Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Cancellation of bail – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of – Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and wilful absence -- Explanation offered for non-appearance before the trial Court is justified -- Curtailment of personal liberty is to be done in line with the procedure established by law -- Procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness – Sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the learned trial Court -- Petitioners have themselves come forward and have undertaken to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 7-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 21, 22, 29, 61, 85  -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 261 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, marginal above the commercial quantity (250 grams) -- Petitioner is a first time offender with no other case under the NDPS Act registered against him -- Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed – Petitioner in custody since 13.09.2023 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and a co-accused has already been granted the similar relief – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437 – Right to bail u/s 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. – Scope of -- Sub-section (2) of Section 437 of the Code can be divided in two parts -- The first part would indicate that it is mandatory, but in the next breath, the legislature has given discretion to the Magistrate not to grant bail by assigning reasons -- Provisions of Section 437(6) cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused -- Reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage. Following factors would be relevant:

1. Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused?

2. Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner?

3. Whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out?

4. Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period?

If the answer to any one of the above referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in affirmative then that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code -- Right accrues to him only if he is in custody during the whole of the said period.

(Para 9-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Second bail application -- There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted.

(Para 4)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Second bail application – Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter cancelled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application.

(Para 5)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal – Suspension of sentence -- Deposit of 20% compensation – Requirement of -- Petitioners/ convicts directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court by the Appellate Court -- No reason given by the Court while issuing directions -- Condition of depositing of 20% of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court imposed for the purpose of suspension of sentence, set aside -- Appellate Court directed to re-consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law laid down in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (SC) 2024(2) L.A.R. 323 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and till then not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148(1) -- Deposit of 20% compensation – Requirement of -- According to Section 148 NI Act, the requirement to deposit a minimum 20% of the fine or compensation during an appeal is not mandatory, instead, it is discretionary power vested with the appellate Court meaning the said Court can choose to waive the said deposit in certain exceptional circumstances depending on the facts of the case.

(Para 7)

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (3 of 2021), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement  -- Regular bail – Discretion of Court -- The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc. -- Trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence -- However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously -- Grant of bail is a matter of discretion, but discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail -- Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious -- Petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished – Bail allowed.

(Para 10-13, 21)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 108 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail -- No incriminating material put forth by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commissioning of offence except that his name has been mentioned in the FIR -- Ingredients of Section 108 of BNS i.e., the abetment or the instigation at the part of the petitioner is missing, therefore, prima facie offence u/s 108 of BNS cannot be made out at this stage -- He is a person of clean antecedents – Petitioner has bona fide intentions and is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency in time – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 52A, 54 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act -- Granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that the compliance of Section 52A was not done within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Matter remanded back to High Court.

(Para 39, 40)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A, 54 – NDPS -- Procedural irregularity – Effect of -- Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail -- The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible u/s 54 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 39 (III)-(vi))

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105, 106 – Stunts on road – Culpable homicide – Death by rash and negligent driving -- When someone does stunts on a public road, endangering public safety, and when the motor sport is not being conducted with the knowledge of the traffic control authorities and ample time has been given to them to take preventive steps, the acts of public stunt, it leads to death would fall in the definition of culpable homicide and if death is not caused then an attempt to cause culpable homicide and such acts would not fall only under section 106 BNS [Analogous to 304-A IPC, 1860] because of the requisite knowledge that such an act is likely to result into death or cause death -- Such an act would not fall under rash and negligent driving, but primafacie amounts to culpable homicide.

(Para 37)

B. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – Anticipatory bail -- Death by stunt on road – Accident by modified tractor by fitting an extra turbo pump to increase the acceleration -- Video points towards its high speed on a public road -- If a soft stand is taken towards such stunts, the roads, which are already unsafe, will become more unsafe for pedestrians and two-wheelers, which account for the maximum number of casualties for pedestrians and two-wheelers in road accidents in this region – Anticipatory bail declined.

(Para 3, 12, 13)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 19, 44, 45, 50 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 479, 483 – PMLA Case – Bail – Long incarnation -- A suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial – Trial Court directed to decide on framing of charges before 31.12.2024, thereafter fix a date within the second and third week of January 2025 for recording the statements of such prosecution witnesses who are the most material or vulnerable – All such witnesses, especially those who have expressed apprehension of danger to their lives (who might be two or three), will be examined on these dates – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on 01.02.2025.

