Cont.Case (C) No. 2498 of 2019 This Contempt of Court case (Civil) No. 2498 of 2019, filed by petitioners 1, 3, 4 and 6–10 in W.P.(C) No. 25817 of 2015, alleges willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 25817/2015 and connected matters. The Supreme Court’s subsequent judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143–8144 of 2022 (and connected matters) in Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. held the 2014 notification (G.S.R. 609(E)) legal and valid and laid down broad directions regarding the amended pension scheme, the transfer of funds, and options for employees. The Kerala High Court notes the SLP against the 2018 judgment was initially dismissed and later recalled, and that the 2022 Supreme Court directions require reconsideration of the petitioners’ entitlements by the EPFO. The court disposed of the contempt petition, stating that the EPFO shall undertake the necessary reconsideration in accordance with law and that the petitioners’ rights are preserved, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution in directing future action. The judgment also cites RC Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, and the 2022 Sunil Kumar B. decision to anchor its conclusions. Ultimately, the contempt case is closed with directions for reevaluation of higher pension entitlements by EPFO.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Kerala High Court. The petitioners, four accused in Crime No.1254 of 2023 of Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha, face charges under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition seeks quashing of the ongoing prosecution on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the matter, with affidavits from the victims supporting the settlement. The Public Prosecutor initially voiced reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but conceded that the parties have settled. The court engages in a jurisprudential exercise, citing State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, along with Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, to delineate when non-compoundable offences can be quashed under S.482 CrPC. The guiding principles include that quashing is permissible for private, civil-like disputes with settlement, but not for heinous offences, or offences under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences under S.307 IPC/Arms Act. After careful scrutiny, the court holds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and allows the Crl.M.C, quashing further proceedings against petitioners. They are to be released forthwith if no other cases exist. The registry will inform the Sub Jail, Mavelikkara. The order encapsulates harmonization of the Laxmi Narayan framework with Narinder Singh.
O.P.(FC) Nos.644, 645, 647 and 648 of 2022 Joshy P.C., the petitioner, filed O.P. (FC) Nos. 358, 359, 360 and 361 of 2019 in the Family Court, Kalpetta, challenging four settlement deeds executed in favour of his wife, Sheeba Varikkamakkil, alleged to be fraudulently obtained. The petitions initially sought declarations that the deeds were null and void, but the petitioner sought amendments to convert relief to a decree setting aside the deeds. The Family Court dismissed the amendments under the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, relying on Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh for the two-pronged test (no injustice, and necessity to determine the real controversy). The petitioner argued the amendments were necessary for effective adjudication, should not prejudice the respondent, and were inadvertent due to lack of diligence, with the pleadings already containing essential ingredients. The High Court, in a Division Bench, found the amendments do not introduce a new cause of action but merely align the relief with the fraud allegation, and are required for proper adjudication. Citing LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Ltd. & another, the court outlined broad criteria for allowing amendments, including avoiding hypertechnicality, ensuring no injustices, and avoiding time-barred claims. The Court reversed the Family Court, granted leave for amendment, and directed proceedings to continue in accordance with law, thereby allowing the petitions to proceed with the amended relief.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 2–4 challenging quashing of proceedings in CC 398/2019 arising from Infopark Police Station Crime No. 1213/2018. The petitioners challenge the continuation of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 IPC. The petition emphasizes that the dispute between the parties is private, the parties have settled, and the victim supports the settlement via an affidavit. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations but concedes that the matter is settled. The High Court reviews the settled dispute in light of Supreme Court guidance, particularly State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to determine when Section 482 CrPC power may quash non-compoundable offences. The court reiterates that quashing is permissible where the offence is private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and the impact on society is minimal; it also cautions against quashing for heinous offences or offences under special statutes. After evaluating the facts and the settlement, the court concludes the dispute is private, accepts the compromise, and allows the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 398/2019.
