assessments did not amount to legal permission for commercial use of Flat No. 3.

The owners’ residential-use undertaking was also material. The Court recorded that membership was granted after an undertaking that the flat would be used exclusively for residential purposes and that no change of use would occur without the society’s prior written permission.

Municipal records and utility connections are not enough

The judgment clarified that commercial municipal assessment, a commercial electricity connection or payment of stamp duty based on commercial valuation do not automatically convert a residential flat into commercial premises.

The Court held that, in a tenant co-partnership housing society, the society owns the land and building while members hold rights to occupy allotted premises. Therefore, a change in use from residential to commercial requires the society’s NOC where the building consists exclusively of residential premises.

Final order and legal remedy

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside:
1. The Deputy Registrar’s letter/NOC dated 8 December 2016; and
2. The Divisional Joint Registrar’s revisional order dated 15 January 2018.
The flat owners remain free to pursue a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the appropriate Co-operative Court to seek the society’s NOC. Any such dispute must be decided independently on its merits, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations in this case.

Key takeaway for housing societies and members

A Deputy Registrar cannot be used as a substitute decision-maker for a housing society on a proposed change from residential to commercial use. Where a member disputes a society’s refusal to grant an NOC, the proper course is adjudication before the legally competent forum, rather than an administrative NOC issued by the Registrar.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
Karnataka HC Denies Anticipatory and Regular Bail to Accused in Kolar Robbery FIR
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Karnataka HC Denies Anticipatory and Regular Bail to Accused in Kolar Robbery FIR

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 9845906418 and email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed both anticipatory and regular bail petitions filed by two accused in a robbery case registered by Malur Police in Kolar district.

Case background

The matter arose from Crime No. 355/2026, registered by Malur Police for alleged offences under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitions were heard together by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty and decided on 30 October 2026.

The prosecution case is based on a complaint made by a truck driver, Shantesh, who alleged that two unidentified persons intercepted his truck on the night of 22 August 2026. According to the complaint, the men arrived on a two-wheeler bearing registration number KA53 Y 1623, threatened the driver with a long, bladed weapon, and allegedly took Rs. 15,000 before fleeing.

Bail petitions before the High Court

M. Ananda, identified as accused No. 1, sought anticipatory bail because he feared arrest in the case. His earlier application before the Sessions Court had been rejected on 16 September 2026.

Prabhu Rao K.M., also known as Prabhu and identified as accused No. 2, sought regular bail. He was arrested on 23 August 2026 and had remained in judicial custody since then. His earlier bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court on 24 September 2026.

Investigation status and prosecution objections

During the investigation, police arrested accused No. 2 and reported recovering Rs. 5,000 and the motorcycle allegedly used in the offence from him. Accused No. 1 was stated to be absconding at the time of the hearing.

The State opposed bail on the basis that a test identification parade had not yet been conducted. The High Court Government Pleader also informed the court that both accused had criminal antecedents and had previously been implicated in a similar case.

Court’s decision

The High Court held that, given the pending test identification parade, the allegation of prior criminal involvement, and the stage of the investigation, the requests for anticipatory bail and regular bail could not be accepted.

Both Criminal Petition No. 15510 of 2026, filed by M. Ananda, and Criminal Petition No. 15186 of 2026, filed by Prabhu Rao K.M., were dismissed.

Key implication

The decision reflects the court’s view that bail may be declined where identification procedures remain incomplete and the investigation indicates alleged prior criminal conduct, particularly in a case involving allegations of armed robbery and recovery of suspected evidence.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 02.11.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has set aside attempts to cancel the compassionate appointments of two Maharashtra government employees after finding that the State had wrongly treated their deceased fathers’ posts as Group B solely because of the pay scale attached to them.

Background of the dispute

The case combined petitions filed by Avinash Kondiram Wagh and Abhay Chandrakant Khond against the State of Maharashtra and officials in the Vocational Education and Training Department.

Both petitioners had received government employment on compassionate grounds after their fathers died while in service:
- Avinash Wagh was appointed as a Group Instructor in 2004 after his father, a junior clerk, died in service.
- Abhay Khond was appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in 2008 after his father, a Training Officer, died in service.
They completed probation, were confirmed in service, and continued working for years. In 2010, however, departmental authorities issued show-cause notices proposing to cancel their appointments. The authorities argued that the posts held by the deceased employees carried the pay scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500 and therefore fell within Group B, whose dependants were allegedly not eligible for compassionate appointment under the policy then relied upon by the State.

