Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 325, 323, 500, 341, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder -- Regular  bail -- Second bail application – Petitioner in custody since 10.05.2021 and there are 18 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time -- Sole injury attributed to the petitioner is on the right leg of the complainant, which is a non-vital part, which, at best, could attract provisions of Section 325 IPC – Earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition after the complainant is examined, but in spite of a lapse of more than seven months from the date of the withdrawal of the said petition, the complainant has not been examined and even the other witnesses have not been examined -- Complainant has been declared as a proclaimed offender in another FIR and thus, the chances of recording of his evidence in the near future are very less -- Above-said facts entitle the petitioner to file the second petition for grant of regular bail -- Petition allowed, the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432(7), 433, 433A – Premature release – Crime in Gujarat and trial in Maharashtra -- Appropriate government for remission of sentence – After the conclusion of trial and the prisoner being convicted, stood transferred to the State where the crime was committed remain the appropriate Government for the purpose of Section 432(7) CrPC – State of Gujarat is competent to examine the application filed for pre-mature release.

(Para 11, 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432(7), 433, 433A – Power to suspend or remission of sentence – Appropriate Government – Concurrent jurisdiction of Centre and State -- U/s 432(7) CrPC, the appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments under Section 432(7) CrPC.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432(7), 433, 433A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376(2)(e )(g), 149 – Rape and murder case – Premature release -- Crime in Gujarat and trial in Maharashtra – Policy for pre-mature release of which State applicable – Held, all further proceedings have to be considered including remission or pre-mature release, as the case may be, in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred -- Respondents directed to consider the application of the petitioner for pre-mature release in terms of its policy dated 9th July, 1992 which is applicable on the date of conviction and may be decided within a period of two months.

(Para 14)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13 (1)(a)(ii) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating and corruption case – Regular bail -- Petitioners are in custody since 16.12.2021 -- Considering that the investigation is complete, challan stands presented, petitioners volunteer to give their specimen signatures, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioners are granted bail.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Bar of Section 37 NDPS Act -- Disclosure statement – Value of -- Petitioner in custody from 1.12.2021 has clean antecedents – Nominated purely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused -- For the purpose of considering the bar contained u/s 37 of NDPS Act, has to see as to whether apart from the disclosure statement, there is any other sufficient material available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner at this stage or not -- Apart from the aforesaid 5+9 phone calls there is no other material available with the prosecution atleast at this stage to connect the petitioner with the offence -- Disclosure statement of a co-accused would certainly be not admissible in evidence per-se -- Total number of calls are also spread over a period of more than 2 weeks -- At this stage there are prima facie reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Murder case -- Bail to juvenile -- General rule is bail and bail is to be denied only in cases falling under exceptions provided in the Section 12 – Considering that the petitioner is in custody since 2nd November, 2018, he is entitled to benefit of Section 12 of J.J. Act – No material to bring the case within the ambit of exceptions -- Criminal revision allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-bailable warrants – Bailable case – Need of anticipatory bail – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(Para 2)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1) -- Cancellation of bail -- Supreme Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court -- Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below: -

a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;

b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;

c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;

d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;

e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;

f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;

g) If he is likely to flee from the country;

h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;

i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.

j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.

Aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 506 -- Rape case -- Cancellation of bail -- High Court granted bail on sole ground of delay on the part of the appellant/complainant in lodging the FIR -- Criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 were brought to the notice of the High Court by the appellant/complainant and State has also confirmed that he is involved in at least four criminal cases – After bail, photographs appearing in the social media with his snapshots prominently displayed on posters/ hoarding in the forefront with the faces of some influential persons of the society in the backdrop, welcoming him with captions like “Bhaiyaa is back”, “Back to Bhaiyaa”, and “Welcome to Role Janeman” -- Brazen conduct of the respondent No.2 has evoked a bona fide fear in the mind of the appellant/complainant that she would not get a free and fair trial and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses -- Representation by appellant’ father to the Superintendent of Police expressing the very same apprehension – Held, respondent No. 2 does not deserve the concession of bail -- Impugned order quashed -- Respondent No. 2 directed to surrender.

