Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 (Section 29 added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 75 kgs of poppy husk from main accused -- Petitioner roped in on the basis of disclosure statement -- Petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 months and 3 days – Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time -- No recovery was effected from the possession and the petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Petitioner ordered to release on regular bail.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B -- Murder -- Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court since 2018 -- High Court, however, declined to grant suspension of sentence pending the disposal of the appeal – Petitioner has undergone over twelve years and six months of actual imprisonment – Since the appeal before the High Court is likely to take time for disposal, Supreme Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, pending the disposal of the appeal.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 325, 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular  bail -- Excessive condition of bail – Sustainability of -- Appellant granted bail by the High Court and imposed the excessive conditions of a deposit of fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety of another Rs.1,00,000/- and two further bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each – Excessive conditions imposed have, in-fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail -- To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself -- Appellant is in no financial condition to satisfy the conditions -- Appeal allowed, conditions set for the grant of Bail stands waived off.

(Para 13-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 411, 413, 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 484, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating and forgery – Regular bail – Petitioners were arrested on 21 July 2020 -- Charge-sheet submitted after investigation on 14 October 2020 -- Seven co-accused have been released on bail -- Petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Sessions Court.

(Para 4, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489A, 489C, 489-D, 201 – Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (2 of 2017), Section 7 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Demonetized counterfeit currency -- Regular bail -- Recovery worth Rs.8,42,60,000/-, it is a debatable issue as to whether possession of coloured photocopies of demonetized currency notes attracts the provisions of Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D IPC – Petitioner in custody since 11.04.2022, police has presented the challan and charges are yet to be framed -- It will take considerable time for the trial to conclude even after the framing of charges -- Petitioner is having no criminal history -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 201, 467, 468, 471 -- Cheating and forgery – Recovery of amount – Regular bail -- In an offence u/s 420, 201, 467, 468, 471 IPC, the Court is certainly not going to recover the alleged amount as a condition to grant bail -- Reasonable conditions can be incorporated in exercise of judicial discretion and purpose of putting such conditions is to secure the presence of accused at the time of trial/hearing of the case before the trial Court -- Petitioner is in custody since 29.06.2022, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted, the offences are triable by Magistrate and further detention of the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose -- Petition allowed and the petitioner directed to be released on regular bail – Conditions imposed.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 167(2), 439, 401 -- NDPS case  -- Recovery of 42 kgs. and 530 grams of opium – Regular bail -- Revision against dismissal of application for default bail – Challan without FSL -- Without commenting anything on the merits and without referring to the fact that whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. or not, considering the facts that the petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in judicial custody for the last more than 01 year and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time as even charges have not been framed so far, the petition disposed of and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 326, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Serious injuries – Regular bail -- Petitioner is a first time offender and is in custody since 16.04.2022 -- None of the 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined -- Trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future -- Victim suffered serious injuries, at the present moment he has no major difficulty in walking, though he still cannot walk as a normal person -- At this stage, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Bail allowed – FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- ordered to be deposited with Trial Court, liable to be forfeited in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A, 201, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching of mobile – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner i.e. 04 months and 22 days; no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner; he is not involved in any other case and the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable time as the case is at the stage of framing of the charge, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail during trial.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Recovery of 1060 tablets of Tramadol -- Charges framed on 18.02.2022 -- Prosecution witnesses summoned not only by way of bailable and non-bailable warrants but also by way of arrest warrants of the prosecution witnesses, who are the official/ police officials -- Delay in prosecution witnesses, resulted petitioner to face incarceration for about 1½ years – Adverse inference drawn against the prosecution, Court prima facie believed that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and so far as the second ingredient for making a departure from the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the petitioner is stated to be not involved in any other case – Not the case of the State that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he may repeat the offence or he may abscond from justice or influence any witness -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 11-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 238, 240, 243, 489C – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Counterfeit currency – Proclaimed offender – Regular bail – Petitioner remained a proclaimed offender and had been evading his arrest for as long as 15 years – However, instant case is a case where the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement of co-accused, who has since expired and no recovery of any counterfeit currency and coin was effected from the petitioner – Petitioner behind bars since the last about 1 ½ years – Trial is not likely to be concluded in immediate future as only 2 PWs out of cited 16 PWs have been examined till date – Petition accepted and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of – Arrest in another case -- Since the applicant is in custody in connection with another case, the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. would not lie and would not be maintainable.