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ challenges in 2014. The High Court had meanwhile protected their employment during the litigation.

Court’s key finding: Pay scale alone does not determine classification

The central issue was whether the State could classify the relevant posts as Group B merely because of their pay scale.

The Division Bench held that it could not. It found that the authorities had selectively relied on the Government Resolution of 2 July 2002 and an internal departmental letter dated 19 May 2010, without considering later government resolutions that specifically classified the posts in question.

For Wagh’s case, the Court noted that multiple government resolutions treated the post of Group Instructor, carrying the disputed pay scale, as a Group C (Technical) post. These included resolutions dated:
- 22 October 2008;
- 31 March 2010;
- 14 May 2010; and
- 31 August 2010.
The State did not establish that any of these resolutions had been withdrawn, superseded, or invalidated. The Court also observed that the departmental letter did not reconcile its position with these specific classifications.

In Khond’s case, the respondents had admitted that his father was employed in a Class III post. The Court found no valid basis for subsequently treating that post as Group B. Khond himself had been appointed to a Group C post as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist.

Long service and absence of wrongdoing mattered

The High Court also relied on fairness and equity. Both petitioners had been appointed by competent authorities, completed probation, and served continuously for nearly two decades. Neither was accused of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or misconduct.

The Court held that it would be seriously prejudicial and disproportionate to unsettle their employment after such a long period, particularly because they had crossed the usual age limits for entering government service.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that the State should not take advantage of its own alleged mistake after a long delay when the employee had not secured appointment through deception or concealment.

Compassionate appointment is a beneficial measure

The judgment restated that compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment rules. Its purpose is to provide immediate financial support to a family facing hardship after the death of its earning member.

The Court held that cancelling confirmed appointments decades later would undermine that objective. Once the petitioners had become confirmed employees, their service could not be taken away except in accordance with law and applicable service rules.

The Court also noted that Maharashtra expanded its compassionate-appointment policy in September 2021 to cover dependants of employees in Groups A and B as well as Groups C and D. While this later policy did not retrospectively decide the petitioners’ entitlement, it showed that the earlier restriction had since been broadened.

Outcome

The High Court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the Tribunal’s 2014 order insofar as it had dismissed the petitioners’ original applications. The proposed cancellation of their compassionate appointments was held unsustainable.

The ruling is expressly confined to the particular facts of these cases and is not to be treated as a precedent for other matters. Its core message is nevertheless clear: government authorities must consider all applicable classification rules and cannot undo long-standing compassionate appointments on a narrow or inconsistent reading of policy, especially where the employees acted in good faith and have served for many years.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 2, 2026
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Retired FSL Officer’s Plea to Halt Forgery Case
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 02.11.2026

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Retired FSL Officer’s Plea to Halt Forgery Case

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 9845906418 and email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal petition by a retired Forensic Science Laboratory officer, holding that his claim that he was forced to sign a disputed experience certificate must be tested at trial rather than decided at the discharge stage.

Background: recruitment complaint led to criminal case

The case arose from the recruitment process for the post of Scientific Assistant in the Biology Section of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The complainant, K. Sridhar, who held an M.Sc. in Biotechnology, applied in response to a notification issued on 25 February 2003.

After receiving no information about the recruitment outcome, Sridhar sought records through an application under the Right to Information Act in December 2007. Following proceedings before RTI authorities, he received certain documents that he alleged were false or misleading. These records, including documents dated in 2008, formed the basis of a complaint registered by the Madivala Police in July 2010.

The investigation was subsequently transferred to the COD. After investigating, the agency filed a charge sheet alleging that officials had conspired to facilitate the appointment of another candidate by creating or issuing a false experience certificate.

Allegations against the petitioner

Rangegowda, a retired Deputy Director associated with the FSL, was named as Accused No. 3. The prosecution alleged that he and others conspired in relation to the appointment of Accused No. 2 as a Scientific Assistant, despite the candidate allegedly lacking the required qualification.

The charge sheet invoked offences relating to preparation or signing of incorrect official documents, false certification, criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A central document was a certificate dated 12 March 2003 bearing Rangegowda’s signature.