(Para 17, 18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1A) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3),376AB, 376DA, 376DB – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 15A(3) -- Rape – Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- As per Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C., the presence of the informant or any person authorised by him or her is obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the IPC -- It is also mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor of the State Government to inform the victim about the court proceedings, including bail proceedings as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ ST Act, 1989.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 363, 376DA, 506, 392 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5(g), 6 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(2), 15(5A) – POCSO -- Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- In gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, High Court granted bail in a very casual and cursory manner and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the concerned respondents are prima facie involved in a very serious offences -- Impugned orders in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. as well as in the SC/ST Act, set aside.

(Para 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the BNSS, 2023 is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, however due to a misimpression regarding the date, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on two dates and on account of the same, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, he is ready to appear and face the trial -- Petition allowed, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on same bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 5-8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- No injury attributed to the petitioner, except lalkara raised by him -- Co-accused granted concession of interim anticipatory bail -- No reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Regular bail -- Search of accused – Magistrate or Gazetted officer – Use of word “Any” instead “Nearest” Gazetted officer – Effect of -- Intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search -- Use of the expression “nearest” refers to the convenience as the suspect is to be searched, delay should be avoided -- Nothing more is articulated and meant by the words used, or the intent behind the provision -- High Court granted bail stating that use of the word ‘any’ does not satisfy the mandate of the ‘nearest’ Gazetted Officer -- Recovery of 500 gms. of heroin is a substantial commercial quantity, respondent involved in another case, in which the quantity involved was an intermediate quantity, respondent is on bail in the said case -- Impugned judgment set aside.

(Para 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 384, 506, 120-B, 216 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Conspiracy -- Regular bail -- Appellant nominated as an accused only for being part of the conspiracy to the crime in question and he was not present when the alleged murder took place -- Bail allowed.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of counterfeit currency – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 04.04.2024 -- Entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence, which is already part of the challan -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future – Bail allowed.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 25, 27-A, 29 -- Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42, 52-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1600 grams of heroin from co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 18.09.2023; challan was presented on 12.03.2024 followed by framing of charges on 07.06.2024 -- Till date none of the 31 prosecution witnesses examined – No recovery of any contraband or even mobile handsets was affected from the petitioner; the petitioner is being sought to be linked to the co-accused only on the basis of some mobile calls made between him and them – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 480(6), 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 120B – Cheating – Non-conclusion of trial within 60 days -- Bail – Right of -- Charges framed on 31.05.2024, case is triable by the Magistrate -- First date for recording evidence was 14.06.2024 and 60 days completed on 13.08.2024 -- Accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two years -- Only one prosecution witness out of total 33 prosecution witnesses examined -- Accused cannot be continued in custody for an indefinite period and that too for no fault on his bail in conclusion of the trial as per the mandate of Section 480(6) of BNSS – Bail allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Cheque bounce complaint – Dismiss in default -- Complaint was filed on 18.12.2020 and thereafter, the appellant/ complainant was regularly appearing before the Trial Court, however, on 23.08.2024 the appellant could not appear as wrong date was noted by the counsel, complaint was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution -- Held, Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint, however, if the Magistrate finds that there was some valid reason for non-appearance of the complainant or the presence of the complainant was not required during the Court proceeding, he can very well exercise his discretion to adjourn the complaint -- While exercising the jurisdiction u/s 256 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration that the powers vested in it have to be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice -- Impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number.

(Para 11-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of fine -- While convicting an accused, if a direction is issued against him to pay a fine, such a direction can be suspended in the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the CrPC.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Suspension of sentence/ fine -- While suspending the sentence, especially the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court can impose conditions -- Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it, defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

(Para 8)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 3(5), 108 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Deceased-employee was disturbed since about 2 weeks, his seniors/ petitioner at Bank were harassing during duty – Prosecution failed to provide specific allegations or instances demonstrating the petitioner’s role in prompting or instigating the deceased to commit suicide -- Primafacie basic ingredients of Section 108 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 not met out -- It would be a futile exercise to send the petitioner behind the bars for custodial interrogation – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) – Chatur Varshik Shradh of deceased father of convict – Interim bail -- Rape convict for 10 years -- Denial or curtailment or deprivation of interim release shall defeat the object and intent of reformation, which is the heart and core of criminal justice -- Interim bail granted commencing from 12th October 2024 till 20th October, 2024 with two police personnels.

