Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 323, 342, 354, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Bail by trial court – Cancellation of bail by High Court – Explanation from Trial Judge – Legality of -- Trial Judge granting bail on the ground that the chargesheet had been submitted and that the other accused were on bail was eminently fair and reasonable – Order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted -- Members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases -- Application for cancellation of bail dismissed, bail confirmed.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Jump of bail -- Bail/surety bonds cancelled – Quashing of – Petitioner states that he could not appear due to his medical condition and now he is ready to join the proceedings and face the trial -- Impugned order deserve to be set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh – Directions given, on surrender, Trial Court will admit the petitioner to bail subject to its satisfaction.

(Para 1, 6)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Only manner in which such special conditions as enacted u/s 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty -- Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted u/s 37 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 19)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 25, 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable – Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling – Incarceration has further deleterious effects, where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society -- The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials, especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily -- Appellant directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 21-23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail – According to FIR one struck the deceased on his head with a datar and other fired at him with a pistol resulting in his death -- In the photographs annexed by the State, the petitioner is unarmed -- No other criminal case against the petitioner and he has undergone actual custody of 09 months and 11 days -- Apparently, there is a dispute regarding the identity of the petitioner -- Court deemed it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61/1/4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- FIR on secret information – On raid, 60 bottles of country made liquor recovered, however petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and no further recovery is to be effected -- In compliance of order granting interim bail, petitioner joined investigation and cooperated -- Petitioner not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Co-accused apprehended and commercial quantity of intoxicant tablets (Tramadol) recovered from him – Petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and was named in the disclosure statement -- As to whether the petitioner was involved or not shall be determined during the trial -- He is in custody for the last more than 08 months and not involved in any other case -- Trial will take a sufficiently long time -- Regular bail allowed.

(Para 2-6)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Corruption case – Regular bail -- Though, the involvement of the petitioner prima facie evident having been caught in a trap while accepting bribe, but Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars for the last more than 3 months -- Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time since, none out of the cited 12 PWs has been examined so far – Bail allowed.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 354-A, 376(2)(n), 450, 506 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(w), 14-A (2) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape – Regular bail – Appellant is in custody since 03.06.2021 and he is not involved in any other offence -- As per medical report, no human semen detected -- Material witness i.e. prosecutrix stands examined – 8 out of 19 prosecution witnesses examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future -- Accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody -- Appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 377 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape – Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Petitioner and the prosecutrix were in relationship and the only reason for lodging of FIR was that the petitioner had shown his inclination to marry some other girl – 7 out of 14 witnesses examined and the testimony of the prosecutrix is also complete coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a young boy of 21 years and is in custody for the last more than 1 ½ years and trial is likely to take long time, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 4-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489-C, 489D -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 - Counterfeit currency – Regular bail – Recovery of 298 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of 100 each, 181 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of 200 each and 64 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of 2000 each --  Held, veracity of the prosecution case shall be established during the course of trial -- Petitioner is a first time offender in custody since 12.08.2022 and only 01 out of 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial of the case is not likely to be concluded any time soon -- As such his further incarceration is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 302, 201, 34, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail – Petitioners’ extra judicial confession that they had taken deceased on a motor cycle to the house of petitioner no.1 --  Petitioner no.1 injected deceased with some intoxicant on account of which he became unconscious and subsequently died -- The body was thereafter taken on a motor cycle and disposed of in the river -- Petitioners are in custody since 14.09.2021 and none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Therefore, their further incarceration is not required – Petitioners ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376(2)(N) – Regular bail – Cancellation of bail – Earlier bail u/ss 363, 366-A IPC – Later Section 376(2)(N) IPC added -- Section 376(2)(N) of IPC was not in the picture at the time of consideration of bail – Held, simply because the offence u/s 376(2)(N) of IPC has been added is no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed -- State is at liberty to take the requisite action if so required in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 2, 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 437(5), 439(2) – Bail -- Addition of offence – Arrest of accused -- Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody -- Recourse available to an accused is to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences -- Investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5) and 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Court that may have released the accused on bail or the Appellate Court/superior Court in exercise of special powers conferred on it, can direct a person who has been released on bail earlier, to be arrested and taken into custody.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 354-B and 506 (Section 376 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 437(5), 439(2) – Anticipatory bail – Rape -- High Court granted anticipatory bail having been swayed by the “star variations in the narration of the prosecutrix” implying thereby that what was originally recorded in the FIR, did not make out an offence of rape, as defined in Section 375 IPC, which is an erroneous assumption – Prosecutrix was not afforded a hearing, no doubt, the State was present and was represented in the said proceedings, but the right of the prosecutrix could not have been whittled down for this reason alone -- Orders granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2/accused quashed and set aside.