Defence: signature was allegedly obtained under pressure

Rangegowda sought discharge before the trial court, maintaining that he had not committed the alleged offences. His principal defence was that Accused No. 1 had compelled him to sign a pre-typed document in the latter’s chamber and that he had no meaningful alternative.

He also argued that:
- he was initially treated as a witness, including in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
- the trial court had not adequately considered the legal ingredients of the offences alleged;
- certain allegations were barred by limitation; and
- material from a departmental enquiry supported his position.
The trial court rejected his discharge application. He then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to have that order set aside.

High Court’s reasoning: disputed defence requires evidence at trial

Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the dispute could not be resolved at the discharge stage. The Court noted that Rangegowda did not dispute issuing the certificate dated 12 March 2003 or that it carried his signature. His contention was that the document had been signed under coercion.

According to the Court, whether the petitioner was actually compelled to sign the certificate is a factual issue requiring examination of evidence. It cannot be decided merely by evaluating the defence version while considering an application for discharge.

The Court also accepted that the investigating material indicated allegations of a cognizable offence and an alleged conspiracy involving the issuance of the certificate. At this preliminary stage, the court said it could not assess the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence or discard it in favour of the petitioner’s explanation.

Why the discharge request failed

The High Court emphasized that discharge is appropriate where allegations and collected material fail to disclose a case requiring trial. Here, however, the existence of the signed certificate was not disputed, and the prosecution had material supporting its allegation that the certificate was connected to an improper appointment.

The Court treated the petitioner’s explanation, including his reliance on his earlier statements and departmental enquiry material, as a defence that may be raised during trial. It found no error in the trial court’s refusal to discharge him.

Outcome and legal significance

The criminal petition was dismissed, leaving the prosecution against Rangegowda to proceed before the trial court. The decision reinforces a key distinction in criminal procedure: at the discharge stage, courts assess whether the prosecution material discloses grounds to proceed, but they generally do not decide contested factual defences.

Where a document’s issuance is admitted but the circumstances of signing are disputed, the matter ordinarily requires a full trial and evidence-based determination.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 2, 2026
Bombay HC: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Disputes
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.10.2026

Bombay HC: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Disputes

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against M/s. Akansha Developers, holding that the dispute over an Aundh redevelopment project was fundamentally civil and did not disclose a prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

Background of the dispute

The case arose from a redevelopment arrangement involving properties bearing CTS Nos. 773, 774, 776 and 784 at Mouje Aundh, Taluka Haveli, Pune. The complainant claimed ownership rights in the ancestral properties and asserted that CTS No. 784 had been purchased by his grandfather through a registered sale deed dated 6 May 1955.

The parties had entrusted development of the property to M/s. Akansha Developers. Under the development arrangement, the developer was to carry out the project and provide compensation along with an allotted flat and shop. A dispute later emerged over the inclusion of CTS No. 784 in the project. The complainant contended that certain family members had no right, title or possession authorising them to execute a development agreement concerning that parcel.

Criminal complaint and earlier proceedings

In 2012, the complainant initiated RCC No. 581 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, alleging offences including cheating, breach of trust and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The Magistrate issued process on 9 August 2012 for offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 423, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Other allegations, including those under Sections 404, 426, 447 and conspiracy-related provisions, were rejected on the ground that no offence was made out. A revision challenge before the Sessions Court was dismissed on 28 October 2014.

Akansha Developers then approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the remaining criminal proceedings.

Developer’s case: a contractual dispute already addressed in civil court

The developer argued that the same dispute had already been the subject of civil proceedings since 2009. According to the developer, the civil suit was decreed on 27 April 2012, before the criminal complaint was filed, and the complaint was therefore a retaliatory attempt to reopen issues already considered in the civil litigation.

It was also submitted that the development agreement and power of attorney authorised the developer to undertake the project and negotiate matters connected with possession of CTS No. 784. The developer maintained that it remained willing to provide the complainant’s earmarked flat and shop.

The civil court had concluded that cancellation of the development agreement was not appropriate because the project had been completed, the agreement had been acted upon and third-party rights had crystallised. Instead, it awarded damages of Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant. The decree was under challenge in a first appeal.

Complainant’s allegations

The complainant opposed the petition, alleging that CTS No. 784 was not covered by an earlier civil decree and that the family members who executed the development agreement lacked ownership rights in that property. It was alleged that the developer acted in concert with them, incorporated the disputed parcel into the larger project and failed to pay amounts promised under the development agreement.