(Para 26-31)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389, 421, 446 – Conviction in 4 cheque bounce cases – Suspension of sentence in appeals – Brother/Appellant stood surety for Rs. 1 lac – Convict/Appellant in appeals absented and bail bond/ surety bond forfeited – Appellate court directed the surety/appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lac each in four cases – Recovery warrants issued – Convict/ Appellant has already appeared before the lower Appellate Court -- Absence of convict/ appellant was beyond the control of the Surety/appellant – Penalty reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating case –Regular bail – Multiple complaints u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 and FIRs on the similar allegations as well – Petitioner is on bail in all the said cases -- Investigation in the case is complete and a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has also been filed – Petition allowed and petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(Para 8-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36(A) (4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case -- Default bail – Special court dismissed the application for default bail -- No FSL report was presented with challan, nor the same was presented uptil the time of the passing of the impugned order and the same was filed subsequent to the application filed u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C and passing of the impugned order – Petitioner in custody since 04.07.2020 i.e. 1 year and 10 months and there are as many as 28 witnesses, none of whom have been examined yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Co-accused granted interim bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India – Revision petition allowed at this stage and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail conditionally subject to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate -- In case, the question of law is held against the present petitioner and is contrary to the law laid down in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 then, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/ modification of this order, if warranted at that stage.

(Para 11-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 452, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190(1)(b), 438 – Murder case – Innocent in report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. – Summoning by Magistrate – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioners were found to be not involved in the alleged occurrence and their names were kept in Column No.2 in the final police report as submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.PC and now, they have been summoned by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate and petitioners had no role to play in the alleged crime, interim bail was given -- Petitioners have appeared before the ACJM and are not required for further custodial interrogation – Petition allowed and the interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 395, 397, 307, 34 and 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 25(1) (a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Robbery – Attempt to murder – Regular bail – Involvement in other case – Held, case for bail has to be considered on its own merits -- Even though the antecedents of an accused may be one amongst the relevant considerations while adjudicating a petition on merits for grant of bail, however, a mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity – FIR does not attribute any overt act on the part of the petitioner in the commission of the offence -- Involvement of the petitioner is only on the basis of a disclosure made by the co-accused -- Role attributed to the person and the evidence collected during the investigation by the Investigating Agency would invariably remain a prime consideration with the Court while considering the application of bail along with stage of the prosecution case and the period of custody – Bail granted.

(Para 3-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Suspension of sentence in appeal with pre-condition to deposit 20% of compensation – Held, pre-condition as imposed by the Additional Sessions judge, cannot be found fault with, being legal and in consonance with the provisions of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

(Para 1, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N), 506, 328, 34 (Sections 313, 406, 366 were added later on and Section 34 was deleted) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case -- Second regular bail application – Investigation Officer deposition took place – Prima facie, appears to be a consensual relationship, prosecutrix was a 30 years old woman -- Contention that there has been no material change in circumstances, after the withdrawal of the previous petition is bereft of any merit, as the Investigating Officer has since been examined -- Material witness/ prosecutrix also stands examined – 09 prosecution witnesses examined out of the 16 prosecution witnesses cited, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in near future -- Court, therefore, deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner during the trial, as he has been in custody since 14th January, 2021.

(Para 8, 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of non-bailable warrants – Petitioner ready to surrender and apply for regular bail -- Further submitted that since the petitioner is resident of Delhi, he has no local surety and he can furnish security bonds as per valuation certificate regarding his residential house, therefore, the trial Court may be directed to accept the bail/security bonds in this regard – Considering the limited prayer direction given that in case the petitioner appears before the trial Court within a period of 15 days, the trial Court will not insist upon furnishing a local surety and will accept any other surety/security bonds, on the basis of property offered by the petitioner.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 365 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder -- Abetment to suicide – Criminal conspiracy -- Regular bail -- Co-accused enlarged on Bail -- Submits that co-accused was named in the FIR and there is direct allegation against him, whereas name of the appellant surfaced during the investigation in the disclosure statement of co-accused, therefore, his case is on better footings – Challan was presented u/s 306 IPC, after deleting Sections 302 & 201 IPC -- Appellant is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months and 24 days; he is not involved in any other case and the case is still at the stage of framing of charge, therefore, it will take some time in conclusion of the trial – Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case appeal allowed, appellant ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-7)