Cont.Case (C) No.2656 of 2019 Contempt petition by a large group of petitioners from WP(C) No.31019/2016 against the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) for willful disobedience of directions contained in Annexure I of the Kerala High Court judgment dated 27 February 2019, arising from earlier writ petitions concerning pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the 2014 pension scheme amendments. The SLP against the 2015 judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court but later recalled, and in its 2022 decision in Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO (AIR 2022 SC 5634), the Apex Court held that the 2014 G.S.R. 609(E) notification is legal and valid, read down certain scheme provisions, and clarified options under paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4) of the pension scheme. The Kerala High Court, invoking that judgment, directed reconsideration by EPFO of the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension in light of the 2022 ruling, while noting that earlier decisions and the 2014 amendments have to be applied in accordance with law. The court ultimately closed the Contempt Case, with liberty to EPFO to reassess entitlement for higher pension and to undertake the necessary exercise consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions, under Article 142 jurisdiction, and without prejudice to EPFO’s rights.
Iqbal Moosa, the petitioner, is the accused in Crime No.634/2023 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, for offences under sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427 IPC. He seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and the victim has filed an affidavit supporting quashing, with the victim not opposing the petition. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The High Court reviews Supreme Court precedents in Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466, to outline when the power under Sec. 482 CrPC may be used to quash non‑compoundable offences primarily private in nature when the dispute is settled. The court emphasises that quashing is appropriate only for private disputes with civil character, not for heinous offences or offences under special statutes. On considering the facts, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and the parties’ antecedents acceptable, and allows the Crl.M.C., quashing the final report and all further proceedings. The order is dated 23 November 2023 and pronounced by P. V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
This Kerala High Court MACA concerns Kumar Behera's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad award dated 30.04.2022 in O.P.(M.V) No.1167/2019, arising from a motor vehicle collision on 10.01.2019 involving Bus KL-09-V-3020 and Bus KL-49-4300. The Tribunal found rash and negligent driving by the second bus, held the petitioner entitled to compensation, and awarded ₹19,36,400 with 7.5% interest. The appellant contends the award undervalues permanent disability, ignores loss of future prospects, and fails to compensate for discomfort and inconveniences; he also points to Ext.A20 showing a disability of 63.33%. The respondent insurer argues against compensating loss of amenities with permanent disability, citing Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, and contends Ext.A20 was not certified by a Medical Board. The High Court re-examines evidence, increases the disability assessment to 60% and adds 40% for future prospects, recalculating compensation to ₹21,77,280. It allows a modified calculation, culminating in an additional compensation of ₹12,12,480 towards permanent disability, plus interest at 7.5% from filing till realization, with 82 days’ delay excluding interest. The award is adjusted and the insurer ordered to pay within two months per Circular No.03/2019 guidance.
The Kerala High Court hears Cr.M.C. 8474 of 2022, filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash Annexure-A4 complaint in CC 523/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners are accused 1 and 3: M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. and its signatory, Sheeja Sunny. The complaint relates to a cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, premised on a carriage agreement where the complainant alleges non-payment for channel carriage services. Petitioners contend that the second respondent’s claim rests on a legally enforceable debt that, if any, was satisfied; annexures show large payments (Rs 45,00,000 and Rs 5,00,000 in 2018) and a chart (Annexure A5) indicating partial or full discharge, undermining the substratum of the case. They further submit that the second respondent’s loss was compensated and the second respondent does not demarcate how the payments relate to the specific cheques. The counter-respondent disputes Annexure A5, arguing that payments were made under a broader agreement and not against the disputed cheques, and that substantial dues remain under 138 NI Act. The court cites Nagawwa and a line of precedents on quashing criminal proceedings, concluding that the petition is meritless. It dismisses the petition, emphasizing that quashing is not a vehicle to stifle legitimate prosecution and that the enquiry should proceed in the trial court.
This Regular First Appeal (RFA 409 of 2018) challenges a trial court decree granting specific performance of Ext A1 (dated 28.10.2008) for 2.63 Ares with a residential building, at a total sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000. An advance of Rs.4,00,000 was paid, with a further Rs.35,000 claimed on 29.07.2009 (Ext A2). The agreement fixed 11 months for performance, with sale deed to be executed within 15 days after the conclusion of ongoing litigation, in respect of a dispute involving the defendant’s mother who had rights over the property. The defendant admitted Ext A1 but disputed the Rs.35,000; he also cited severe financial stringency and personal health issues. The trial court held the plaintiff ready and willing to perform and therefore decreed specific performance. On appeal, the Kerala High Court found the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act and noted the trial court did not frame issues under Section 20 for discretionary relief. The court considered the defendant’s financial and health constraints; yet, rather than order performance, allowed an alternate prayer in the plaint for return of the advance amount with interest. The court decreed Rs.4,35,000 with stepped interest (15% p.a. to 12.10.2011; 9% p.a. to decree; 6% thereafter) and costs, setting aside the trial court decree and allowing the appeal.
