Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 34 (Section 326 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Grievous hurt – Version Cross-version case -- Petitioner himself has suffered 3 injuries in the incident and the alleged grievous injury attributed to him is on a non-vital part and the petitioner has joined the investigation - Petition allowed, interim order made absolute.

(Para 5)

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 8 strips of 80 tablets of Cividol-100 SR and 3 strips of Etizolam tablets 0.5 mg (each strip containing 10 tablets) -- Sample parcel of Cividol-100 SR tablets contains salt Tramadol Hydrochloride (total weight 11.076 grams) and that of Etizolam tablets contains salt Etizolam (total weight 4.090 grams) – Petitioner in custody since 08.04.2021 -- Recovery in question was effected from ground -- Evidence has yet not commenced, conclusion of trial would take a long time -- No other case against the petitioner -- Investigation is complete -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b), 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Recovery of 1kg 600 grams of ganja -- Challan filed without FSL report – FIR is dated 22.12.2020, challan is stated to have been filed on 11.02.2021 -- FSL report not been filed till date – Petitioner would be entitled to be released on default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 2, 5, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379, 447, 506, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Criminal trespass and theft – Anticipatory bail – Petitioner and other accused cut trees standing in the land -- Primarily, there is land dispute between the parties and the matter is sub-judice -- Petitioner has already joined the investigation and is not required by the police for custodial interrogation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- NDPS case – Challan without FSL Report -- Default bail -- Recovery of 7000 tablets of ‘Clovidol-10 SR’ (Tramadol Hydrochloride) -- Supreme Court and also a full Bench of High Court have held that a challan even if not accompanied by a report of the Chemical Examiner or of the expert cannot be said to be incomplete, however, the said cases did not pertain to an offence under the NDPS Act -- A case under the NDPS Act can only survive in case the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally got done through FSL established by the Government -- Report of the FSL forms the foundation of the case of prosecution and in case the same is not there the entire case of prosecution falls to ground – Since there are some conflicting judgments of High Court and the matter stands referred to a Division Bench and is still sub-judice, Court deemed appropriate to extend the concession of bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner while also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 9 months and is not stated to be involved in any other case -- Petition accepted.

(Para 10-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 326, 324, 323, 341, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Injury case -- Version and cross-version -- It is a case of version and cross-version and it is yet to be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one -- Moreover, there is an unexplained delay of 05 days in lodging the present FIR -- Petition allowed, 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 3, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21 (b), 27 (a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail -- Non-appearance of accused – Forfeiture of bail bond – Petitioner could not appear as his counsel did not inform him about the date fixed – Trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order on account of his solitary absence after grant of regular bail on 15.01.2020 -- Every absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Explanation offered by the petitioner behind his nonappearance before the trial Court on 10.03.2021 appears to be probable -- Impugned order set aside subject to appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B – Cheating case -- Regular bail by Magistrate -- Cancellation of bail – Jurisdiction of court -- Petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Magistrate for cancellation of bail by filing an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C -- Without exhausting the remedy, he cannot directly approach High Court for cancellation of bail.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 45 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 212(6) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43D (5) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) -- Bail after filing charge-sheet – Consideration of -- Categories/Types of Offences – Guidelines issued :

“Categories/Types of Offences

A)    Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

B)    Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

C)    Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

D)    Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

REQUISITE CONDITIONS

1)       Not arrested during investigation.

2)    Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

(No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth Vs. State of UP, 2021 SCC online SC 615)

CATEGORY A

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance

a)    Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

b)    If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

c)    NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

d)    NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

e)    Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

CATEGORY B/D

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

CATEGORY C

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.”

Category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases -- Trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications -- While issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest -- This aspect would be guided by the statutory provisions.

Separate set of offences are categorized as “economic Offences” not covered by the special Acts. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Court has observed that in determining whether to grant bail both aspects have to be taken into account:

a)       seriousness of the charge and

b)       severity of punishment.

Copy of this order ordered to be circulated to the Registrars of the different High Courts to be further circulated to the trial Courts so that the unnecessary bail matters do not come up to Supreme Court -- This is the only purpose for which guidelines issued, but they are not fettered on the powers of the Courts.

