Outcome: Special leave petition dismissed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: Interim consideration of the challenge to the criminal proceedings and prayer for stay.

Outcome: Notice issued, counter affidavit and rejoinder directed, and further proceedings in the specified cases stayed until the next date of hearing.

Issues: Whether interim protection should continue to enable the petitioner to attend the trial court proceedings virtually and remain protected from arrest pending further consideration.

Analysis: The Court took note of the prevailing lockdown-related restrictions and the earlier protection granted to the petitioner. It also considered the refusal of virtual appearance before the trial court and the subsequent challenge to that course. In the meantime, it directed that the petitioner should not be arrested and may continue to attend the trial court proceedings virtually for the present, with physical attendance to follow when courts resume normal physical functioning.

Outcome: Interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner, and notice was issued for further consideration.

The Supreme Court of India, comprising the Chief Justice and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, convened via video conferencing to hear the matter. Senior counsel for both parties were heard. The Court issued notice to the respondent, who, through counsel appearing on caveat, accepted and waived formal service. The respondent was granted two weeks to file a counter affidavit. The matter is to be listed thereafter.

Outcome: Leave granted. The appeals and writ petitions were directed to be listed in the first week of October, 2021.

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier protection extending limitation periods in view of the COVID-19 pandemic should be restored and continued because of the renewed surge in cases. (ii) Whether the order extending limitation would operate as a binding direction on all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier protection extending limitation periods in view of the COVID-19 pandemic should be restored and continued because of the renewed surge in cases.

Analysis: The renewed nationwide rise in COVID-19 cases was treated as an extraordinary situation requiring further relief to avoid hardship to litigants and legal practitioners. The earlier directions were restored, and the period of limitation under general and special laws for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings was directed to remain extended till further orders. The exclusion already operating for specified statutory limitation periods was also continued from 14.03.2021 till further orders.

Conclusion: The extension of limitation was restored and continued in favour of litigants.

Issue (ii): Whether the order extending limitation would operate as a binding direction on all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities.

Analysis: The direction was expressly issued in exercise of the Court's powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India. On that basis, the order was declared to be binding within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities.

Conclusion: The order was held to be binding on all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities.

Final Conclusion: The limitation-extension regime was revived and continued as a nation-wide measure, and the resulting directions were made binding across the judicial hierarchy and authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: In an extraordinary public emergency, the Court may invoke Article 142 to extend limitation periods and, when so issued, the direction attains binding force under Article 141.

Issues: Whether, in a bail application, the Court could make the grant of bail conditional upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.53,60,000/- in aid of disputed civil claims.

Analysis: The dispute was essentially civil in nature and the complainant had already instituted a civil suit for specific performance. A criminal court deciding bail is concerned with the settled bail parameters, and not with securing payment of disputed dues or issuing directions that operate like attachment before judgment or recovery without trial. A condition requiring a bank guarantee of the disputed amount was treated as onerous and unwarranted because it converted the bail order into an instrument for recovery rather than a judicial determination on liberty.

Conclusion: The condition requiring furnishing of the bank guarantee was not sustainable and was deleted; the bail order otherwise remained intact.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition succeeded to the extent of setting aside the monetary bail condition, while the remaining terms of bail were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail court cannot impose a condition that effectively compels recovery of disputed civil dues or operates as execution at the inception.

Issues: Whether the limitation period for suits, appeals, applications and proceedings ought to be excluded for the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether the exclusion should also apply to specified statutory periods under special enactments.

Analysis: The order records that the earlier suo motu extension of limitation, granted because of the disruption caused by the pandemic, had served its purpose, but that the period of limitation should still exclude the entire interval from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021. It further directs that the balance period remaining as on 15.03.2020 would revive from 15.03.2021, and that where limitation expired during the excluded period, a minimum period of 90 days from 15.03.2021 would be available, subject to the longer balance period if applicable. The directions are also expressly extended to specified statutory periods under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Commercial Courts Act, the Negotiable Instruments Act, and other laws prescribing limitation, outer limits for condonation, or termination of proceedings.

Conclusion: The limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 stands excluded, and the connected statutory directions apply to the identified special enactments and similar limitation provisions.

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in suspending the sentence of the convicted respondent under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the restrictions governing bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The respondent had been convicted after trial for offences under the NDPS Act. In a post-conviction situation, an application for suspension of sentence stands on a different footing from pre-trial bail, because there is already a finding of guilt. The Court reiterated that while the power under Section 389(1) remains available, it must be exercised for strong and compelling reasons, and the order must reflect application of mind to the stringent policy underlying Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The High Court's reliance on general considerations such as period undergone and delay in hearing, without proper engagement with the governing statutory restrictions and the trial court's findings, was found insufficient.

Conclusion: The order suspending the sentence was unsustainable and was set aside. The respondent was directed to surrender forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: In a post-conviction NDPS , suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be granted only on strong and compelling reasons that are recorded in the order and that are consistent with the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Outcome: Special leave petition dismissed on the ground of delay. Costs of Rs.25,000 imposed on the petitioner, recoverable from the officers concerned, and the pending application was disposed of.