WP(C).No.29673 of 2016 (H) These writ petitions, heard together, challenge an instruction issued by the University of Calicut on 9 September 2016 directing affiliated colleges to conduct college union elections for the academic year 2016-17 in Presidential (direct) mode on 7 October 2016, with exceptions for units that had secured court orders allowing indirect (parliamentary) mode. The petitioners – colleges and principals affiliated to the University of Calicut – contend that the election framework should follow the parliamentary model as urged by the Supreme Court, and that the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations provide a transitional framework rather than a blanket direct-mode mandate. They rely on earlier High Court decisions, notably Council of Principals' of Colleges v State of Kerala (2004) which held that bye-laws are not binding on affiliated colleges and that University letters cannot bind the colleges absent statutory backing. The University argues that bye-laws framed under the MG University Act empower the Syndicate to regulate college elections and to direct elections in Presidential mode, supported by revised bye-laws (29/6/2012) and Section 40 (Rules, Bye-laws and Orders). The judgment ultimately reconciles these positions, holding that affiliated colleges may adopt their own method of election and that the University cannot unduly interfere, disposing of the petitions with these directions.
This writ petition challenges encroachment on a footpath parallel to the Queen’s Walkway along Chathiyath Road, Kochi, and the unlawful blocking of the adjacent cycle-way by construction activity under the auspices of the Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) and related agencies. Petitioner Nishad N.P. contends that illegal constructions by the 4th respondent Latheef have obstructed pedestrian movement, compromised safety for the general public and differently-abled persons, and undermined the 1.8 km Queens Walkway inaugurated in 2015 and maintained by Cochin Smart Mission Limited (CSML). He asserts the 1st respondent’s inaction and alleged connivance with the 4th respondent, seeking mandamus to remove encroachments, clear blockers from the cycle-way, and declare the encroachment illegal, backed by a complaint (Exhibit P1). The respondents submit a public-interest project by GIDA to beautify the area (a “GIDA Smart Zone”) and claim ownership and control over the road and walkway; the 4th respondent’s alleged structures are temporary, and the 3rd respondent (CSML) is not a necessary party. Relying onYoosaf K & Anr v. State of Kerala, the Court emphasizes pedestrian safety and public space management. On merits, the Court disposes of the petition by directing the District Collector to forward P1 to GIDA within one week, with GIDA to dispose of it on merits within two weeks thereafter; interlocutory applications are closed.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Sec. 482 CrPC, arising from Crime No. 577 of 2022 registered at Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, which culminated in CC No. 1898 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court–II, Hosdurg. Accused Nos. 1–5 (Ranjeesh Kumar P., Dhanesh K., Sivaneeth K. S., Vaibhav, Rakul Ram R. V.) challenge the continuation of prosecution on the ground that the disputes with the victims have been settled, and affidavits by victims allegedly support withdrawing the case. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging settlement, expresses reservations about quashing solely on this basis. The court considers established precedents—Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Others; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others; and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others—to delineate the scope of its inherent power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved. It emphasizes that such quashing is inappropriate for heinous or public‑interest offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity, or offences under special statutes) and where the offence affects society. On careful scrutiny of the facts, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and the accused’ s antecedents acceptable; consequently, the proceedings are quashed and the case disposed of in favor of the petitioners.