(Para 2-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66(A), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 --  Condition to pay amount of Rs.10,41,000/- to complainant – Non-compliance of – Cancellation of bail -- Order granting bail was on a condition that the petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.10,41,000/- to the complainant within a period of six months – Amount not paid, bail cancelled – Held, it is nowhere recorded that the petitioner had given any undertaking before the trial Court, as he was seeking regular bail and was in judicial custody -- Therefore, the Clause-D of the condition directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,41,000/- to the complainant was not volunteered by the petitioner and rather it was the direction given by the Additional Sessions Judge -- Petition allowed and the impugned order set aside and the petitioner order to continue to remain on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating with FCI – Regular bail – Raid on secret information and it was found that the wheat loaded in the Truck was being unloaded at the Mill – Wheat loaded in the truck was for Government supply -- Investigation is complete and challan stands presented -- No recovery is to be made from the petitioner -- As per the allegations, petitioner was the driver of one of the truck -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time, no useful purpose would be served by depriving the personal liberty of the petitioners -- Petitioner granted bail.

(Para 2-6)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Standard prescribed for the grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the person is not guilty of the offence -- Test which are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 19, 20)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail by High court – Challenge to -- Respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh with the co-accused -- Complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicates that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons who were known to him – Quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a commercial quantity -- Contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused -- High Court, apart from observing that no contraband was found from the personal search of the respondent has ignored the above circumstances – High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established -- In failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes unsustainable – High Court ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of the crime which it has failed to do – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside -- Respondent shall accordingly surrender forthwith.

(Para 31-34)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless some cogent case based on some supervening circumstance is brought to the notice of a Court.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 120-B -- Cancellation of bail -- Non-recovery of dowry articles – Ground of -- Bail granted to an accused cannot be simply cancelled because of the non-recovery of some of the dowry articles.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21,61,85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 267 gms of heroin -- Weighment of the contraband was done along with two polythene bags including a lockable bag, it will certainly be debatable as to whether the recovered quantity, which was weighing 267 gms along with two bags, can actually be said to be more than 250 gms so as to qualify to be termed as ‘commercial’ quantity -- In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year, 7 months and 15 days and trial has not even commenced, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Parity in bail -- Once, the co-accused, who is similarly situated as the petitioner, has been granted the benefit of regular bail, the petitioner cannot be denied the same benefit on the ground of parity unless and until a differentiating fact between the petitioner and the said co-accused is pointed out -- Petitioner and the co-accused are similarly situated -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail on account of parity -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 452, 307, 379-B, 427, 506, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Occurrence of 15.08.2020, both the parties received injuries including grievous ones -- Petitioner had also undergone surgery and remained hospitalized from 16.08.2020 to 27.08.2020 -- Though, complainant party received grievous injuries, it is highly debatable whether Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out or not -- Custody period of petitioner being almost a year -- Charges have not yet been framed, prosecution has cited 18 witnesses and trial will certainly take long time -- Being a case of version and cross-version, the question that which of the two parties was aggressor has to be adjudicated during trial -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- POCSO matter -- Bail to juvenile -- Rape with minor – Victim was just 01 year and 09 months old -- 11 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined -- Prima facie, there are very serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, for which the Court is not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner -- However, since the petitioner has been in custody since 09th August, 2019, the Juvenile Board/trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably, on or before 30th November, 2021.

(Para 2-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 (27-A and 29 added later-on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 50 kg 700 gram of Poppy straw weighed alongwith bag -- Petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2020, petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose, co-accused have already been extended the concession of regular bail, Challan has already been presented in the Court and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the concession of bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Sections 10, 24 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – 377 complaints – Regular bail -- After dismissal of bail more than a year elapsed – Against a total of 377 complaints only 17 have been looked into till date and challans having been presented, investigation process may not be concluded for another couple of years -- Petitioner has already faced incarceration since 26.04.2018 -- Investigation is in progress would not be a ground to keep the petitioner indefinitely in custody -- Amount of money which is alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on account of having duped the investors/complainants would be a subject matter of trial on the basis of evidence adduced – Bail after having suffered incarceration for a period in excess of three years cannot be declined on the demand of the complainants that certain amount be first refunded to them -- Investigation/trial is bound to take time to conclude -- Petitioner is held entitled to benefit of bail.