(Para 12)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7 and 13(1) (b), 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Corruption case -- Regular bail – Illegal gratification of Rs. 7,000/- for entering inheritance mutation – Though investigation is complete conclusion of the trial is likely to take time; moreso, sanction to prosecute u/s 19 of the Act is still awaited; no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and he volunteers to give his voice sample, the petitioner granted bail.

(Para 1-5)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(3), 14, 14A(2), 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Anticipatory bail – Jurisdiction of High Court -- The word bail in section 14A(2) would include anticipatory bail also – Firstly, the accused should have approached the Special Court for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. -- Appellate jurisdiction alone can be exercised by the High Court, order granting or rejecting the anticipatory bail u/s SC/ST Act shall be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 14A of the Act and not Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(Para 13-26)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173 -- NDPS case – Challan without FSL report -- Default bail -- SHO moved an application before the expiry of period of 180 days and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the same date sought report from the learned P.P. and on the same date allowed the application for grant of extension of time for a further period of two months but without giving any notice to the petitioner in this regard -- Condition of giving notice to the accused has to be satisfied as observed in Sanjay Kumar Kedia’s case 2009 (17) SCC 631 -- Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge while dismissing the application for grant of default bail although referred to the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Kedia’s case has not followed the judgment in true perspective -- Revision petition allowed, the petitioner ordered to be released on default bail u/s 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 7-10)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), 132(1)(a),(h),(k) (l), 132(5) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Evasion of GST – Regular bail -- Transportation of unmanufactured tobacco weighing about 35,57,450 kgs. for clandestine manufacture and supply of zarda without payment of leviable duties and taxes -- Petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation completed and the charge sheet filed -- Punishment may extend to 5 years and fine – Petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial would take some time -- Evidence to be tendered would essentially be documentary and electronic -- Ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Summary case – Regular trial – Specific order of Magistrate – Requirement of -- When the evidence of the parties, in the chief examination, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) were recorded in verbatim and was faithfully placed on record then for merely not recording the order observing that the matter would be tried as a summons case or as a regular trial would not itself vitiate the trial conducted by the Magistrate of the Trial Court, when it has not resulted in miscarriage of justice – Ld. Sessions Judge’s Court only on technicalities set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and ordered for a de-novo trial -- Sessions Judge's Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on its merit – Revision allowed, judgment passed by ld. ASJ set aside, matter remanded to ld. ASJ for its fresh disposal, in accordance with law.