High Court’s reasoning

Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that the parties’ rights and obligations were governed by executed and registered documents, including the development agreement, power of attorney and revenue records. The Court noted that the civil court had already ruled that the development agreement could not be cancelled, while the complainant’s appeal against that decision remained pending.

The Court found that the dispute was amenable to civil adjudication and that parallel criminal proceedings could not be sustained on the same facts without a prima facie showing of criminal intent. It specifically held that there was no element of cheating in the circumstances of the case.

The judgment also observed that, once allegations under certain related provisions had not been made out, the cheating charge under Section 420 was unsustainable on the facts presented.

Outcome

By its judgment dated 22 October 2026, the Bombay High Court quashed the Sessions Court’s order of 28 October 2014 and set aside the Magistrate’s order issuing process dated 9 August 2012. The writ petition filed by M/s. Akansha Developers was allowed.

Key legal takeaway

The decision reinforces that a property-development dispute governed by contractual and title documents will ordinarily remain a civil matter. Criminal proceedings for cheating or breach of trust require clear, prima facie allegations of criminal intent; they cannot be used merely because a party disputes contractual performance or property entitlements already being litigated before a civil court.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 26, 2026
Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash Disproportionate-Assets Cases Against Retired Officials
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.10.2026

Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash Disproportionate-Assets Cases Against Retired Officials

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed two petitions seeking to halt corruption prosecutions against retired public officials, holding that disputed evidence on alleged disproportionate assets must be assessed at trial rather than through quashing proceedings.

Court’s decision

In a common order dated 17 October 2026, Justice H.P. Sandesh rejected:
- Criminal Petition No. 3849 of 2019 filed by H.M. Khyum Ali, a retired Deputy Director in the Department of Mines and Geology; and
- Writ Petition No. 48145 of 2018 filed by M.K. Baldevakrishna, formerly Managing Director of the Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation.
Both petitioners faced proceedings under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning assets alleged to be disproportionate to their known sources of income.

Allegations in the two cases

H.M. Khyum Ali case

The Lokayukta police registered a suo motu case in 2008. The prosecution alleged that, during the check period from 11 February 1974 to 27 June 2008, Ali had assets valued at Rs. 62.76 lakh and expenditure of Rs. 53.24 lakh against an income of Rs. 67.89 lakh. The charge sheet assessed the alleged disproportionate assets at approximately Rs. 48.11 lakh, or 70.81% above known income.

Ali argued that the investigation was incomplete because documents and explanations relating to several asset schedules had not been considered before the charge sheet was filed. He also contended that salary, rental income, fixed-deposit interest, advances, and tuition income were omitted from the calculation.

The Court found that these assertions involved disputed facts and matters of defence that must be tested during trial. It noted that charges had already been framed and six prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined.

M.K. Baldevakrishna case

Baldevakrishna’s case arose from a 2008 raid and investigation. The prosecution alleged assets of about Rs. 2.69 crore, expenditure of about Rs. 1.64 crore, and income of about Rs. 2 crore during the relevant period. The final report alleged disproportionate assets of 116.41% above known income.

He argued that sanction for prosecution had not been validly obtained and that authorities had delayed proceedings until after his retirement. He also challenged the order taking cognizance, arguing that it did not demonstrate sufficient judicial application of mind.

The Court held that the sanction issue did not justify quashing the prosecution because the matter had been referred for consideration while he was in service, and he retired during that process. It also ruled that the allegation of disproportionate assets and the adequacy of the petitioner’s explanations were matters for evidence at trial.

Why the Court refused to intervene

The Court emphasized three central reasons:
- Disputed factual questions cannot be resolved in quashing proceedings. Claims about omitted income, asset valuations, explanations for property, and the correctness of the disproportionate-assets calculation require evidentiary scrutiny.
- The cases had progressed substantially. In Ali’s matter, charges had been framed and prosecution evidence had begun, making intervention under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code inappropriate.
- Retirement did not require the cases to be terminated. Relying on recent Supreme Court authority, the Court held that the 2018 amendment to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be used retrospectively to invalidate proceedings initiated under the earlier legal position where the accused had retired.
Cognizance orders upheld

Both petitioners challenged brief cognizance orders stating, in substance, that the final report had been perused, cognizance taken, and summons issued. The High Court held that these orders were not mechanical merely because they were concise.

