Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 363, 377, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO matter – Regular bail -- FSL report has shown the offence having been committed by the petitioner -- However, it is not disputed that the complainant and the father of the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution and that the petitioner is in custody for the past about more than two years and two months -- No other case -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 29 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Regular bail on parity – More FIRs pending – Effect of -- State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that petitioner is involved in number of FIRs -- However, State is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner qua the co-accused so far as grant of bail is concerned – Without commenting on the merits of the case, on the basis of parity of petitioner vis-a-vis co-accused, the petitioner granted bail.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Condition for grant of bail on undertaking for deposit of Rs.22,00,000/- in the form of FDR in the Trial Court – Held, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating -- If at all the offence alleged against the appellant is proved resulting in his conviction, he would be bound to suffer penal consequence(s) but despite such conviction he may not be under any obligation to repay the amount allegedly received from the complainants -- This too is an aspect which the High Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 438 of the Cr. PC did not bear in mind – Held, High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant and imposing payment of Rs.22,00,000/- as a condition precedent for grant of bail -- Matter remitted back to High court for re-consideration of the application for pre-arrest bail.

(Para 17-30)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Interim bail – Marriage of petitioner -- Marriage fixed for 16.06.2023 & 17.06.2023, the petition allowed on humanitarian grounds and the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent w.e.f. 14.06.2023 to 23.06.2023.

(Para 1, 4)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Mail child victim is 10 year old – Petitioner in custody since 30.04.2023 -- Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule -- No fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing the petitioner to be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial -- Apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent regarding likelihood of influence being exerted on prosecution witnesses, can be duly taken care of by putting the petitioner to appropriate terms -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 25, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Speedy trial -- Petitioner in custody since 1.6.2021 -- Trial is not likely to conclude within short time -- Indisputably, accused has constitutional right for speedy trial -- Weighed against such constitutional right, it cannot be said that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act can have efficacy in perpetuate and more particularly in case where trial is not concluded within a reasonable period -- Nothing on record to suggest that the delay in trial has been caused for any reason attributable to the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be release on bail.

(Para 6-9, 17)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Cultivation of 278 plants of cannabis –Demarcation got conducted, which reveals that concerned khasra number though was in possession of accused, but was under co-ownership of several individuals – Custodial interrogation of accused not required by the Investigating Agency – Anticipatory bail granted.

(Para 3-5)

Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (33 of 2012), Section 39(1)(a) (c), 47, 50 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 304, 120-B --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Conspiracy to manufacture and sale of spurious liquor – Petitioner is alleged to have supplied caps for bottling of spurious liquor -- Petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2023 -- Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule -- Many of the co-accused have already been released on bail – Investigation complete, Challan presented in Court -- No fruitful purpose would be served by prolonging custody of accused till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take some time -- Bail allowed.

(Para 7-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Interim regular bail -- Marriage of daughter – Petitioner allowed to attend the marriage of his daughter only for 01 day in police custody.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 325 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Murder – Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence in appeal -- Applicant/appellant No.5 has already undergone actual custody of 02 years, 03 months and 04 days – Sentence of co-convicts has already been suspended by – Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future – Without commenting on the merits of the case remaining sentence of applicant/appellant No.5 suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(Para 6-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 41A, 439 – Cheating – Forgery – Regular bail – Non-compliance of notice u/s 41, 41A of Cr.P.C -- Petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2023 – Investigating agency is duty bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C -- Directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case 2014 (8) SCC 273 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15107 are to be mandatorily complied with -- Court is required to satisfy itself on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. and non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail -- No notice issued to the petitioner, therefore Court deemed appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Investigation already stands concluded – Charges framed -- Even after the expiry of more than 2 years and 5 months of custody, only one witness (complainant) has been examined that too partly as his cross-examination is yet to commence, whereas there are total 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution and thus trial is likely to take time -- Considering the long incarceration of the petitioner, who is not involved in any other case and one of the co-accused in similar circumstances with same allegations has already been released on bail -- Court do not see any justification to extend his incarceration any further --  Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 20, 27A, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 10 quintals, 37 Kgs of poppy husk and 34 Kgs of Ganja from co-accused -- Petitioner in custody for the last 10 months and 17 days, although he was involved in one more case, i.e. under Section 174-A IPC, in which he has already been sentenced for the period already undergone by him – Having regard to the fact that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and his name emerged on the basis of disclosure statement only, petitioner admitted to bail and ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 5)

Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (20 of 2015), Section 13(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 307, 336, 34, 427 -- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), Section 11 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cruelty to animal/ cow -- Regular bail – Concealment w.r.t. earlier FIR -- Allegations against the petitioner are very serious, he, along with others, was carrying cows in a pitiable condition in a Bolero pick-up during midnight -- When the complainant tried to stop them, they rammed their vehicle against the vehicle of the complainant and ran away -- Even stones were thrown on the complainant party and cows, which were being carried allegedly for slaughtering, were also thrown in their way to stop the complainant party to chase them -- Trial of the case is yet to start -- Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court and the gravity of offence, petition dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular  bail – Fair trial – Recovery of 2Kg 45 grams of ‘Cannabis’ -- Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act in perpetuity -- Petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2021 and the facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Nothing on record to suggest that delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner -- Bail petition allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2, 8, 17, 18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 25, 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173 – NDPS Case -- Statutory/ Default bail  -- Accused gets an indefeasible right to the grant of bail on account of the default by the Investigating Agency in not presenting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the stipulated period -- Application for extension to file report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was allowed and an extension of 90 days was granted, however in the revision said order set aside – Held, once High Court has held that the grant of extension of 90 days in presentation of the challan itself is bad in the eyes of law, the further detention of the petitioners would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11, 12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused/ appellant.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 61, 85, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- 500 bottles of Siorex Syrup recovered from rear set of car -- Petitioner in custody from the last 02 years -- None of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Petitioner is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him under the NDPS Act -- In such a situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 2, 7-10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants -- Anticipatory bail -- A person released on bail is already in constructive custody of law and if law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons, application for anticipatory bail would not lie -- Petition dismissed being not maintainable.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Fraud -- Anticipatory bail – Petitioner executed agreement to sell in favour of KS and power of attorney was duly executed and registered before the Sub Registrar, wherein he was photographed -- Petitioner fraudulently entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant also regarding the same piece of land and accepted the earnest money, however, did not execute the sale deed -- Land sold through KS to another person -- Intention to defraud from the very inception – Anticipatory bail declined.

(Para 7-9)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Offence under Money-Laundering Act – Regular bail -- High Court has neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 -- High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on – Impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable -- Matters remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone actual custody of 04 years, 10 months and 07 days -- Only 06 Pws have been examined out of a total of 23 Pws -- It is thus evident that the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date -- Keeping in view the period of custody undergone, Court deemed it appropriate to grant him regular bail.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for a period of 05 years, 09 months and 23 days -- Trial is getting delayed and speedy trial is a constitutional right provided to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Furthermore, the petitioner also becomes entitled to bail on the principle of parity as co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 13, 18, 20 -- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 4, 5 – Default bail -- If on expiry of period of 90 days, from the causing of arrest of the accused concerned, no charge sheet is filed before the jurisdictionally competent court nor when any able extensions of time for the relevant time are granted, accused concerned entitled to claim default bail, from the jurisdictionally competent court.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Sections 13, 18, 20 -- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 4, 5 – Default bail -- Jurisdictionally competent court -- Accused arrested on 5.8.2022, instituted an application for default bail before SDJM on 5.11.2022 -- Period of 90 days had then elapsed -- However, the jurisdiction to enter upon a valid trial of UAPA offences became divested from the SDJM, became vested in the Designated Special Court – Application was dismissed with liberty to approach jurisdictionally competent court -- Fresh application for default bail moved before the learned ASJ on 11.11.2022 – In the meantime challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed on 7.11.2022 – Default bail declined by Court -- Appeal dismissed -- Impugned order as passed by the learned ASJ upheld.