(Para 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 (2) (i) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for a period of 03 years, 04 months and 21 days and not involved in any other case -- Victim has not given any history with regard to penetrative sexual assault during the course of her medical examination -- Victim is not coming forth to depose in the trial Court despite substantial number of adjournments -- Statement of the mother of the victim during the course of trial, that the victim has eloped with some boy on 07.02.2021 – Held, petitioner cannot be incarcerated for a long period of time, particularly, only on the score that the victim is not putting appearance in the trial Court -- Conclusion of trial may take some more time -- Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 323 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Physical relation on pretext of marriage -- Petitioner and the prosecutrix were in relationship for a period of 11 years -- It will remain a debatable and moot point as to whether the petitioner was in consensual relationship with the prosecutrix or it was on the basis of false promise to solemnize marriage -- Allegations with regard to sexual assault upon the minor daughter of the prosecutrix have emerged at a subsequent stage to the registration of the FIR -- Petitioner is in custody for a period of 05 months and 16 days and is not involved in any other case – Out of 18 witnesses till date no witness has been examined -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Sufficient mitigating circumstances are made out to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 37, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Recovery of 500 grams of heroin – Charges framed on 28.09.2021, about 18 adjournments granted but no prosecution witness examined except one formal witness – Prosecution witnesses are the official witnesses -- Petitioner in incarceration for about 2 years, 1 month and 24 days – Argument that petitioner is falsely implicated get substantiated from the fact that for 18 times no prosecution witness came forward for deposition -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Not argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he may repeat the offence or may abscond from justice -- Both the conditions for making a departure from the bar contained u/s 37 of the NDPS Act satisfied – Court deemed it fit and proper to grant the regular bail to the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of order declaring accused proclaimed person – Submitted that the petitioner was never served with the summons and has now come to know about the pendency of the complaint and he is ready to surrender before the trial Court and face the trial -- Issuance of notice of motion to respondents dispensed with, petition allowed, impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed persons, set aside -- Petitioner directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and on doing so, the trial Court will release him on bail -- Till then arrest stayed.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- Second regular bail application – Recovery of 1 kg 530 grams of heroin – Hon’ble Apex Court passed orders and has observed in others cases that long custody of the accused can be considered for grant of regular bail even in case of commercial quantity, leaving the question (whether recovery of contraband is of commercial quantity or otherwise) as the same is to be considered by the trial Court at the relevant stage on the basis of material to be adduced by the prosecution -- Taking into consideration the custody of the petitioner since 14.10.2019, stage of the trial and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376B, 376(2)(N), 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a doctor in a government hospital where the complainant was allegedly working as a nurse -- FIR indicates that parties were in a physical relationship since May 2016 -- FIR was lodged in October 2017 -- In the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation is not required – Direction given in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dowry death – Regular bail to mother-in-law – Deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage – As per allegations in the FIR itself on the day of death, the petitioner had informed the complainant about the deceased having locked herself inside the room – After the occurrence the in-laws had shifted the deceased to the hospital – Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act is attracted or not would be subject to the outcome of the trial – Out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 3 witnesses have been examined – Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 1,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Suicide note show that the deceased was under extreme stress and tension on account of matrimonial discord and on account of pendency of some litigation pertaining to grant of maintenance -- It will certainly be debatable as to whether the aforesaid conduct as mentioned in the suicide note would qualify to be termed as an abetment to commit suicide -- Petitioner has joined investigation and she is not required for any custodial interrogation -- Petitioner not involved in any other case -- Interim directions made absolute.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Compromise between parties – On an earlier occasion, anticipatory bail of co-accused was dismissed – Considering the fact that the petitioners and the complainant belong to the same family and they have reconciled the things, petition allowed – Petitioners granted the concession of anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 8)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19, 21(b), 27, 29, 59(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 7, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341, 394 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Bribe for nor registering case -- Regular bail -- Accused proclaiming themselves to be Incharge of STF Punjab police, recovered 5 grams of Heroin from one Bhullar, kept the contraband and accepted the bribe of Rs.19,000/- for not registering the case – Considering that co-accused were granted bail by the Court, the petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2022, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, sanction to prosecute has not been received, the petitioner being a police official prima-facie there is no chance of his absconding, bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Right to expeditious trial -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- High Court declined to grant bail on the ground that the quantity seized was a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 would preclude the grant of bail -- There has been no progress in the trial -- Appellant is in custody for over four years -- A period of five years would be completed in February 2023 -- Having due regard to the right of the appellant to an expeditious trial within the ambit of Article 21, the appellant should be released on bail -- Appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 8-10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 – Life and liberty – Arrest of accused -- Object of arrest is neither punitive nor preventive -- It has become very common to put criminal law in motion even though dispute involved is purely contractual or civil in nature -- Many times arrest entails deprivation of source of income of entire family besides forever stigma in a closely knit society like ours -- There is neither mechanism to compensate a man who is later on found innocent nor acquittal can return valuable time, energy, status, future of family members especially children which is lost on account of incarceration of bread earner of the family -- 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 --  Life of every human being is most precious gift of God and everyone has very limited span of life which cannot be spoiled on account of incompetence, personal grudge, vengeance of someone; or brutal, illegal, unethical action of the State machinery.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 302, 328, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 446, 482 -- Constitution of India,  Section 21 – Murder trial -- Jump of bail – Quashing of Non-bailable warrants/ Cancellation of bail bond. Held,

i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone as proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The petitioner has come forward to face trial and undertakes to appear before trial court on each and every date, thus, his presence would meet ends of justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-;

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court;

iv) The petitioner is resident of Jagraon and trial is pending at Ludhiana, thus jurisdictional court and police authorities have direct access over the activities of the petitioner.

v) The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by this Hon'ble High Court;

vi) Trial is pending since 2017 and petitioner is ready to face trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or complainant;