According to the Court, the reference to having perused the final report showed that the trial court had considered the charge-sheet material before taking cognizance. A detailed order was not necessary at that stage.

Legal significance

The ruling reinforces that High Courts will ordinarily not use their inherent or writ jurisdiction to conduct a “mini-trial” in disproportionate-assets cases. Where the prosecution presents material supporting the allegation and the defence depends on competing calculations, documents, or explanations, those issues are to be decided through the regular trial process.

The Court therefore dismissed both petitions, allowing the respective criminal proceedings to continue.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 26, 2026
Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has awarded ₹2,10,365 plus 7.5% annual interest to an injured bus passenger, holding that the Thane Municipal Transport (TMT) bus driver was primarily responsible for an accident while overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus.

Case overview

In Mohan Laxman Chavan v. Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport & Ors., the Court considered an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decision that had dismissed the claimant’s petition entirely. The Tribunal had concluded that the passenger alone caused the accident by standing on a crowded bus’s footboard.

The High Court disagreed. It found that the claimant did contribute to the risk, but the TMT driver failed to take adequate care while overtaking a stationary Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus. The Court apportioned negligence at 75% to the TMT driver and 25% to the claimant.

How the accident occurred

On 4 August 1998, Mohan Laxman Chavan boarded a crowded TMT bus near Castle Mills, Thane, after completing work at a bank. Because of the crowd, he could not move fully inside and stood on the footboard.

According to the claimant’s evidence, the conductor signalled the driver to proceed. While overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus, the TMT bus grazed it. Chavan’s hand struck the other bus and he was thrown from the moving vehicle. He was initially treated at Civil Hospital, Thane, and later admitted to Arogya Hospital for 12 days.

His injuries included a compound comminuted fracture of the right humerus and a Colles fracture of the left radius. A plate was fitted in his right arm, and he later produced evidence of physical disability.

Why the Tribunal’s finding was overturned

The Tribunal had relied on several factors to reject the claim: the claimant did not identify the registration numbers of either bus, no accident report was found in the transport authorities’ records, and the claimant had been standing on the footboard.

The High Court held that these factors did not justify rejecting the claim altogether.

Vehicle numbers were not essential in these circumstances

The Court accepted that the claimant had not recorded the registration numbers of the buses. However, it reasoned that a person who falls from a moving bus immediately after an accident cannot reasonably be expected to note vehicle numbers. It was sufficient that the claimant identified the vehicles as a TMT bus and an MSRTC bus.

The Court emphasized that motor accident claims are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Oral evidence explaining how the accident occurred could therefore be considered alongside police papers.

Absence of a report did not disprove the accident

The transport authorities’ witnesses stated that they had no report of an accident involving their buses on that day. The Court found that this absence could have different explanations, including a failure to report the incident. It did not conclusively establish that the accident had not occurred.

The passenger’s conduct was contributory, not exclusive negligence

The Court acknowledged that standing on the footboard was unsafe and that the claimant might not have fallen had he been inside the bus. This justified attributing some responsibility to him.

However, the Court found that the driver also had a duty to overtake safely. The TMT bus grazed a stationary MSRTC bus, showing that the driver had not exercised proper caution, whether because of speed, inattention, or inadequate clearance. The driver then continued ahead without taking the necessary precaution after the impact.

MSRTC bus driver not held liable

The Court upheld the finding that the MSRTC driver was not negligent. The MSRTC bus was stationary, and there was no evidence that it had been parked improperly or in a dangerous location. As a result, liability was not imposed on MSRTC.

Compensation awarded

Although the claimant produced a disability certificate assessing 30% disability, the Court declined to award compensation for future loss of earning capacity. The assessment was made nearly eight years after the accident, and there was no evidence showing how the disability affected his work. The claimant had also been promoted from Inspector to Senior Inspector.

Still, the Court awarded compensation for lost income during sick leave, medical treatment, future treatment, pain, and reduced comfort and amenities:
- Loss of income for three months: ₹32,169
- Future medical expenses: ₹15,000
- Medical bills: ₹16,716
- Arogya Hospital bills: ₹16,480
- Pain and suffering: ₹50,000
- Attendance charges: ₹10,000
- Loss of comfort and amenities: ₹50,000
- Conveyance charges: ₹10,000
- Special diet: ₹10,000
The total enhanced compensation was ₹2,10,365. The TMT Transport Manager and the Government of Maharashtra’s Director of Insurance were directed to pay the amount jointly and severally within 12 weeks, with 7.5% interest per year from the date of the claim petition until payment. Any no-fault compensation already received would be deducted.