(Para 6, 13-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 370, 120B -- Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (2 of 2013), Section 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Smuggling of human – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail --  Allegations against the petitioner are he along with other co accused cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs 33,00,000/- on the pretext of sending complainant’s son to USA -- Petitioner is the father of the main accused -- Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-9, 24)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Rape – Consenting party --  Misrepresentation -- In statement u/s 164 prosecutrix has categorically stated that they became friends through Facebook; he told her that he is Hindu and on his Facebook profile also he used his surname as “Dixit” and at the inception of the relationship applicant/ accused misrepresented himself and trapped the prosecutrix in his love; had applicant/accused not misrepresented to be of her faith, the prosecutrix would not have given in to the applicant/accused – Anticipatory Bail rejected.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 120-B, 212, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder –Regular bail -- Allegations against the petitioner are that he conspired with BK and provided him exact location of the deceased and thus facilitated him in committing murder – Petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2022 and during investigation, no weapon recovered from his possession – Trial will take time to conclude -- Another accused named in the FIR is already granted concession of regular bail -- No fruitful purpose is going to be served by prolonging judicial custody of the petitioner for indefinite period – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 384, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail -- No post mortem conducted – Death on 02.09.2021, matter was reported to the police on 05.09.2021 -- Allegations of honey trapping and black mailing in the FIR but the exact date and month of the same is not given -- Genuineness of the suicide note will be determined by the trial Court, after the recording of evidence -- Mens rea, if any, on the part of the petitioners, is also matter of evidence -- No prior complaint with regard to alleged honey trapping and black mailing of the deceased by the petitioners -- Further, the petitioners have joined the investigation -- Petition allowed and interim order made absolute.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Chain snatching case -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal is of the year 2022 -- Applicant-appellant has undergone 01 year, 08 months and 11 days out of the sentence awarded of 05 years and the appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing anytime in the near future – Applicant-appellant is not involved in any other case, further incarceration is not required – Sentence suspended.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Chain snatching case -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence – Applicant has undergone total custody of 01 year & 09 months (1/3rd) out of the substantive sentence of 05 years -- Without commenting on the merits of the case the application allowed and the sentence of the applicant/ appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, 120B -- Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (24 of 2019), Section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Extortion – Regular bail -- Alleged that appellant threatened the victim and concerned witnesses to cancel the land deal or to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore), which they refused – Role of the appellant is that he was involved in intimidating and threatening the victim on behalf of the accused no.1 for ensuring the victim’s compliance with the extortion demands -- Alleged that the appellant owns properties derived from funds of organised crimes -- Further it is revealed that the Appellant was directly involved in collecting the sum(s) extorted from the victim in the city, and that he has also been found to be involved in passing on information which is likely to assist the crime syndicate in its activities, thereby abetting the actions of the gang :

-- Had there been no other case against the Appellant and no material, at least prima facie, to indicate his regular participation in any crime, the Court could have considered his prayer, but keeping in view his alleged role, Court not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour, for now.

-- The fact, that out of the twelve charge-sheeted accused, six co-accused have not been granted bail, five have availed the benefit of default bail and only one is on regular bail, have also persuaded the Court not to interfere.

At the present juncture prayer for bail rejected, however, the stand taken on behalf of the State that the prayer for bail of the Appellant may be considered only after the protected witnesses are examined and six months’ time sought -- Upon the completion of recording of statements of the said protected witnesses, the Appellant is at liberty to renew his plea for bail.