Petition allowed, petitioner directed to appear before Trial Court on 09.12.2022 and furnish fresh bail bond/surety bond to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 1, 14 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail – Petitioner has no criminal antecedents – Allegations are transporting alcohol, which is the State’s privilege, without paying the revenue and in violation of the State’s Excise Policy -- Given the sentence prescribed, the nature of evidence, and other factors and circumstances peculiar to the case, it may be appropriate to afford the petitioner a final opportunity to course-correct -- Maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years – Petitioner makes a case for bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-9, 24)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B(2), 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Habitual offender -- Regular bail -- Snatching of Rs.8,200/, mobile phone, ATM card and Activa Scooter – State opposed the bail on the ground that petitioner happens to be involved in 5 more cases and as such he is a habitual offender -- Petitioner behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year & 6 months and the trial has not even commenced till date as charges are yet to be framed, further detention of the petitioner will not be justified -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A -- Cheque bounce case – Conditional bail by Trial Court with deposit of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount -- Section 143A of Act, 1881 was introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2018 – Submission that entire process of filing complaint took place prior to insertion of Section 143A of N.I Act and Section 143A of N.I. Act is not retrospective in nature – Issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.J. Raja’s case 2019(19) SCC 469 -- Impugned order qua imposition of condition of payment of interim compensation while granting bail quashed.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B, 120-B, 302, 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 -- Murder – Dowry death – Regular bail to mother-in-law -- Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is in custody for a period of 01 years, 08 months and 27 days -- It will be debatable and moot point during the course of trial as to whether it was a case of ante-mortem strangulation or suicidal hanging -- Out of 25, examination-in-chief of only one witness has been recorded and thereafter, an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C has been moved -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and no fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41A, 439 – Regular bail -- Binding precedent -- Though, it is always said that the High Court is not a Court to subordinate to the Supreme Court -- However, when the High Court deals with judgments of Supreme Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect -- The learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court in the impugned judgment has observed “27. A parental guidance by the Supreme Court through the judgment in Arnesh Kumar’s case is thus not a sword of Damocles either in respect of police officers or Magistrates who exercise the power of arrest and remand respectively.” – Held, with great respect to the learned Judge, such observation is totally unwarranted – Observations made in the judgment, which are contrary to the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar’s case would not be treated as a binding precedent in the State of Telangana.

(Para 4-12)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3, 14-A (2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438(2), 482 -- Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act -- Complaint/FIR should disclose the caste of the offenders alone, it should disclose that the appellants-accused were aware about the caste of the complainant as well – The element of intentional, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public view, should clearly be borne out from the FIR -- Merely uttering such words in the absence of intention/mens-rea to humiliate the complainant in public view, every such quarrel or altercation between the members of non-scheduled caste & scheduled caste and if the imputations are grossly vague and perfunctory, would not, ipso facto, constitute acts of commission of offence, which are capable of cognizance under the Act -- All the essential/basic ingredients of the offence are deeply lacking in the complaint, which formed the basis of FIR -- Appellants directed to join investigation and in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 8-11)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Common tendency and frequency of the complainants of involving and roping the accused on vague & bald allegations under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act, have been tremendously increasing day-by-day in our society -- Even the plain and simple occurrence under the Indian Penal Code is given the colour of offence under Section 3 of the special Act by adding false and vague allegations -- This tendency needs to be curbed -- If not discouraged, in that eventuality, it will ultimately weaken those true cases of the prosecution as well even against the real culprits and the very object and purpose of the Act, would pale into insignificance in this relevant behalf.

(Para 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20-B, 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Default bail -- Recovery of 2 kilograms and 200 grams of 'Ganja' – Challan without FSL -- Report of the FSL forms the foundation of the case of prosecution and in case the same is not there the entire case of prosecution falls to ground -- Court deemed appropriate to extend the concession of bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner while also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 4 months.

(Para 1, 9-11)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Child in conflict with law – Bail -- While dealing with the bail petition of the petitioner, the mandate of Section 12 of the Act, is required to be followed -- Objective of Section 12 of the Act, is reformative in nature -- There is no material or circumstance on record to hold that if released on bail, the petitioner would come into contact with the known criminals -- Reasoning of the Board that it would expose the petitioner to the psychological danger does not seem to be emanating from the given circumstances -- FIR was registered on 17.10.2021 and the petitioner has been in protective custody since 19.10.2021 – Petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Condition to deposit salary – Sustainability of -- High Court granted pre-arrest bail on the condition that she will return the salary which she has received while working as a Panchayat Teacher – Held condition of returning the amount drawn by her as salary on appointment as Panchayat Teacher is neither justified nor required under the law while grant of pre-arrest bail to her, condition set aside.

(Para 2-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with u/s 439(2) CrPC.

(Para 19)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304B, 498A, 34 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Sections 3, 4 – Bail in dowry death case by ASJ – Cancellation of bail --  It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her – Held, power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail – In a case where bail has already been granted, upsetting u/s 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case -- Over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail – High Court cancelled the bail -- High Court’ order set aside, order of First Additional Sessions Judge, restored.