(Para 13-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail -- Application for default bail filed, there was no challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C against the petitioner, who was in custody for a period of 94 days – Held, Court below has erred in denying default bail on the ground that evidence had already been collected and a challan presented against the other co accused and, therefore, since evidence was available – Challan presented against the co-accused clearly stated qua petitioner that he is yet to be arrested and separate challan would be prepared and presented against petitioner -- An indefeasible right accrues – No provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorising detention of an accused in custody after the expiry of the period indicated in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 excepting the contingency indicated in Explanation I, namely, if the accused does not furnish the bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 9-11)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 115 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – POCSO matter -- Rape with minor – Bail to juvenile -- Petitioner was declined bail on the ground that release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice – Held, a juvenile can be denied the concession of bail, if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the J.J. Act is available – J.J. Act is a beneficial legislation and gravity or seriousness of the offence would not be a ground to decline concession of bail to the juvenile – No purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in custody -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 5-10)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 15 kgs. 500 grams Ganja from petitioner and 16 kg. 200 grams from co-accused – Whether commercial quantity – Bail has been declined to the petitioner by treating both the recoveries together to hold the same to be commercial in nature -- Perusal of the FSL report would show that presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabinol and Cannabidiol were found to be positive in the samples, no percentage was shown -- Keeping in view the physical appearance of the sample, it would be debatable as to the contents of ganja -- Moreover, individual recovery has to be treated which falls under non-commercial quantity -- Petitioner is in custody since 28.09.2019 -- Court deemed it appropriate to consider the prayer for grant of regular bail – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2, 8-15)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(iii) -- Charas/ Hashish – Definition of -- Charas which is popularly known as Hashish is a separated resin obtained from Cannabis plant (Hemp) either from natural discharge of resin through its pores or by means of incisions by human intervention -- Therefore, Charas is not a Cannabis plant, but it is resin obtained from it, whereas Ganja is the flowering or fruiting tops of the Cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves.

(Para 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Bail granted by JMIC u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on 22.6.2021 on account of failure of the investigating agency to file challan within the prescribed period -- Requisite bonds were not furnished on behalf of the petitioner-accused on that very day, rather, on 25.06.2021, when an application was filed on behalf of petitioner/accused for furnishing of requisite bail bonds, the application was dismissed for the reason that the investigating agency had filed the challan on 22.06.2021, after passing of the order -- Impugned order cannot be sustained – Petition allowed.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC (Section 120-B of IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 439 -- Murder case -- Challan without FSL – Default bail – Right of -- FSL is a material piece of evidence to establish the case of the prosecution, but in every case, it cannot be said that in the absence of the report of FSL, the challan has to be treated as 'incomplete' – In a murder case, while the report of FSL in respect of examination of clothes of the deceased as regards presence of blood stains or viscera report would furnish a material piece of evidence, but the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be absolutely demolished in the absence of such evidence – In such like cases, the absence of FSL report cannot be interpreted to mean that an 'incomplete' challan has been filed so as to extend the benefit of default bail to the accused -- Petition dismissed – The order would not affect the right/s of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 332, 353 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Beating to police – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations are of tearing uniform of the petitioner who is a Police Officer and has also given the injuries to him – Contention that occurrence has not taken place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution rather petitioner was given beatings by complainant -- As per MLR of the petitioner 4 injuries were found on his person with blunt weapon -- Occurrence has been captured in the CCTV cameras, which shows that the complainant along with his two sons inflicted injuries to the petitioner – Offences u/s 353, 332 IPC are necessarily to be treated alike along with non-cognizable offence u/s 186 IPC and offence u/s 353 IPC is an aggravated form of offence under Section 186 IPC which is non-cognizable in nature – On above contentions interim bail was granted -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for further investigation of the case – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 498-A, 304B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Dowry death case -- Father-in-law and mother-in-law – Earlier anticipatory bail was granted with the observation that, after charge sheet is filed, it is open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for the Regular Bail before the Competent Court – Held, same does not preclude the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. after filing of the charge sheet -- It also cannot be said, that same is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail -- Husband of the deceased was granted Regular Bail after he was arrested – Held, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

(Para 2-5)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- There is nothing to suggest that the assailants had uttered any objectionable utterances or had caused injuries solely on account of the fact that the complainant belongs to a particular community – Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Arrest of accused – Requirement of -- Power of Court – Investigaiton complete, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. submitted to the trial court –  Once an investigating agency itself says that it does not require the custodial interrogation of an accused, normally High court would not direct his arrest (even upon a petition seeking anticipatory bail being dismissed).

