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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 511 – 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 -- Attempt to do unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Undoubtedly, petitioner is found involved in unnatural and shameful activity, though, could not fully succeeded in his malicious aim -- Still considering the fact that both the material witnesses i.e. victim and the complainant have already been examined and petitioner, who is said to be of 54 years of age, is not involved in any other similar shameful act in his past – Petitioner is inside jail for the last more than 07 months -- Court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 468, 411, 427, 447 – Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), Section 2 -- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 23 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Stringent conditions -- Bail condition that the petitioner shall not visit the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh – Serious apprehension on the part of the CBI / investigating agency that if condition is relaxed and/or modified and/or substituted, there would be threat to the witnesses because of the power and influence that the applicant is having – Held, it is very unfortunate that even after a period of 11 years of filing the FIR and despite the observations made by this Court directing the trial to be expedited, the trial has not begun – Application for modification dismissed -- Learned trial Court / Special Court directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis and to conclude the trial within a period of six months from 09.11.2022 without fail -- Prosecution may examine first, the witnesses from Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh as far as possible -- It will be the duty of the investigating agency to keep all the witnesses present for the purpose of their depositions / examination in chief -- All the accused directed to cooperate the learned Special Court in conclusion of the trial at the earliest and within the period stipulated hereinabove and any attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial shall be viewed very seriously -- Daughter of the applicant has delivered a child recently and now she is at Bellary, the applicant is permitted to stay at Bellary upto 06.11.2022 -- Specifically directed that the applicant shall move out of Bellary and remain out of Bellary in Karnataka and Districts of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh from 07.11.2022 till the trial is concluded.

(Para 13,14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail on parity – Sustainability of -- Respondent No. 2/ accused initiated the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, which were dismissed – SLP also dismissed -- Non-bailable warrant issued thereafter, he was arrested in the year 2021 -- All the aforesaid aspects, which are very material and/or relevant while considering the prayer for bail have been ignored by the High Court while releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail – High Court while considering the parity has not at all considered the role attributed to the said co-accused and the allegations against respondent No. 2 – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainable – Order quashed and set aside – Respondent No.2 to surrender with two weeks.

(Para 2.1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 30 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 4-12-2021 -- Nature of allegations, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody of more than nine months, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further 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 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 186, 332, 34, 353, 307 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 14-04-2022 -- Nature of allegations, and injuries inflicted by the petitioner, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody of more than five months, coupled with the other factors, there would be no justifiability for further 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 -- Petitioner makes a case for bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 6-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail – Parity -- High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail -- Order granting bail to the co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – High Court granted bail to the co-accused while ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the mandate of Article 21 -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 12-14, 20)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Regular bail – Custody period – Relevancy of -- Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 15-20)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(4)(w)(i) – POCSO matter – Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 438 – Attempt to murder -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Anticipatory bail – Prosecution agencies did not consider it appropriate to arraign the petitioner as an accused -- Thus, a view favouring the petitioner exists, and on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(Para 2-5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused person for release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence -- Additionally, the Court must be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Expression “reasonable grounds” would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence -- For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence -- Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 14)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty -- Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not -- Entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail -- Focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.

(Para 15)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail – No recovery from respondent/accused –  On disclosures made by the respondent, NCB raided the godown of the co-accused, which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups -- It was the respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused, who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other – Circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged -- Such an assumption would be premature at this stage -- Appeals allowed the impugned order releasing the respondent on post-arrest bail, quashed and set aside.

(Para 17-19)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail – Length of the period of custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent u/s 37 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- No phone calls exchanged between the petitioner and the main accused from whom the recovery has been effected – Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further investigation -- Petition allowed, interim order ordered to be made absolute.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 323, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- No cogent inculpation, drawn against the petitioner, in the testification, as made by the informant -- Rather there is not even an iota of any incrimination qua any incriminatory participation of the petitioner, in the crime -- No evidence adduced by the prosecution, suggestive of the fact, that in the event of the bail petitioner being enlarged on regular bail, there is every likelihood of hers fleeing from justice, and/or, tampering with prosecution evidence -- Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate to prolong the judicial incarceration of the petitioner any longer, as, thereupon her personal liberty would become unnecessarily fettered, and, curtailed -- Petitioner ordered to be released from judicial custody on bail.

(Para 5-8)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(b), 27A, 29, 37 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act -- Financing illicit trafficking in contrabands and harbouring offenders -- Allegations that respondent/ accused got the contraband procured and then got it planted in the vehicle occupied by the three persons – Recovery of 76 grams of cocaine from the vehicle, and three persons arrested – When the case against the respondent/accused of getting the contraband planted in the vehicle in question is prima facie disbelieved the questions concerning possession of contraband, its quantity or financing are all rendered redundant -- There being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.