(Para 3, 9, 13-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2) – Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (24 of 2019), Section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Extortion – Regular bail – Allegation that appellant was in close contact with accused no.1 and used to supply information relating to projects of the developers and thus, facilitated the whole exercise of extortion -- Mobile phone(s) seized from the appellant revealed that he was in touch with the organised crime syndicate – For the purposes of considering grant of bail to the Appellant, at this stage, the fact that there was only one case prior to the present case, that too of the year 2014 and the FIR thereof having been quashed by the High Court, even prior to the filing of the charge-sheet -- Appellant is in jail since 16.10.2020 viz. for over 2½ years -- Admittedly, it is the first time, he is accused of such nature of crimes -- Appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9, 14-17)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence -- Endeavour on the part of the Court should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal  -- If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal.

(Para 33)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence -- Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution -- Such would not be a correct approach.

(Para 33)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Murder – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence by High Court -- High Court has gone into the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the First Information Report etc. -- All these aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts -- High Court has done is something impermissible -- In the overall view of the matter, High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts – Appeals allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside -- Convicts ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of three days.

(Para 34-40)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Can the provision of Section 37 of the Act, be construed to have same efficacy throughout the pendency of trial, notwithstanding, the period of custody of the accused -- Held, the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of ND&Ps Act in perpetuity -- Petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2021 and the facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Co-accused has already been released on bail – Bail petition allowed.

(Para 7-18)

A. Bail order – Discussion of evidence – Requirement of -- Order running into 13 pages -- Detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant/ rejection of bail/ anticipatory bail – Supreme Court do not appreciate such a lengthy elaboration of evidence at this stage.

(Para 6)

B. Bail order – Inordinate delay in pronouncement of order –  Pronouncement of order after 1 month 1 week after it was reserved -- Held, it is always said that in the matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly – Held, such an inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(iii)(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Ganja seeds for plantation – Regular  bail -- Petitioner in custody since 20.05.2022 – Materials on record show that the petitioner has supplied Ganja seed for cultivation -- As per the definition of Ganja in Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, it is not a banned contraband -- No specific allegation that the Ganja seeds were supplied by the petitioner to the other person with an intention to receive back the grown Ganja after cultivation – Charge-sheet already filed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173(8), 309(2) – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Incomplete charge-sheet – Statutory bail/ Default bail – Remand of accused -- Right of default bail u/s 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- It becomes essential to place certain checks and balances upon the Investigation Agency in order to prevent the harassment of accused persons at their hands. Held,

I. Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

II. Such a chargesheet, if filed by an investigating authority without first completing the investigation, would not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

III. The trial court, in such cases, cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering the arrested person default bail.

(Para 32)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section  307, 325, 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Injury on the head with iron rod – Nothing on record of trial court to show injury was grievous or dangerous to life -- However as per medical record produced by the petitioner one of the injuries found to be grievous in nature – Petitioner in custody for the last more than 1 year and 2 months and is having no criminal history – Complainant and injured are already examined but it will take considerable time for the trial to conclude -- Nothing on record to show that if released on bail the petitioner is going to abscond or will tamper with the evidence -- Petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Petitioner in custody since 22.01.2021 and none of the 15 PWs have been examined till date -- Therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for a right to speedy Trial and the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 45 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 407, 415 to 420, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Registration of the ECIR and the lodging of the prosecution complaint in the year 2022 were a sequel to the registration of the FIR for the predicate offence, way back in the year 2013 -- No final report has been filed in the FIR for the predicate offence, for the past nine years -- De-facto complainant in the FIR for the predicate offence, was sought to be arrested as an accused in connection with the ECIR, but the application of the Enforcement Directorate for remand was rejected -- Appellant is a Chartered Accountant by profession and has been in jail from 26.09.2022 – Second condition found in Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PMLA is satisfied qua the appellant -- Continued incarceration may not be justified, appellant directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 13-16)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), Sections 69, 132(1)(a) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437 – Bail – Pre-condition to deposit Bank Guarantee of Rs.1.5 crores – Pre-condition of furnishing bank guarantee imposed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained, set aside.