(Para 5, 6)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) Section 491, 492, 528 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 61, 85 – Solitary absence of the petitioner/ accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond -- Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness --  Petitioner himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 10-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 3.17 Kg. of charas – Sample was not taken from each piece or each strip, 100 gram sample was randomly taken -- It cannot be said that each sample is the representative sample of the allegedly recovered quantity of the applicant -- Bail allowed. Gaunter Edwin Kircher’s case (1993) 3 SCC 145 relied.

(Para 4-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (n), 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376(3), 376 (2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – Applicant submitted hat the victim in her examination u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she was known to the applicant and she on her own left her house and joined the company of the applicant and they did not establish any physical relationship -- These facts admitted by State -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (l), 6– Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – In statement u/s 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., victim stated that the victim and the applicant both were in relationship and their relations were consensual – State submitted that the victim is a minor – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 9, 39, 48, 50, 51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Recovery of elephant tusk – Regular bail -- No expert opinion at this stage -- Applicant has no criminal history – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Petitioner is in custody for last 1 year and 10 days -- Charges framed on 08.04.2024, out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial – Bail allowed.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307-- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2024 and final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. presented -- Petitioner is a first offender and there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence -- Further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 376D, 363, 366A, 120B -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO -- Short term bail – Liver transplantation of father – Applicant proposed to donate his liver -- Applicant ordered to be released on short term bail for a period of six weeks on humanitarian ground.

(Para 3, 5, 6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376, 506 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – POCSO – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is behind bars since 4.9.2022 – One is deemed to be innocent, till the time, his/her guilt is proved in accordance with law -- Guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law -- No reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail, for an indefinite period, especially when co-accused stands enlarged on bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 22-29)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Excise matter -- Regular bail – Direction to furnish bail bonds after 6 months – Sustainability of -- High Court ordered to release the petitioner on bail subject condition that “the petitioner shall furnish his bail bonds after completion of six months in custody from today” – Held, no valid reason for the High Court to impose the condition – Condition set aside, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on bail forthwith on furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 years -- An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial -- When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious -- Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude -- Out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323, 324, 341, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Unlawful assembly – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was not armed with any weapon and no injury has been attributed to him -- At the most, he was a member of unlawful assembly and other members of the said assembly had caused injuries to the complainant and his cousin brother -- No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner – Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Right of -- “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception” – Objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 307, 160, 323, 325, 201 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Though the petitioner was named in the FIR but no specific role attributed to him -- Weapon recovered from the petitioner is yet to be co-related with the injury suffered by the injured before the learned trial court -- Incarceration of about one year and the trial is yet to begin as no charges have been framed -- 27 prosecution witnesses cited in challan -- Trial would take a long time -- Victim is now hale and hearty -- Bail allowed.

(Para 17, 18)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 438 -- Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act – Maintainability of -- Whether Section 18 of the Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act? -- The term ‘arrest’ appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 should be construed and understood in the larger context of the powers of police to effect an arrest and the restrictions imposed by the statute and the courts on the exercise of such power -- Bar u/s 18 of the Act, 1989 would apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, 1989 -- Because it is only when a prima facie case is made out that the pre-arrest requirements as stipulated u/s 41 of CrPC could be said to be satisfied.

(Para 13, 46)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 18 – Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act -- Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 -- Offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – While considering,  whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/ statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste -- Appeal succeeds, in the event of arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 80-89)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437, 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Inventory report not signed by accused -- A person who conducts search is supposed to sign the recovery memo -- Drug Inspector has conducted search, but the recovery memo not signed by him – Bail allowed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- POCSO – Rape -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law/ CCL – Right of -- Penetrative sexual assault on minor prosecutrix --  Word “shall”, suggests that normally, prayer, if any, made for grant of bail deserves to be allowed -- No material worth credence was ever adduced on record by the prosecution to suggest that in the event of CCL being enlarged on bail, he may not only come in contact of hardened criminals but may again indulge in such activities – Principle of non-stigmatizing semantics is required to be followed -- Bail allowed with conditions.

(Para 8-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437, 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120B -- Anticipatory bail -- Onerous condition -- Court can impose necessary, just and reasonable conditions while enlarging an accused on bail -- Any other condition not specified u/s 438 Cr.P.C. may also be imposed by the Court, but the other conditions, which may be imposed, must be ejusdem generis as the condition specified u/s 438 Cr.P.C.  -- Condition of tendering a FDR of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- on the case file by the petitioners was highly unwarranted, unreasonable and onerous and is liable to be set aside – Condition set aside.