Legal significance

The ruling reinforces that a motor accident claimant does not necessarily fail merely because they cannot provide a vehicle registration number or because an official accident record is unavailable. Courts must evaluate the complete evidence and determine whether the account is probable.

It also illustrates the principle of contributory negligence: a passenger’s unsafe conduct may reduce responsibility, but it does not erase the transport operator’s duty to drive safely. Here, the claimant’s footboard travel was a contributing factor, while the TMT driver’s unsafe overtaking was found to be the dominant cause of the accident.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Karnataka HC Says Alleged Investment Scam Claims Require Full Trial
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Karnataka HC Says Alleged Investment Scam Claims Require Full Trial

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed both a criminal petition seeking to quash a cheating-related charge sheet and a connected writ petition challenging an Enforcement Directorate summons, holding that the allegations require a full trial.

The case at a glance

In an order dated 17 October 2026, Justice H.P. Sandesh of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru rejected petitions filed by Pavitra Ramanujam, who was arraigned as Accused No. 6 in a criminal case arising from alleged investment-related fraud involving Generis Consulting Services Private Limited.

The criminal proceedings stem from Crime No. 26/2020, in which the prosecution alleged offences including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal conspiracy, intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The petitioner also challenged an Enforcement Directorate email/summons dated 19 February 2026 connected with ECIR/BGZO/15/2023.

Allegations arising from investment transactions

According to the case record, the company was established in 2013. The prosecution alleged that the accused induced the complainant, family members and friends to invest funds in projects associated with several entities, assuring them of profitable returns.

When repayment was sought in 2020, the complaint alleged that the investors were abused, threatened and not repaid. The prosecution case referred to a withheld amount of Rs. 5,90,82,467, while the petitioner’s submissions stated that the overall alleged cheating figure was Rs. 7,10,95,467.

The record also referred to Rs. 83,00,000 transferred by MEC Concepts India Ltd. to Generis Consulting Services Private Limited. The petitioner argued that this amount was immediately moved to the personal account of the company’s CEO, Accused No. 2, and that most of the disputed funds had similarly been transferred to Accused No. 2 and related persons.

Petitioner’s argument: no specific personal role

The petitioner argued that she could not be prosecuted merely because she was a director. Her counsel submitted that:
- she was not a signatory to the relevant loan repayment agreement;
- she was not involved in communications or representations made to the complainant;
- the alleged investment transactions and correspondence principally concerned Accused No. 2;
- no specific overt act connected her to cheating, forgery, threats or abuse; and
- the company itself had not been made an accused, making vicarious liability inappropriate.
The petitioner also relied on bank records showing that Rs. 49,971 had been credited to her account between October 2017 and September 2019, while she had transferred Rs. 75,000 back to the company on two occasions. Her case was that this did not establish involvement in the alleged fraud.

State’s case: substantial shareholding and company involvement

The respondents opposed quashing the proceedings. They emphasized that the petitioner held a 50% share in the company, a fact not disputed before the Court. They also submitted that Accused No. 2, the CEO, had been authorized to represent and conduct the company’s affairs.

The Court noted that the alleged transactions occurred between 2018 and 2020 and that payments were made to the company. It also recorded the prosecution’s position that the investments made by charge-sheet witnesses were used by the company.

Why the Court refused to quash the charge sheet

The High Court acknowledged the legal principle that a director cannot automatically be held criminally liable without direct and specific allegations. However, it found that the facts in this case could not be resolved at the quashing stage.

The Court highlighted several factors:
- the complaint contained allegations of involvement by the petitioner and other accused;
- the petitioner was a 50% shareholder in the company;
- Accused No. 2 was allegedly authorized by the company to deal with the invested funds;
- money had been credited to the petitioner’s account during the relevant period; and
- the questions of dishonest intention, inducement, responsibility for the transactions, forgery allegations and alleged threats required examination through evidence at trial.
The Court held that whether the essential ingredients of offences such as cheating and criminal breach of trust were made out was a mixed question of fact and law that must be considered in a full-fledged trial. It also found no basis to characterize the trial court’s cognizance order as mechanical, noting that the trial court had considered the charge-sheet material before proceeding.