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23, 38 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Custody of 8 years -- Appellant in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already -- Appellant is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life – Held, in the nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail – Prosecution seeks to examine 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully examined so far – Appeal allowed, appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 384, 387, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27,  54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 439 – Extortion matter -- Habitual offender – Regular bail -- All relevant recoveries effected at the instance of the bail applicant/ petitioner -- Report u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. filed -- No further cooperation of the bail applicant / petitioner required -- Applicant suffering judicial incarceration since 21.12.2021 – Petitioner admitted to bail -- Stringent conditions upon imposed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Involvement in other case – A mere involvement of the accused in other cases cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the petition for bail.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 452, 325, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 and 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25 and 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not attributed any role in the incident -- It is also not denied that there were two incidents -- There is no rebuttal of the submission that in the statement u/s 161 CrPC, the complainant has retracted his allegations against the petitioner and has specifically stated that the petitioner was not involved in the incident -- Besides, the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of more than 1 year and 08 months -- Only one witness has been examined so far out of 55 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution -- Conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time -- No further interest of justice would be served by continued incarceration of the petitioner – Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 427 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Absentee from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of -- Petitioner absented before trial Court, initially bailable warrants were issued and thereafter he was summoned through non-bailable warrants – Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 307, 379-B, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Unlawful assembly – Snatching matter – Anticipatory bail -- Role attributed to the petitioner is that he was a member of unlawful assembly and he barged into the shop of the injured having a cudgel (danda) and looted Rs.7,000/-from the drawer of the latter -- Recovery of the looted amount and danda is to be made from the petitioner – Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any further investigation -- Petition allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Appeal by convict -- Suspension of sentence – Deposit of fine of Rs. 2 lacs as pre-condition – Harsh and onerous condition -- Legality of -- Appeal of the petitioner is pending and the culpability of the offence is yet to be determined by the Court, therefore, any such onerous condition, as is likely to deprive the accused of the benefit of the order granting suspension of sentence, should not normally be imposed by a Court while granting a benefit -- Petition allowed and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, partly modified to the extent whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the fine as a pre-condition for suspension of sentence.

(Para 2-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985). Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Petitioners not named in the FIR -- No recovery has been effected from the petitioners and the alleged recovery effected from two co-accused -- Petitioners are implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused – Petitioners are in custody since 06.11.2020, 05.12.2020 and 23.04.2021 and challan has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic – Petitioners are not involved in any other case -- With respect to the call details, no dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the co-accused mentioned -- Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the record u/s 173 Cr.P.C – Petitions allowed, petitioners ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9-12)

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 -- Default bail -- FIR is dated 3.7.2021 when the petitioner was arrested -- Challan was presented on 30.12.2021 -- For the purpose of calculating the period of 180 days, the same is to be reckoned from the date of remand in custody i.e. 4.7.2021 and not from the date of arrest i.e. 3.7.2021 – While calculating from 4.7.2021, 180 days are completed on 30.12.2021 -- Challan has been presented on the last day i.e. on 30.12.2021 afternoon and, therefore, it cannot be said that the challan was presented after a period of 180 days – Order of ASJ dismissing application u/s 167(2), upheld.

 (Para 1-5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) – Dowry case -- Cancellation of anticipatory bail -- Criminal breach of trust -- It will remain a moot and debatable point during the course of trial as to whether any articles of istridhan were entrusted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (husband and father-in-law), if entrusted, whether any demand for return thereof was raised and if so, as to whether they had refused to return the said articles -- Proceedings u/s 406 and 498-A IPC are not meant for recovery of the dowry articles -- It remains disputed as to whether any such articles were entrusted or not, the refusal of bail only on the score that no recovery has been effected, particularly when respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have joined the investigation cannot be termed to be justified.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) – Dowry case -- Cancellation of anticipatory bail -- No allegation to the effect that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (husband and father-in-law) have misused or abused the concession of bail -- Even there is no allegation that there is any apprehension to the effect that they will in any manner flee from justice, hamper the investigation or intimidate the witnesses -- Impugned order even when tested on merits indicates that the same does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity which may provide justified ground for indulgence by High Court for cancellation thereof.