(Para 4, 5.4, 16.4, 17)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(b), 27A, 29, 37 -- NDPS case – Habitual offender -- Financing illicit trafficking in contrabands and harbouring offenders – Regular bail -- Allegations that respondent/ accused got the contraband procured and then got it planted in the vehicle occupied by the three persons – Recovery of 76 grams of cocaine from the vehicle, and three persons arrested – Respondent/accused involved in 53 criminal cases – Convicted in two of them; there had been several allegations of threatening the Investigating Officers and public servants; even in the present case too, he had allegedly threatened and misbehaved with the police officers and has been charge-sheeted for offences u/s 353 and 506 IPC – Bail granted by High Court with conditions -- Respondent has not been involved in any NDPS Act case or any akin offence in the past -- Nothing of any contraband article has been recovered from the respondent or from any place under his exclusive control -- That being the position, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be an altogether unacceptable or impossible view of the matter – Aspect relating to tendency to flee has been duly taken care of with the conditions as imposed by the High Court -- No reason to interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions.

(Para 4, 5.4, 18, 19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused after grant of bail – Cancellation of bail – Rule of natural justice -- Address mentioned in the Court notice, being an incorrect description thereof, petitioner/accused did not come to be validly served on his correct address, hence the learned trial Magistrate concerned, could not conclude that any valid service, became caused upon him, nor could he conclude, that there was any willful, and, deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, to cause his personal appearance -- Contrarily, it became incumbent upon the learned Magistrate, to after discovering the correct address, cause there his valid service however,  did not recourse, the above measure -- Impugned order quashed, and, set aside -- Petitioner directed to cause his personal appearance before the learned Magistrate.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3, 4, 14-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452, 354, 323, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Dismissal of anticipatory bail by Session Court – Remedy against -- Petitioner apprehending arrest has come up before High Court again u/s 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail – Held, as per Section 14-A of SCSTPOA, 1989, an appeal would lie against an order of bail – Present petition is not maintainable -- Since the petitioner has chosen the wrong provision of law, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal under section 14-A of SCSTPOA and to enable the petitioner to do so, arrest stayed for two weeks.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 167(2), 173(5)  – Challan without FSL -- Default bail – Life of default bail -- Trial Court, while allowing the application u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 173 (5) Cr.P.C., granted default bail to the petitioner, but put a condition that bail order will remain operative till the time, FSL report is submitted – In similar circumstances, CRR-353-2022 disposed of in terms of Suresh v. State of Haryana, CRR 1135 of 2020 wherein the petitioner was permitted to be conditionally released on bail with clarification that in case of any different result comingforth from that in the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order, if warranted at that stage -- Petition disposed of in the same terms as in CRR-353-2022.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are that they duped the complainant for a sum of Rs. 90 Lacs – Petitioner is a lady aged just 39 years, considering the allegations and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the petitioner, on this ground alone she is entitled to bail --  Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct -- Maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years -- Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 apply to this petition – Possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions – Petition allowed, conditions imposed.

(Para 6-28)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 18(b), 25, 29, 60, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- 5.83 Kgs of opium recovered – Death of younger brother -- Interim bail --  Younger brother of the petitioner passed away and his rasam pagri/bhog is scheduled for 24.06.2022 -- Petition disposed of, Superintendent, District Jail directed to ensure that the petitioner is taken in custody to the venue of Rasam Pagri/Bhog on 24.06.2022 by 10:00 AM and shall ensure that he is brought back to the jail premises by or before 5:00 PM on the same day itself.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner -- General and oblivious allegations of causing injuries to the complainant – Even the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body and the weapons claimed to have been used in the occurrence are blunt weapons – Further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2022 – No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and her continued incarceration in judicial custody is not likely to advance any interest of justice – Petition allowed and the petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(Para 1-6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 78, 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Excise matter – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Total 120 bottles of liquor were recovered from the WagonR belonging to petitioner KS and 480 bottles of 750 ml each were recovered from the car belonging to the petitioner S@G -- Liquor, purchased by the petitioners from Chandigarh for onward sale in Ludhiana – Petitioners are in custody since 01.05.2022 and investigation is already complete and maximum prescribed sentence is three years -- Taking into consideration the facts noticed, the role attributed, the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of the case as well as the period of custody already undergone by the petitioners, Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petitions -- Petitioners admitted to regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Theft of electricity -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct -- Maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years -- Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 apply to the petition -- Possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions – Petition allowed, conditions imposed.

(Para 6-27)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Recovery of 206 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure that he sold 250 grams of opium to petitioner – Only on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner is sought to be roped in – Petitioner was earlier an accused in an offence under the IPC, but he stands acquitted in that case – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 380, 457 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Theft in dwelling house – Anticipatory bail -- Lock of inner door of house was broken and theft of LCD, Gas Cylinder, stove, gold ornaments, utensils and cash occurred – Only on the basis of disclosure statement by some of the apprehended persons / accused, the petitioner has been roped in – No recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is not involved in any other case – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 302 and 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Unlawful assembly -- Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- Therefore, it would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Concealment of filing earlier bail application -- Law is well settled that where a process is “ex debito justitiae” the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides. 