(Para 10-17)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 506  -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 9, 10 – POCSO -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law – Right of -- A juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail unless proviso is applicable -- No finding recorded by JJ Board that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case -- Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied -- Psychological Assessment Report of the Juvenile records that the juvenile does not belong to high risk category and against the column “worry list of child” it is mentioned that there was “no worry” – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Refusal to marry -- Anticipatory bail -- Neither there is any incident of provocation nor any instigation -- Mere refusal of the proposal for marriage does not attract the provisions of the offence u/s 306 IPC – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Bail – Principles – Court observed, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment -- On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency -- Trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail -- Trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.

(Para 53)

B. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 45 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 7A, 8, 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 201, 120B -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Corruption case -- Regular bail – Bar contained in Section 45 of PMLA – Prolonged incarnation – Speedy trial – Right of -- Long incarceration running for around 17 months, trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial – Right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights – 493 witnesses have been named, the case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents -- Not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future – Keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail allowed, stringent conditions imposed.

(Para 49-58)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cruelty -- Matrimonial dispute – Anticipatory bail – Enormous conditions -- Purpose of putting conditions while granting pre-arrest bail is to secure the presence of the accused to ensure a fair trial and also for the smooth flow of the investigating process – Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable – Condition for release of petitioner on the provisional bail to give undertaking that the appellant would fulfil all physical and financial requirements by way of an affidavit set aside.

(Para 4-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 --  Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Whether High Court can impose a condition of automatic cancellation of bail order -- Cancelling of bail order directly affects freedom of a person which affects his fundamental rights -- Reasonable opportunity of hearing is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India – Held, if there is an automatic cancellation of bail order, then valuable right of natural justice is denied to accused -- Such condition could not be made part of the bail order.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 362 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 403 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Review of order -- Court is barred from reviewing or altering its own order under Section 362 of Cr.P.C./ 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 -- Both sections are pari materia -- While recalling a judgment Court has to apply its mind and has to look into the facts of the case, therefore, bar u/s 362 of Cr.P.c. or new Section 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 will be operative, but there are certain exceptions when Court can recall/relook into the judgment and violation of fundamental rights is one of the said exceptions -- If condition of automatic cancellation of bail order is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then order will be revived and Court can consider the application for modification also.

(Para 7)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 25, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 419, 420, 120-B, 201, 34  -- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971), Section 3, 4 -- National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (30 of 2019), Section 34, 54 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Sex-determination – Regular bail -- Petitioner acted as a mediator between the decoy witness and the co-accused for the purpose of sex determination test -- Petitioner nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, who has been granted concession of regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested in this case on 27.03.2024, challan has already been presented -- Prosecution has cited 28 witnesses and none of them has been examined -- Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner has already incarcerated 2 years and 11 days in custody and not involved in any other case -- Probability of his false implication cannot be ruled out particularly in the light of the fact that police party was in a private vehicle, details of which have not been mentioned – Charges framed on 13.2.2023, wherein out of 9 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined so far, meaning thereby the trial will take long time which tantamount to violation of right to life and liberty as has been enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India even including the right to speedy trial -- “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 18(b), 29 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Regular bail –  Trial delayed due to the repeated and continuous non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the State cannot justifiably oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail -- Petitioner in custody since 13.09.2022, there is no foreseeable conclusion to the trial in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B – Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66(D) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – Regular bail -- Complainant had been cheated of an amount of Rs.3 lacs -- Amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received in the account of the petitioner – He is a first time offender, in custody since 15.12.2023 but only 02 of the 09 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial of the case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 8, 9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- Right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct -- A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed -- In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way.

(Para 32)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- In the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part -- In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail -- But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted --  It would run  counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence.

(Para 32)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 27-A, 29, 60, 37 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2021 i.e. for the last more than 2 years and 10 months -- Out of 16 witnesses cited by the complainant, statement of only one witness has been concluded -- Charge framed way back on 18.07.2022 -- Conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner is the first offender and has not been found to be involved in any other case -- Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS is required to be balanced with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides fundamental right to life and liberty -- Right to speedy trial forms a facet of Article 21 -- Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(Para 7-12)