(Para 8)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17, 36A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case -- Default bail – Calculation of 180 days -- Petitioner was released on interim bail prior to the expiry of the period of 180 days -- Petitioner surrendered after the presentation of the challan with FSL report -- Period of interim bail is liable to be excluded and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the default bail u/s167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Para 10)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17, 37 -- Recovery of 5 kg. 40 grams of opium – Commercial quantity – As per the FIR it was a case of chance recovery and still provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was complied with by calling the gazetted officer and the search was made in his presence -- No ground for making any departure from the aforesaid bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail petition dismissed.

(Para 13, 17, 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 120-B, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case -- Regular bail -- No injury attributed with the weapon qua to the petitioner -- Petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2020 -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Dying declaration -- Holographic made dying declaration by the deceased did not name the petitioners to abet him to commit suicide -- Any subsequent statement, made by the deceased to any witness, becomes an oral dying declaration, and, its effect becomes completely subsumed besides becomes eclipsed within the realms of the scribed dying declaration -- Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate to order for the custodial interrogation of the petitioners-bail applicants, as, thereupons their personal liberty would become unnecessarily fettered, and, curtailed -- Bail applicants-petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail.

(Para 3, 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abetment to commit suicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner is the husband of the deceased -- Marriage was solemnized about 09 years prior to the occurrence -- Nothing to suggest that any complaint was submitted in any forum with regard to the marital discord by the deceased or her parental family during her life time -- Petitioner in custody for a period of 05 months and 04 days -- Investigation is complete, the charge has been framed and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime -- No fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody – Petition allowed.

(Para 1,5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(i)C, 61, 85, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case -- Anticipatory bail – Allegation that petitioner supplied Ganja weighing 5 kgs. 200 grams, to the principal offender – State submits that the above weight of above Ganja, makes it fall within the ambit of intermediate quantity – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable – Ad interim bail granted made absolute.

(Para 1, 3-5)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Child in conflict with law -- Rejection of bail -- Revision against -- Bail is the general rule and only in cases covered by exceptions provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, bail can be denied -- Impugned order stated that there is an apprehension that life of CCL would be in danger -- State is not in the position to substantiate the basis for the reasons recorded -- Impugned order set aside -- Matter remitted back to Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board to consider the matter afresh.

(Para 1-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Matrimonial dispute – Non-recovery of dowry articles -- Anticipatory bail – Petitioner joined investigation on interim bail -- Recovery of disputed dowry articles would not come in the way of confirmation of interim bail -- If at some stage the parties agree to reconcile their differences then the fact that they had spent some time in custody would be a circumstance which may come in the way of amicably settling the matter – Interim bail granted to petitioner made absolute -- Rajesh Sharma’s case (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Anil Rajput’s case 2010(6) RCR (Criminal) 1126 relied.

(Para 1,2,6,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 326, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Interim bail -- Submission by ld. State counsel that the bail applicants have meted the required/enjoined co-operation(s) to the investigating officer concerned -- After completion of investigations, the IO, is very promptly instituting an affirmative report u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. -- Not fit and proper case to order custodial interrogation of the bail applicants – Interim bail made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 248, 438, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 452, 506, 380 -- Anticipatory bail with a condition to deposit of Rs.1,10,000/- -- Acquittal in trial – Right to refund -- After acquittal, in a petition moved by the petitioner, High Court directed CJM for release of amount – CJM needlessly proceeded to interpret the order without any jurisdiction, and observed that filing of appeal against acquittal by complainant was not brought to the notice of High Court, therefore, the amount should not be disbursed to the applicant/accused till further clarification from the High Court – Held, CJM passed the order by giving irrational reasons, which not only show his dearth of understanding criminal jurisprudence & fundamental principles of law, but also reflect judicial indiscipline on his part, which amounts to grave misconduct and warrants departmental action against him -- Impugned order set aside -- Amount deposited by the petitioner ordered to be refunded forthwith -- Copy of the order sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for initiating departmental action against CJM.