(Para 22-26)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Non-appearance in response to proclamation – Regular bail -- Petitioner involved in 39 other cases, all FIRs are either under the provisions of Gambling Act or Excise Act besides few u/s 174-A IPC – Investigation in the present case already stands concluded with the filing of challan and the petitioner is behind the bars for more than 2 months – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 – Bail – Anticipatory bail – Basic essentials required in order -- In bail/anticipatory bail matters, High Courts should endeavour to ensure that all basic essentials (i.e. FIR No., Date, the concerned police station and the offences allegedly committed etc.) are duly recorded or reflected in the format of the order.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 313, 376(2)(n), 34 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(5), 14A(2) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix stands examined, in her examination as well as FIR, the allegation that physical relations with appellant on the pretext of marriage and now he is not solemnizing marriage -- Prosecutrix is major, she met appellant in Jail which prima facie shows that there was consensual relation -- Appellant is in custody since 25.02.2022 and he is not involved in any other offence – Out of 12 prosecution witnesses till date only 5 have been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future -- In view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India appellant has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody -- Prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of appellant being flee from justice or tampering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses – Appeal allowed, appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3, 14-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452, 323, 506, 148, 149, 427, 458 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Abusing people of SC ST Community – House trespass – Unlawful assembly -- Allegations of abusing the people belonging to the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under SCSTPOA Act, 1989 -- On primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage -- Furthermore, the appellants are first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Appellants ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-8, 13)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Money laundering – Anticipatory bail -- Rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable even with respect to the application u/s 438 Cr.PC.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A, 15, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173 -- NDPS case – Challan without FSL report -- Default bail -- Case under the NDPS Act cannot be established without firstly and most importantly identifying the contraband -- Therefore no Court can possibly take cognizance of an offence under the NDPS Act without an FSL report -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 17,18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 498-A -- Second anticipatory bail – FIR by second wife -- Subsequent event -- Merely because an FIR lodged by the previous wife of the petitioner/accused against him was quashed on the basis of compromise subsequent to decision of the first pre-arrest bail petition on merits, is not a substantial ground to entitle him to file the second pre-arrest bail petition.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 498-A -- Second anticipatory bail – Subsequent event -- Pending inquiry before the Women Cell at the time of lodging of the FIR, is not a subsequent event that could afford a ground to the petitioner to file the second pre-arrest bail petition.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal -- Suspension of sentence --  Applicants/ appellants have undergone custody of 05 years 08 months and 26 days including post-conviction custody period of 03 years, 09 months and 06 days -- There are fairly arguable points on the merits -- Keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicants; as well case of the applicants is covered by the ratio of law in Dharam Pal’s case 1999 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 600 and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, Court deemed it appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence of the applicants-appellants during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),  Section 439 -- Murder – Unlawful assembly – Regular bail -- Investigation concluded, charges framed – Petitioner is behind the bars for the past 2 years 2 months -- Even the statements of 3 independent witnesses have not been recorded completely by the prosecution, there are 20 witnesses in total -- Even on an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., 2 other accused have been summoned -- Conclusion of the trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner being lady of 42 years of age has already suffered a long incarceration -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 302, 216, 120-B, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Murder – Suspension of sentence -- Involvement in other cases -- Applicant/ appellant has undergone custody of 11 years 04 months 19 days including post-conviction period of 08 years and 29 days -- Sentence of co-accused suspended, applicant is covered by the ratio of law in Dharam Pal’s case 1999 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 600, and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, court deemed appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence of the applicant/appellant during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 1, 4, 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 18, 67 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- NDPS case – Suspension of sentence -- R.I. for ten years with fine – Appellant 62 years of aged has undergone five years and six months of custody – Contention that statements u/s 67 of Act, 1985 could not be relied upon in view of the judgment in Tofan Singh’s case 2021) 4 SCC 1 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15591-- Appeal is likely to take some time for final hearing and the appellant has undergone over half the term of imprisonment, the appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4-6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO – Regular bail -- Keeping in mind petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2022 and he is 63 years old man; police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed and charges stand framed; Out of 15 prosecution witnesses till date no witness been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future; accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody; petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case; prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses. Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- No weapon of offence was being carried by any of the accused though all of them are said to have assaulted the deceased -- It would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether an offence u/s 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC would be made out -- At this stage the petitioner is in custody since 13.07.2021 -- None of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is a first time offender -- He is of the age of 24 years and as such is a young boy -- Therefore, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 440 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder -- Anticipatory bail – Contention that injury report indicates that the injuries were of a simple nature caused by a hard and blunt object -- In the facts and circumstances of the case direction given that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 342, 376-D, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail – Petitioner neither named in the FIR, nor in the complainant's statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., nor in her deposition before the trial Court -- Complainant/prosecutrix is aged about 46 years, investigation completed and the petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2022 -- Case is not likely to conclude in near future – Bail granted.