(Para 5, 6, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438  -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail - Rs.8,10,000/- taken from the complainant on the pretext of sending two persons to Singapore – When court was not inclined to grant bail, only then the petitioner was ready and willing to affect a compromise with the complainant -- In that situation his arrest was stayed and he was asked to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, however, he has deliberately chosen not to appear -- Petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B, 124A, 153A, 153B -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 18, 39 – Protection against arrest -- On discharge petitioner was released and during this period of 21 months, he was not indulged in any unlawful activity -- On the contrary, the petitioner got elected to the Legislative Assembly in the year 2021 and he is now a sitting member of the Assembly – Discharge order set aside, matter remanded back to Special Court by the High Court -- It is only the offences alleged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which are punishable with larger terms of imprisonment -- If the offences under the IPC alone are taken into account, the petitioner has served, as an undertrial prisoner, more than half of the maximum period prescribed under the relevant provisions – Held, this is not a case where the petitioner should be allowed to be detained in custody, especially after having secured an order of discharge, rightly or wrongly – Petitioner directed to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 19-25)

A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 18, 19, 20, 39, 43D(5) – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 4, 5 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Offence under UAPA – Regular bail – No reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true -- Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43D will not apply in the case -- Charge not framed, prosecution proposes to examine more than 140 witnesses -- Some of the accused are absconding -- Thus, no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future – Special Judge directed to release the appellants on bail on appropriate conditions determined by him after hearing the appellants and respondent.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25, 27 – Confession – Discovery of fact – Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule under Section 25 that a confession made by an accused to a police officer is not admissible in evidence -- The first condition for the applicability of Section 27 is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact, which is the direct outcome of such information -- Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused.

(Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bail -- Local surety -- Condition relating to production of local surety dispensed with -- Not only High Court while exercising its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., but even other Courts including Session/ Magistrate Courts are empowered to modify the bail conditions if parameters, as specified in the case, are satisfied.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation against the petitioner are that he was one of the friends of deceased and was extending help to his wife to remain in adultery with one PS, leaving her husband and children – Held, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage -- Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Petition allowed.

(Para 5, 10,11)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 14, 14A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 362 – Bail under SC/ST Act – Jurisdiction of High Court/ Special Court -- Changed circumstances -- Once an appeal under Section 14A against the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the application under Section 439 of the CrPC is decided on merits or otherwise by High Court, subsequent appeal under change of circumstances would not be directly maintainable under Section 14A before High Court even on change of circumstances and remedy to the accused, if any, is to file an application before the Special Court for grant of bail.

(Para 31)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 14, 14A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Jurisdiction of High Court/ Special Court – Regular bail -- Power to grant bail u/s 439 of the CrPC has only vested to the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act and High Court is only empowered to hear appeal under Section 14A(2) of the POA Act against refusal or grant of bail by the Special Court under the Act.

(Para 31)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 21C, 22C, 29, 36A(4) – NDPS case – Default bail – Commercial quantity -- Challan without FSL report -- No application or report was filed by the Public Prosecutor as per the requirement of Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act within prescribed statutory period of 180 days – Report of FSL still awaited -- Report of the FSL goes to the root of the case and is a material document, challan without the same is not to be treated as complete challan – Order rejecting default bail to the petitioner set aside and he is ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Statutory/ Default bail -- Two extensions granted by the Court not challenged by the petitioner at that stage – Second extension was in presence of accused -- When the chargesheet has been filed within the period of extension, the accused is not entitled to be released on statutory/default bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 376-C, 506, 34, 201, 384 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66E, 67A, 67-C – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape – Forwarding of Video recording in compromising position – Anticipatory bail -- Prosecution case against the petitioner is that he re-forwarded video recording of prosecutrix with other accused in compromising position to many persons -- On the contention that petitioner is not accused of commission of offence punishable u/s 376, 376-C, 506, 34, 201 and 384 IPC, however, he, at the most, is responsible for commission of offence punishable u/s 66E of IT Act wherein maximum prescribed sentence is three years granted interim bail – Petitioner has joined investigation and no custodial interrogation is required – Petition allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 1-3)