(Para 20-21)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 22(c), 25, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 350 grams of ‘heroin’ from co-accused – Petitioner nominated as accused on disclosure statement – Recovery of 40 grams of ‘heroin’ from petitioner when apprehended – Alleged recovery from the petitioner fall under ‘non-commercial’ quantity – Petitioner in custody for more than 1 year, conclusion of trial is likely to consume time as not even a single PW out of the cited 20 PWs examined – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1,2,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Absence from Trial – Cancellation of bail -- Petitioner on bail was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however, on account of noting a wrong date, he absented and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued – Petitioner directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and he will be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail/surety bonds.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dowry death – Regular bail to husband -- Marriage in May, 2014, wife committed suicide on 4th March, 2021 – In FIR allegations pertaining to harassment caused to the deceased on account of demand of dowry -- Material witnesses examined -- Two minor children are with the grandparents -- Allegations regarding demand of dowry are general in nature -- In the cross-examination, complainant deposed that he did not remember any specific date of harassment caused or demand of dowry made – No cash and vehicle was given in the marriage -- Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses examined -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents -- Court cannot ignore the fact that there are two minor children whose future is also at stake – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(C) & 29, 37, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Defective offer for search – Regular bail – Rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Offer for getting the petitioner searched from three persons i.e. ASI himself or the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer – No justification for the ASI, who allegedly apprehended the petitioner, absented himself from the Court for a number of times and the trial Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against him twice -- Held, there are prima facie reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of offence at least at this stage -- Petitioner not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents -- Both the ingredients for making a departure from the bar contained u/s 37 of the NDPS Act remain satisfied – Bail granted.

(Para 7-9)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS case – Defective offer for search -- In a large number of cases, defective offers are made u/s 50 of the NDPS Act -- Concerned police officials are either lacking in training or they are exercising the powers in a mala fide intention -- Statutory provisions which are mandatory in nature have to be complied with in true spirit -- Copy of the order sent to the Director General of Police, Punjab to look into the issue where the mandatory statutory provisions of the NDPS Act are not complied with by the police officers in the State of Punjab.

(Para 12,13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 260 tablets of Etizolam --  Contention that FIR registered within three months after issuance of notification and the petitioner was not aware about the same and in fact, salt Etizolam is antianxiety medicine, which is being prescribed by the doctor – Despite lapse of about 01 year, when the charges were framed, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future and in view of order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Gurpreet Singh’s case CRM-M-1212-2022, petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix went missing from home on 10.01.2021 and was recovered on 25.01.2021 -- Petitioner is behind bars from 25.01.2021 -- Out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 10 examined including the complainant and the victim -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents -- Allegations in the FIR by father that there were friendly relations between the petitioner and the victim which were not acceptable to them -- Trial of the case will take sufficient long time -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392, 397, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Robbery – Regular bail -- Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case, but while noticing that the petitioner behind bars since the last about 7 months and otherwise has a clean record and that none of the cited 9 PWs has been examined till date, further detention of the petitioner would not be justified – Petition accepted, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –While granting bail High court observed “… Though on the one side, there is a possibility of such hugs and kisses being manifestations of affection by an uncle, one cannot ignore the possibility of such show of 'affections' being coloured by sexual overtones. However, those are all matters for investigation.” – Held, observations made are totally unwarranted and have been made overlooking the specific allegations contained in the FIR, duly supported with the Statement of the victim-girl child u/s 164 of the Code – High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free-hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –Victim-girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail.

(Para 12)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail -- Charge-sheet filed -- It will be unfair to presume that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

(Para 14)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Custodial interrogation -- In many anticipatory bail matters, one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted -- There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.

(Para 15)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – Prima facie case – Nature of offence -- Custodial interrogation -- There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail -- First and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused -- Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail -- However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

(Para 15

F. Binding precedent – Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of High Court --  Decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in the Joy’s case (2019) 1 KLT 935 deals with Section 29 of the POCSO Act -- When the learned Judge decided the anticipatory bail application, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Joy was binding to him -- He could not have ignored a binding decision -- It is a different thing to say that if he may disagree with the view taken and accordingly refer it to a larger Bench.

(Para 16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(C), 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Commercial quantity – Bail by High Court after one year custody – Large quantity of contraband weighing about 13 kgs of morphine recovered – In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail – Appeals allowed, view taken by the High Court set aside,  appellants ordered to be taken in custody forthwith – Charge-sheet has been filed, Trial Court to take up the matter and conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months.

(Para 3-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 120B, 323, 324 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – FIR in matrimonial dispute --Anticipatory bail – Condition of ad-interim compensation of Rs.10 lacs in favour of wife – Legality of – Held, no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs.10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail -- Appeal allowed and the order passed by the High Court directing the appellant to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs is hereby set aside.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A, 34, 411 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching of mobile – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody from 15.07.2022, stated to be not involved in any other case and is not a habitual offender -- Challan presented, petitioner was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused -- Court deemed it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2, 6)