(Para 3-7)

            Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000), Section 12 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Juvenile in conflict with law – POCSO Case – Regular bail -- Mere suggestion of vulnerability of the juvenile, in the opinion of a Probation Officer, to physical, psychological or immoral danger, as also opinion of the Clinical Psychologist regarding cognitive development of the juvenile, are alien to the requirements of Section 12 of the Act -- Being professional advice/opinion cannot afford reasonable ground for believing that the juvenile's release from custody is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to physical, psychological or immoral danger – Nothing on record, which can even prima facie afford a ground to so believe -- Not the case that the juvenile's release from custody will defeat the ends of justice and does not fall in any of the exceptions carved out under Section 12 of the Act for declining bail -- Petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- No misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner attributed to him at the time of passing of the bail order – Fresh consideration of facts and the material already available on record cannot be done in exercise of powers u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C – Nothing to point out from the records that petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hand while his bail application was being considered and decided by the trial Court or he ever misused the concession ever – Order Canceling the bail, set aside.

(Para 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- FIR under GST laws -- Regular bail – Bail by High Court with a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.70 Lakhs under protest, in favour of the Principal Commissioner, CGST, within a period of 45 days from the date of his release – Condition to deposit a sum of Rs.70 Lakhs set aside.

(Para 3-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Dismiss in default -- Bail application listed in the first instance on 02.07.2021 and interim protection was granted -- Thereafter the matter came before the Court almost after an year on 27.09.2022 and because of his non-appearance bail application was dismissed for non-prosecution – Dismissal of the bail application in default not justified and, accordingly set aside.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 25, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Regular bail – Disclosure statement – Recovery of 200 grams of heroin -- Clubbing of the recoveries from co-accused not allowed -- Petitioner found innocent in another case under NDPS Act -- Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not be applicable – Petitioner in custody since 03.09.2022 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3,7,13-16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheque bounce case – Conditional bail in Appeal subject to deposit 20% amount -- Non-payment of – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of -- A person released on bail is already in constructive custody of law – Anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Manish Jain’s case 2022(1) SCC(Cri) 676 relied.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21, 136 -- Cheating and forgery – Regular bail – Allegations against the petitioner are extremely serious -- She is involved in 19 criminal cases -- In most of the cases there are allegations of forging documents and duping the financial institutions like Bank of Maharashtra to avail cash credit running into crores of rupees -- Husband of the petitioner who stood as the guarantor is equally involved -- Mortgage deeds of the properties furnished as security were also found to be forged:

-- Petitioner is in custody for almost seven years.

-- Out of 19 cases, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in 17 cases.

-- There are 61 prosecution witnesses and the third witness is being examined now. The conclusion of trial will thus take a long time.

-- Assuming that the petitioner is eventually found guilty and appropriate sentence is awarded, yet the period of almost seven years spent by her as an under-trial prisoner cannot be taken lightly.

Held, balance between the rights, emanating under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the one hand and the State’s right to ensure a fair and proper trial on the other hand, need to be balanced. Consequently, without expressing any view on the merit, the petitioner directed to be released on bail.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Condition to deposit 50% of salary – Sustainability of -- Allegation of fabricating documents and using them to obtain employment – High Court granted anticipatory bail with the condition that 50% of the salary earned by him for entire duration of the employment ought to be deposited within six months – Held, imposition of the condition is too onerous and cannot be sustained -- Condition set aside, petitioner ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B -- Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfairness Means) Act, 1992 (27 of 1992), Section 4, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Leakage of question paper and use of unfair means in Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) – Petitioner-Manager of the school was appointed as Assistant to the Co-ordinator of REET exam -- Petitioner had access to the question paper kept in strong room -- Petitioner was to receive a bribe of Rupees Five Crores, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,77,80,000/- recovered from various persons, some amount was allegedly recovered from the petitioner also -- Petitioner was arrested on 26th January, 2022 – First charge-sheet filed, further investigation is going on and there is likelihood of filing of supplementary charge-sheet(s) –

-- Most of the co-accused of the petitioner have been released on regular bail by the High Court and many of them have been granted pre-arrest bail.

-- The trial is yet to commence and there are nearly 200 witnesses to be examined.

-- The conclusion of trial will take considerably long period.

-- Two other case, one FIR stated to has been withdrawn and in the second FIR, a closure report was filed and which is yet to be accepted.

Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in the custody and the fact that the conclusion of trial will take some time, but without expressing any views on the merits, petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions.