This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging a Sessions Court order denying pre-arrest bail (CrPC 438) in relation to Crime No. 901/2023 registered at Pallikathodu Police Station, Kottayam. The appellant, Praveen K.G. alias Maneesh, is alleged to have, on the night of 24 August 2023 near the residence of a neighbor (Mrs. Geetha), abused the 3rd respondent—who belongs to the Scheduled Caste—by uttering caste names and, when the 4th respondent intervened, continued to abuse him as well, with alleged injuries resulting in a wound certificate indicating abrasions. The FIR was registered on 28 August 2023. The District Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, noting serious allegations and a prima facie case to proceed with the investigation. The High Court, in appeal, noted the prima facie materials but observed the delay in lodgment and directed the appellant to surrender for investigation on 25 October 2023, with liberty to seek regular bail, to be considered on the same day. The court relied on Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra to hold that Section 18 Bar does not prevent considering anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence may not be made out, and emphasized cooperation with investigation and timely production before the court. The order ultimately directs expedited handling of any regular bail application and immediate cooperation in the investigation.
CRL.MC 9359/2023; CC 218/2021 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenges the continuation of criminal proceedings in CC 218/2021 arising from Crime No. 46/2021 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram. The petitioners, five accused in the Magistrate’s court, faced charges under sections 143, 147, 148, 153, 447, 427 and 324 read with 149 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and committing mischief after trespass. The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits from the victims supported the settlement, and the victims’ counsel indicated no objection. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that a settlement exists. Relying on Supreme Court authority—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), which itself relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—the court summarized the test for invoking Sec. 482 to quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved. The court noted that such power is exercisable where the offences are private in nature, do not have a serious societal impact, and the accused has satisfactory antecedents. After considering the facts, the court held the dispute private, accepted the settlement, and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in CC 218/2021.
This Original Petition (Civil) arises from a suit for specific performance of a contract regarding 4.45 ares of land. Before filing suit, 1.30 ares of the land were acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act), and compensation for that acquired extent was deposited with the authority. The petitioner-purchaser sought reliefs under I.A..No.7/2023 (permission to receive the deposited compensation) and I.A.No.9/2023 (deposit of the amount in court), arguing that due to the acquisition the contract has become impossible to perform and that he is entitled to damages for the unperformed portion. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sukhbir v. Ajit Singh (2021) (6 SCC 54). The respondents, as landowners, contended that they have a right to receive the compensation and that the contract concerning the 1.30 ares has become impossible of performance. The Court held that the impossibility arose from the acquisition under the 2013 Act, not from any fault of the respondents. It observed that a purchaser may repudiate or seek the surviving interest, but it did not decide on compensation for the unperformed part, as the facts are distinguishable. The petition was ultimately dismissed, with remedies, if any, left open to the petitioner under law.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 6015 of 2021) filed under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala, challenging proceedings arising from Pattambi Police Station Crime No. 519/2015 and SC No. 706/2015, in which the petitioner faced an offence under Section 307 IPC. The prosecution case relates to an incident on 25.04.2015 when the defacto complainant allegedly doused himself with kerosene and the accused, son of the victim Malik, is said to have set a lit match and attempted to set the complainant on fire, leading to a purported attempt to suicide; the injury described was minor. The parties have since settled their dispute, and the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the settlement and the affidavit of the victim. The Public Prosecutor initially voiced reservations about quashing on settlement alone but acknowledged the settlement exists. The court reiterates the settled position in Supreme Court jurisprudence, citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others and, by reference, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to emphasize that Section 482 relief may be available for non‑compoundable offences with a predominantly civil character, especially where disputes are private and resolved. On the facts, the court finds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and concludes that quashing is appropriate. The case culminates in quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner in SC No. 706/2015.”