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 365, 395, 397, 506, 412 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity case – Regular bail – Parity with co-accused -- Truck was looted, a mobile phone and Rs.7,000/- in cash were snatched from complainant – Complainant was taken to a place after blindfolding him and was later on released -- Co-accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein he named the present petitioner -- Custody since 20.09.2020, challan already stand presented -- Co-accused, who nominated the petitioner have already been granted concession of regular bail alongwith one more co-accused – Purely on the parity with co-accused, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1 kg of opium – Petitioner behind bars since 16.04.2022 – Petitioner is facing another FIR, though not under NDPS Act – Keeping in view the fact that challan has not yet been presented and the trial is going to take long time, the petitioner held entitled for concession of regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A IPC (Section 363 IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping – Procuration of minor girl – Regular bail – Compromise between parties – Petitioner ordered to be release on regular bail.

(Para 4-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 384, 365, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Occurrence is of 16.08.2017 and the postmortem conducted on 05.09.2017 – As per the medical evidence “the death could have occurred 5 to 6 weeks prior to the postmortem examination” – As per the statement of PW-8, no cause of death could be ascertained in the case – Petitioner is behind the bars since 03.09.2017 and there is no other case pending against him -- Case is based on circumstantial evidence – Even on 25.08.2020 when the co-accused granted regular bail, it was contended that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, 19 have already been examined – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 2-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15, 27-A, 29, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 9 kg of poppy husk -- Co-accused granted regular bail -- Petitioner prays parity with co-accused -- Challan has already been presented in the case -- More so, 16 prosecution witnesses need to be examined -- Trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 376-D, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is approximately 18 years whereas the age of prosecutrix is 28 years, who is also the paternal aunt of the petitioner – Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2021 and is in custody since then – Main witness has already been examined whereas nine other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and the petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2021, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 120-B, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds have not been cancelled or forfeited to the State -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 2-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(C), 27A/61/85, 36A(4) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167 (2) -- NDPS case – Default bail -- Commercial quantity –  Challan without FSL report -- No application was moved by the public prosecutor under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days – Further, no report of public prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation – Held, report of FSL goes to the root of the case and is a material document and as such, filing of challan without the same is not to be treated as complete challan – Impugned order rejecting default bail to the petitioner set aside and the petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(vii-a), 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Second regular bail application -- Recovery of 1 kg of Charas in polyethene bag – Whether commercial quantity – Held, quantity more than 1 Kg would be commercial quantity – As per the prosecution case, the ‘Charas’ along with the plastic polythene bag, weighed 1 Kg -- Thus, even if the fact that the plastic bag also carries some weight is not taken into account then, also the quantity recovered would be of non-commercial quantity and thus, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted – Petitioner in custody since 22.12.2021 and there are 11 witnesses, none has been examined -- Petitioner not involved in any other case -- Petitioner earlier filed a regular bail application which was withdrawn on 28.04.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition after going through the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. – Petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4), 37  -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Challan without FSL report – Application for extension of time by SHO -- Default bail -- Petitioner was sent to custody on 23.09.2021, challan was presented on 17.03.2022, without FSL report -- Along with the challan application u/s 36A(4) NDPS Act seeking extension of time filed -- Said application was not forwarded by the public prosecutor or additional public prosecutor --  Law requires that such an application should be supported by a report of public prosecutor, which indicates the progress of the investigation and further specify the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days – No such report of public prosecutor was filed along with the application – Held, request for extension of time made by the prosecution agency was not in accordance with law -- Impugned order rejecting default bail to the petitioner set aside and the petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 452, 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Complicity of the petitioner in the offence would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than 10 months would be entitled to be released on bail as 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Without delving into the merits or demerits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Commercial Quantity – Regular bail – Rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Relaxation from -- On account of delay in the conclusion of the trial, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed despite the fact that petitioner has been found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband -- Petitioner is in custody since 29.08.2019 and only three out of 32 witnesses have been examined so far – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner joined the investigation for four times – There was one to one financial transactions between the parties and some material was supplied by the complainant to the petitioner -- There appears to be breach of contract between the parties -- Petitioner also issued some cheques of the disputed amount and regarding which proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act are still pending – Therefore, objection that it was only for the recovery of money and for some IT equipments that his custodial interrogation is required, cannot sustain in view of the fact that it is a settled law that the police is not a recovery agent – Petition allowed.

(Para 7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)n -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape case-- Regular bail – Petitioner is behind bars since 16.01.2020 -- Alleged occurrence took place in July, 2019 whereas, the present FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2020 -- Though the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, however, out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses including all the material witnesses already stand examined -- Thus, the chances of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner definitely does not survive any more -- Petitioner has no criminal antecedents -- Trial will take sufficient long time -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of the evidence -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Mortgage property sold to complainant -- Settlement/ compromise with Complainant – Amount due to the bank stands paid and bank has issued No Due Certificate (NDC) -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3, 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 107 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Accused must instigate the deceased with an intention that the person should commit suicide -- It would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner aided in the commission of the suicide in any manner or instigated the deceased to commit suicide -- As per the FIR, the petitioner and his father-in-law were reprimanding the deceased not to do obscene acts -- Petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2022 and the challan stands submitted -- None of the prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- No suicide note has been recovered and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents -- Trial of the case is not likely to conclude in the near future, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-9)