(Para 2,3,9-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 395, 458, 307 (Section 325 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Dacoity – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was not named in the FIR, in supplementary statement recorded after three days, the complainant stated that at the time of registration of the FIR, he was under the influence of the medicine and forgot the name of the petitioner but now he is sure about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, but not attributed any specific role to him – Petitioner directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.

(Para 4-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case -- Regular bail – Surety/ Personal bond -- No criminal antecedents – Contention that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family – State contends that bail would encourage snatching, and such incidents are already rising – Petitioners are in custody since 12-09-2021; furthermore, they are the first offenders, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Petitioners shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-) and shall furnish one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-) – In the alternative, the petitioners may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-) -- It shall be the total discretion of the applicants to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits.

(Para 4-13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Possibility of influencing evidence – Conditions of bail -- 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.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36(4), 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case -- Default bail – Challan without FSL Report -- Expiry of 180 days -- Petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2020 and had moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 21.05.2021. i.e. after the expiry of 180 days -- Challan was prepared on 14.11.2020 and was presented on 24.11.2020 and no FSL report has been presented in the Court till date -- Petitioner has been in custody since 02.10.2020 i.e. 1 year and 4½ months and there are as many as 12 witnesses, none of whom have been examined yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time, moreso, in view of the present COVID-19 pandemic situation – Revision allowed at this stage and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail – In case question of law is held against the present petitioner and is contrary to the law laid down in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, then, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of this order, if warranted at that stage. Suresh’s case, (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15648 & Ajit singh @ Jeeta’s case (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 relied.

(Para 7, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – One year RI and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Sustainability of – Direction(s) appears to be oppressive, especially given that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs became assessed -- Necessarily, also it negates the efficacy of the impugned order, besides fetters the liberty of the petitioner – Held, Appellate Court was enjoined to ensure his bringing inter se proportionality inter se the compensation, and/ or the cheque amount, and, to thereafter, impose a tenable, and, just condition for the orders, suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the convict(s)-appellant(s), by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather taking the fullest effect, through his hence directing them to deposit a reasonable, and, just sum, before the learned trial Judge concerned – Petition accepted, Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(Para 6-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 326, 324, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Grievous hurt -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner fully co-operated with the investigations and has ensured the recovery of the incriminatory weapon of offence -- Victim has fully recovered from the injuries -- State submitted that it may not be any necessity for subjecting the bail petitioner to custodial interrogation – Held, submission is well merited, as any order subjecting the bail petitioner to custodial interrogation, despite his meteing the fullest co-operation to the investigating officer concerned, would curtail, and, fetter his personal liberty – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating and forgery – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 06th October, 2021, allegations levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that he had demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant to get her an appointment in the Human Rights Commission and had also received a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the same – Investigation in the matter is complete and it is a Magisterial trial -- Charges in the case are yet to be framed – Considering the custody period of the petitioner and the fact that petitioner is no longer required for investigation, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS case – Non-appearance of accused – Exemption from personal appearance – Non-seeking of -- Cancellation of bail – Legality of -- Absence on a singular occasion -- Petitioner was represented through his counsel – There was not a dire necessity to personally record his appearance -- Even if the accused had not sought his exemption from personal appearance, yet the learned trial Judge could not straightway proceed to, order for cancellation of his personal, and, surety bonds, and, that too without asking for an explanation with respect to the non-appearance of the accused -- Trial Court was expected to in the expediency of justice, to ensure his personal appearance, through initially upon, issuance of summons, upon the petitioner remaining intentionally unresponsive, thereafter issue non-bailable warrants, than at the outset issuing non-bailable warrants – Held, order for cancellation of personal, and, surety bonds of the petitioner, and, also for his being summoned through non-bailable warrants vacated, and, set aside.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 364-A, 365, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abduction case – Regular bail – Recovery on disclosure not effected –Disclosure statement maybe prima facie admissible, and, relevant evidence, and, its legal effect cannot become stalled, through the maker of the disclosure statement failing to, in pursuance thereof, ensure its recovery, to the I.O. – Bail petitioner made the disclosure, hence, impose a condition upon, him, that if he fails to, within seven days after his being admitted to bail, and, rather ensure effectuation of recovery, at his instance -- Since the bail petitioners are in judicial custody for the last four months, petitioners admitted to bail only subject to the afore referred condition, which shall apply only to the maker of the disclosure statement.