(Para 1-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO -- Rape – Regular bail – Out of 14 prosecution witnesses till date only 02 material witnesses i.e. prosecutrix and complainant have been examined -- Petitioner has suffered incarceration of 02 years, 05 months and 08 days – Petitioner has prima facie case -- A person who seeks to be liberated must take judgment and serve sentence in the event of his conviction -- Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of Constitution – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Respondent granted anticipatory bail subject to deposit of Rs. 75,000/- on offer made by him – Co-accused paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner to get concession of bail – Held, process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail -- Recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings – Criminal proceedings are being prosecuted only as money recovery proceedings -- Hence, the order granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents stands affirmed but, the condition therein, of payment of Rs.75,000/- by the respondent No.2, stands annulled.

(Para 10-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 437(5), 439(2) --  Default bail – Cancellation of bail after charge-sheet -- Mere filing of the chargesheet subsequent to a person is released on default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be a ground to cancel the bail -- However, on filing of the chargesheet on conclusion of the investigation, if a strong case is made out and on merits, it is found that he has committed a non-bailable offence/crime, on the special reasons/grounds and considering Section 437(5) and Section 439(2) Cr.P.C, over and above other grounds on which the bail to a person, who is released on bail can be cancelled.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Complainant entered into an agreement to sell the property, and that despite obtaining more than Rs. 5 lakhs for executing that agreement, the petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of someone else for the same property – Dispute is also the subject matter of civil proceedings and suits for permanent injunction and specific performance are pending -- Petitioner was granted interim protection since the date of first hearing i.e. 08.07.2021 – SLP allowed, petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Regular bail – Condition to deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- in the Court was imposed on the statement of the petitioner – He could not comply with the condition and resultantly continues in custody since 30.06.2016 -- Subsequently he applied for modification/recall of the condition turned down by the High Court – Held, pre-condition of deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- for his release on regular bail, is totally unwarranted and uncalled for and set aside -- Petitioner directed to be released on bail forthwith subject to his furnishing bail bonds.

(Para 1-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Parameters of granting and cancellation of bail are totally different -- Bail cannot be cancelled unless and until there is evidence of misuse of bail in the form of commission of similar or identical offence, tampering or destruction of evidences, threatening or winning over of witnesses or there is total non-application of mind -- Bail already granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- A bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the basis of bald allegations of the complainant especially when there is no complaint by prosecuting agency supported by evidence of misuse of bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Cheating and forgery -- Charge sheet submitted against the appellant -- State did not bring any material to show that there is necessity of custodial interrogation of the appellant – Appeal allowed, direction given that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 3(2)(D), 7 -- Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, Clause/Section 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Manufacturing fertilizer without any licence -- Appellant disclosed that he is cooperating with the investigating agency -- State also apprised that the appellant has attended the police station on 08.07.2022 – No necessity of custodial interrogation -- Appeal allowed, direction given that in the event of arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Intermediate quantity – Regular bail – Petitioner’ name not mentioned in the FIR which pertained to the recovery of 18.96 grams of mephedrone (value of Rs. 1.89 lakhs) from the co-accused -- During investigation, he was named as an accused based upon the statement of the co-accused and arrested – Petitioner in custody for eight months -- Petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail and directed to be released on bail.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Rape -- Petitioner married the complainant though he had not obtained a divorce from a prior marriage – Charge-sheet submitted, after investigation – Interim stay confirmed -- In the event of the arrest, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 439 -- Intent of arrest -- Reason of denial of bail are:

– to secure the appearance of the accused at the time of trial;

– to  allay possibility of repeating of offence & jeopardising own life on account of grim prospect of being convicted;

-- to avoid possibility of tampering of evidence and security of witnesses who may be pressurised or maltreated.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2) (N), 343, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of our Constitution – Keeping in mind, the Petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2021, police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed and charges stand framed, prosecution stands examined as well cross-examined, out of total 24 witnesses till date 06 have been examined, thus, there is abysmally law possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, petitioner is permanent resident of District Sirsa and have family members and prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489, 489A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Counterfeit currency -- Second petition for regular bail -- Acting upon a secret information, police recovered counterfeit currency worth Rs. 4,75,000/- from the petitioners – Petitioners in custody since February, 2021 -- Considering the facts that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, no further recovery is to be made from the petitioners, though investigation is complete conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioners granted bail.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 332, 333, 412, 353, 504, 506, 34, 120-B -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 18 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Unlawful assembly – Murder – Dacoity – Regular bail – Petitioner was a minor, being tried as an adult, she had been married shortly prior to the incident – High Court denied bail, based on the circumstance that as many as eight police officers who had gone to arrest one person were killed in the act of firing by the co-accused -- Charge-sheet submitted, trial has commenced – Held, continued custody of the petitioner at this stage would not sub-serve the ends of justice – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions.

(Para 1-7)