Enforcement Directorate challenge also fails

The connected writ petition sought to quash an Enforcement Directorate summons and further investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act framework. The petitioner argued that the allegations against her in the predicate offence were vague and that she had no knowledge of the disputed transactions.

The High Court ruled that, because the underlying criminal case was allowed to proceed, the challenge to the Enforcement Directorate action did not survive independently. It treated the ED proceedings as linked to the predicate offence and declined to grant relief.

Court’s final order

The High Court dismissed Criminal Petition No. 8938/2021, refusing to quash the charge sheet and trial proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, it also dismissed Writ Petition No. 7336/2026 challenging the Enforcement Directorate summons.

The ruling does not determine guilt. It means that the allegations and the petitioner’s defence must be tested through evidence during trial rather than decided at the preliminary quashing stage.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Bombay HC: Proportionate Rights Share Allotment Below Market Value Does Not Automatically Create Taxable Income
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 23.10.2026

Bombay HC: Proportionate Rights Share Allotment Below Market Value Does Not Automatically Create Taxable Income

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has set aside reassessment proceedings against Grasim Industries Limited for AY 2020–21, holding that the Revenue’s notice was time-barred and that a proportionate rights-share allotment cannot be taxed merely because the issue price was below the assessed fair market value.

The dispute: Vodafone Idea rights shares

Grasim subscribed to 230,90,26,052 rights equity shares of Vodafone Idea Limited (VIL) during FY 2019–20 at Rs. 12.50 per share. The allotment was made proportionately to existing shareholders, and Grasim’s percentage holding in VIL remained unchanged.

The Income Tax Department later alleged that the shares had a fair market value of Rs. 13.925 per share on the allotment date. On that basis, it treated the Rs. 1.425 per-share difference as a taxable benefit under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proposed escaped income was Rs. 329.04 crore.

Grasim challenged:
- the show-cause notice issued on 24 March 2026 under Section 148A(1);
- the order dated 30 June 2026 under Section 148A(3); and
- the consequential reassessment notice issued under Section 148.
Court’s first finding: the reassessment process was out of time

The Court held that a valid Section 148A(1) notice must be accompanied by the information that suggests income has escaped assessment. Simply stating an amount allegedly representing escaped income is not enough.

In this case, the initial notice did not explain:
- the nature of the VIL rights-share transaction;
- how the Rs. 329.04 crore figure had been calculated; or
- that the Department intended to invoke Section 56(2)(x) based on the difference between the issue price and fair market value.
Those essential particulars were supplied only on 27 May 2026. For AY 2020–21, the five-year limitation period for issuing the Section 148A notice expired on 31 March 2026. The Court ruled that information supplied after the deadline could not retrospectively cure an incomplete notice issued earlier.

The judgment reinforces that the opportunity to respond under Section 148A must be meaningful, not a procedural formality. Tax authorities must disclose the transaction, legal basis and computation supporting an allegation of escaped income within the statutory time limit.

Court’s second finding: Section 56(2)(x) did not apply to this rights issue

The Court also rejected the substantive basis for reassessment. Section 56(2)(x) generally taxes property received for inadequate consideration where the shortfall from fair market value exceeds the prescribed threshold. However, the Court held that the provision could not be applied mechanically to Grasim’s proportionate rights-share allotment.

The Court’s reasoning rested on three features of the transaction:
1. Fresh shares arise on allotment. Rights shares issued by a company are created upon allotment; they are not necessarily pre-existing property transferred from another person.
2. The allotment was proportionate. Grasim received shares in proportion to its existing holding, and its ownership percentage did not change. The Revenue did not identify any disproportionate gain.
3. A market-price comparison alone does not establish taxable benefit. A rights issue at a lower subscription price affects the value of existing shares as well. Therefore, the difference between the issue price and a market value determined on allotment does not automatically represent income to the subscriber.
The Court noted that the Income-tax Act separately provides rules for determining the cost of acquisition of rights shares. In particular, for rights shares subscribed to by an eligible shareholder, the statutory cost is generally the amount actually paid. These provisions support an assessment of the transaction’s legal and economic character rather than treating every below-market rights issue as taxable income.