(Para 1,2,5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Robbery case -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law -- JJ Board and Appellate Court depended, upon the proviso to Section 12 of Act in concluding that upon facility of bail, there being every likelihood of his being brought in association with hardened criminals, and, that there is being every likelihood of his hence being exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger – However, both the ld. Courts proceeded to, without any tangible and concrete evidence with respect to the afore factum existing on record rather made the above conclusion prima-facie imaginative, and, also surmisal – Statutory leverage in the Courts below with an alternate being placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer, and/or, under the care of any fit person neither been explored, nor has been thought fit to be worked vis-à-vis the juvenile in conflict with law – Consequently, the impugned orders quashed, and, set aside, with a direction, that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released, and, shall be upon his release, become placed by the District Collector concerned, under, the supervision of the Child Welfare Officer.

(Para 8-12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Setting aside of -- Where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail -- Appellate Court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record.

(Para 12.2)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B –  Regular bail by High court – Setting aside of -- While releasing Respondent no.2 on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the relevant factors including the nature and gravity of accusation; the modus operandi and the manner in which the offences have been committed through shell companies and creating the false/forged documents and/or misusing the PAN Cards, Aadhar Cards and KYCs of the employees and showing them as Directors of the fake and shell companies -- High Court has not at all considered and taken into consideration the status report and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation -- Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 on bail is unsustainable as the High Court -- Impugned judgment quashed and set aside.

(Para 13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – FSL report awaited – Interim bail -- In view of the judgment rendered in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 and that the petitioner herein has been in custody since 17.09.2021 and that FSL report is still awaited and the trial will commence only after receipt of the FSL report, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim regular bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 – POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Allegation that petitioner has tried to do bad act with victim by forcibly kissing her and with intention to commit rape, he has broken the string of her Salwar – Prosecutrix is stated to be 17 years and 02 months of age -- Prosecutrix when was taken to hospital, she made a statement that she does not want to be medico-legally examined as no rape was committed with her -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 01 year and 11 months; he is not involved in any other case and also considering the fact that statement of the prosecutrix already stands recorded, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 – Embezzlement of Government supply – Regular bail -- Wheat of government supply was diverted to a private Mill – Wheat loaded in the Truck was being unloaded at the Mill -- Driver of the truck was apprehended at the spot -- He disclosed that the wheat bags were brought to the Mill on the asking of other person -- Petitioner is the mill owner and in custody since 09th July, 2021 -- Investigation is complete, challan stands presented and no recovery is to be made -- Case is based on documentary evidence -- Co-accused was granted bail – Conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner granted bail.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 498-A – Dowry case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation, however, the gold articles are yet to be recovered -- It is apparent that there are allegations and counter-allegations which is totally a subject matter of the investigation -- Interim bail made absolute.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 446A -- Breach of the bail condition – Personal hearing -- Cancellation of bail – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Warrant of arrest – It was incumbent, upon the learned Special Judge, to issue notice to them and also ensure their participation in the relevant proceedings, imperatively before his ordering for cancellation and forfeiting of personal and surety bonds of the bail petitioners and for his thereafter ordering for issuance of warrants of arrest – Issuance of warrants of arrest, prior to theirs being validly served with a notice has led to gross injustice -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed and set aside.

(Para 5-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446A -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Cancellation of bail bond – Non-bailable warrant issued -- Order does not disclose that the complainants evidence was present or not -- Consequently, the ld. Judicial Magistrate, could not draw any valid conclusion whether merely for non-appearance of the accused, and, of his counsel both were intending to delay the proceedings – Yet a reading of the order also makes a disclosure that the notice for ensuring the personal appearance of the accused before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, rather was issued -- No echoing in the order that the above notice was ever validly served or not upon accused – Therefore, the impugned order is ridden with the vice of breaching the principles of natural justice and also for its untenably interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 3-5)