Phoenix ARC Private Limited, an asset reconstruction company registered with the RBI, challenged orders of the District Registrar General/Collector Ernakulam and the Sub Registrar demanding stamp duty on instruments of assignment of debts under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner acquired debts and the right to proceed against the secured assets from banks under Section 5 of SARFAESI and sought to register these assignment deeds (Exts. P2–P4) with the Sub Registrar under Section 5(1A) and 8F of the Indian Stamp Act, arguing exemption from stamp duty. The Sub Registrar referred the matter to the District Registrar, who held that Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, Section 2(d) defines ‘conveyance’ and that stamp duty under Article 21 of the Schedule, amounting to 8% of purchase money, applied as the deeds fell within conveyance. The petitioner contended that 8F of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended by Act 44 of 2016, applies to ARC assignments and that Ext.P6 cap on stamp duty (Rs. 1 lakh) and registration fee (Rs. 25,000) should govern. The court examined whether the instruments fall under Article 55(c)(ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act, or Article 21, and whether a ‘mortgage by deposit of title deeds’ under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act places the transaction outside Article 55. It held that it does not come under Article 55, since the interest is created by operation of law and not by a mortgage deed. Accordingly, the court directed registration of Exts.P2–P4 within one month at Ext.P6 rates, subject to final stamp duty determination and in parity with earlier analogous writ petitions. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
WA No. 1498 of 2022 (lead case); connected WA Nos. 1808/2022, 1807/2022 and W.P.(C) Nos. 4646/2022, 6955/2023, 19871/2022, 20313/2022, 26745/2022, 32204/2022, 36142/2022 This batch of writ petitions and writ appeals concerns recruitment for Police/Armed Forces (CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Assam Rifles) pursuant to Staff Selection Commission notification dated 21.07.2018 and subsequent conduct of the selection process. The Kerala High Court had stayed or modified several interim directions in earlier rounds, directing a stay on finalising the list and later ordering steps to ensure fair consideration for candidates while not disrupting the already completed selection processes. The core issue was whether the court could compel the SSC to include unfilled vacancies (243 plus) and Ex-Service Men in the ongoing pool, effectively reopening recruitment long after the initial rounds had concluded. The High Court recognised the tension between ensuring fair treatment of merit-listed candidates and avoiding derailment of a concluded recruitment process, invoking the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court should prejudice no one) and numerous precedents on the non-absolute right to appointment. The bench ultimately narrowed the scope: directed that the SSC complete recruitment for 73–83 short-listed candidates within eight weeks from the judgment, while allowing the remaining unfilled posts to be carried forward to future rounds; stated that earlier appointments remain valid, and seniority would be counted from appointment dates. The decision balances procedural fairness with the integrity of the concluded process, without reopening settled issues.
National Radio Electronics Corporation (the petitioner) challenged the modified assessment order under the Kerala KVAT Act for the year 2013-14. The Appellate Authority, by Ext.P1, directed remand for re‑examination and required the assessee to produce complete books of accounts and supporting documents. Ext.P3 addressed defects I, III, IV, V and VI in favour of the assessee, but defect II—alleged unaccounted purchases revealed by KVATIS data and mismatches between supplier invoices and the petitioner’s records—remained. The assessing authority listed invoices, demanded originals, and, after reviewing the 959 invoices produced by NR Electronics, found that only 53 invoices remained problematic; the rest were accounted for. The petitioner contended that many invoices were issued without purchase orders and later treated as returns by suppliers; the department considered this as evidence of tax evasion, rejecting the argument that the petitioner cannot prove a negative. The Government Pleader relied on a decision in The Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. The Income-Tax Officer to argue that, once the appellate remand is issued, the assessing officer must independently decide. The court, however, held that while the burden of proof rests on the assessee under Section 9 of the KVAT Act, it cannot require him to prove a non‑existence of a sale. Observing that no proof of sale is presented, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the defect II finding in Ext.P3, with no recovery based on it.
Roy E, the second accused in Crime No.1108/2022 registered at Kannur Town Police Station, seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges that on 31.08.2022, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found in joint possession of 60 kilograms of ganja from the house of the first accused in Kannur Corporation, contravening the NDPS Act, with Rs.51,000 recovered as sale proceeds. Consequently, offences under NDPS Act sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 were registered and are under investigation. The petitioner previously urged default bail for custody beyond 180 days; the record shows the period of detention was extended to 25.04.2023 by a Special Court order. The respondent contends that the quantity seized constitutes a commercial quantity, thus invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes two stringent conditions: (i) the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application, and (ii) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The High Court clarifies that Section 37(1)(b) requires both conditions conjunctively, and that “reasonable grounds” must denote substantial probable causes, not mere prima facie grounds, per Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari. Applying these standards, the court finds no material to satisfy the twin ingredients and dismisses the bail petition. The order is signed by Justice A. Badharudeen.