Why the ruling matters

The decision provides important protection for taxpayers facing reassessment based on a rights issue:
- Complete disclosure is mandatory. A reassessment notice must include the underlying information and material, not just a conclusion or a proposed addition.
- Timing cannot be repaired later. If foundational information is provided after the limitation period expires, the original notice may be invalid.
- Proportionate rights issues require contextual analysis. Taxability under Section 56(2)(x) cannot be based solely on a comparison between subscription price and fair market value.
- No automatic taxable benefit arises where ownership remains unchanged. The Revenue must identify a real disproportionate advantage or another basis that fits the statutory conditions.
Outcome

The Bombay High Court allowed Grasim’s writ petition and set aside the Section 148A notice, the order determining that reassessment was warranted, and the consequential Section 148 notice. The Court did not examine Grasim’s other objections because the proceedings failed both on limitation and on the inapplicability of Section 56(2)(x) to the facts of the proportionate rights allotment.

The ruling is confined to the facts before the Court, particularly the proportionate allotment and the absence of any identified disproportionate benefit. Its broader message is clear: reassessment must comply strictly with statutory notice requirements, and anti-abuse provisions cannot be applied without examining the true nature and effect of the transaction.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 23, 2026
Karnataka HC: Delay in FIR Registration Due to Police Negligence Cannot Justify Bail in Serious Murder Case
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 23.10.2026

Karnataka HC: Delay in FIR Registration Due to Police Negligence Cannot Justify Bail in Serious Murder Case

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bail appeal of G.M. Mohan, holding that the case record disclosed prima facie material connecting him to the alleged death of a young child and that the seriousness of the accusations weighed against releasing him on bail.

Background of the case

The appeal arose from a bail application rejected by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. Mohan, identified as accused No. 1, challenged that rejection before the High Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The matter concerns the death of a child, Vennila, who was about six years old. Police initially registered an unnatural-death report after a complaint raised suspicions regarding Mohan and the child’s mother, Priyanka H., who was named as accused No. 2. The accused initially obtained anticipatory bail in relation to the unnatural-death proceedings.

A later complaint led Kadugodi Police to register a criminal case and conduct a full investigation. The police subsequently filed a charge sheet alleging offences including murder, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention, conspiracy-related allegations, and an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Allegations considered by the Court

According to the prosecution case recorded in the order, the child was with Mohan and her mother on the night of 24–25 March 2026. The charge sheet alleged that Mohan assaulted the child and obstructed her airway, resulting in her death. It also alleged efforts by the accused to portray the death as natural and to conceal or destroy evidence.

The medical material was central to the prosecution’s case. The post-mortem report and a further forensic opinion stated that the death resulted from asphyxia caused by obstruction of the airway along with blunt trauma to the abdomen. The Court noted that the case did not have an eyewitness, but found that the investigation had yielded circumstantial and medical material requiring consideration at trial.

Mohan’s arguments for bail

Mohan’s counsel argued that he was innocent, that the investigation had concluded, and that a charge sheet had already been filed, meaning his continued custody was not needed for investigation. The defence also emphasized that Priyanka H. had been granted bail.

The defence challenged the prosecution version on several grounds, including:
- A delay of about 70 days before the criminal complaint was registered.
- The absence of eyewitnesses and allegedly limited visible injuries noted during the inquest.
- Claims that the post-mortem material had been manipulated.
- The contention that matrimonial disputes between the child’s mother and the complainant had motivated a false case.
- The argument that any statement attributed to a co-accused before the investigating officer could not be used against Mohan.
Why the High Court refused bail

The High Court found no legal or factual error in the lower court’s decision. It relied on the post-mortem report, inquest materials, statements, and police mahazars as showing prima facie material against Mohan.

The Court also treated the alleged offence as exceptionally serious because it involved the death of a young child and carries the possibility of life imprisonment or the death penalty. It observed that the child was allegedly in the company of Mohan and her mother at the relevant time.

On the 70-day delay, the Court accepted the prosecution’s explanation that police initially failed to register a crime despite the suspicions raised in the earlier complaint. The order records that the concerned investigating officer was suspended and a departmental inquiry was initiated. In those circumstances, the delay was not considered a sufficient reason to grant bail.

Outcome and legal significance

Justice G. Basavaraja dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1460 of 2026. The ruling leaves intact the earlier order refusing bail to Mohan. The order does not decide guilt or innocence. It determines only that, at the bail stage, the available material was sufficient to justify continued custody while the criminal case proceeds. The allegations remain subject to proof through the trial process.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 23, 2026