(Para 2, 4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail -- Recovered of 55 intoxicant injections containing Buprenorhpine 2 ml each and 55 injections containing Avil 10 ml each from polythene bag allegedly thrown on the road side -- Case involves debatable question as to whether the petitioner can be said to be in conscious possession of the contraband recovered from the polythene bag lying on the road side -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act stand satisfied by due implication -- Further, the petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2019 -- Prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded -- Trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 -- Petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

(Para 14, 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 25 (Sections 27/29 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Involvement in 4 more FIRs but on bail -- Petitioner could not repelled by the prosecution regarding the discrepancies in the documents prepared at the spot; the affidavit of independent witness and the Certificate given by the Panchayat; the manner in which the investigation is conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has only verified one document and has not signed any other documents; all the memos are typed documents and in some documents, FIR number is blank and filled by Pen and in some documents, it is typed by mentioning the FIR number; the discrepancies in the order of the Illaqa Magistrate and the FSL report -- Pendency of other cases cannot be taken as a bar -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months; till date even charges have not been framed and therefore, no PW has been examined; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 406, 354-A (Section 377 added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Dowry case – Anticipatory bail – Non-recovery of dowry articles – Effect of – Stated that petitioner has joined the investigation, however, recovery of gold ornaments and a motorcycle, which were given and entrusted to the petitioner and his family at the time of marriage has not been effected – Held, entrustment of gold ornaments as alleged are disputed questions of fact and would be considered at the time of trial -- Petition is allowed and interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15, 18, 27A, 29, 53, 67 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 140, 188, 216, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 -- Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), Section 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Involvement on disclosure statement – Recovery of 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 Kg 500 grams of opium and 199 Kgs khas khas from co-accused -- FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, but still name of petitioner did not figure in the ruqa of the police – Petitioner involved on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused is hit by the ratio of Tofan Singh’s case, Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 wherein it has been observed that the officers who are invested with powers u/s 53 of NDPS Act are the police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act -- Any confessional statement made before the police officer would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act -- Statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under NDPS Act – Interim order confirmed.

(Para 6-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Theft case – Anticipatory bail -- Present FIR at Hisar -- Interim bail was granted on the contention that petitioner is being indicted for theft of vehicle in respect of that a case FIR No.434 dated 30.08.2019 u/s 379 IPC already stands registered at Gurugram and vehicle was recovered on 05.11.2019 and two accused were arrested and he was indicted on the basis of disclosure statement of one of them -- Petitioner has joined the investigation, not required for custodial interrogation for the time being -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 37, 60 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Recovery of 5.83 kg of opium -- Regular bail -- Respondent-State could not dispute that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and he is the first offender -- Petitioner was not named in the secret information -- Petitioner was not present at the spot, when the co-accused were arrested and the recovery of narcotics was effected; the name of the petitioner surfaced, for the first time, in the disclosure statement of the co-accused – It will be a matter of trial, whether the said disclosure statement is admissible against the petitioner or not in view of “Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu”, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 631 -- Till date, no PW has been examined and the custody of the petitioner is approximately more than 01 year and it will take some time in conclusion of the trial due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 10-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attesting witness of forged GPA – Anticipatory bail -- Interim bail was granted on contention that petitioner, who is a Numberdar, is an attesting witness to the General Power of Attorney, which is alleged to have been forged – Beneficiary to the GPA/ co-accused granted interim protection – Now interim bail granted to co-accused, has been made absolute by High Court – Petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation – No other case is pending against the petitioner – Petition allowed and the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating and forgery -- Anticipatory bail -- Dispute between the daughter-in-law and the in-laws -- Allegations are with regard to a registered Will -- Validity of Will and the dispute with regard to partition of property is before the Civil Court -- As per FIR, the case set up is on the basis of documentary evidence -- Considering that no recovery is to be made from the petitioners, it is not a case where custodial interrogation is required -- Petitioners granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 7)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter -- Anticipatory bail – Interim bail granted on submission that FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, police did not comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., 30 bottles of illicit liquor recovered from the house of the petitioner and anticipatory bail declined on the ground that he is also involved in earlier FIR u/s 61-1-14 of the Excise Act in which 280 kgs. lahan was recovered -- Petitioner has joined the investigation to the entire satisfaction of the Investigating Officer -- Petitioner is no more required for further investigation in the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3-7)

Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (Act No. 57 of 1994), Sections 23, 25, 4, 5(2) – Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), Section 15(2)(B) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 (Challan u/s 4(4), 5(2), 23, 25 of PC&PNDT Act, 1994, Section 15(2)(3) of the IMC Act, 1956 and Section 419, 420, 120-B of IPC) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Pre-natal Sex determination case – Anticipatory bail – Interim protection granted on the contention that FIR is silent with regard to the role of the petitioner and he was nominated in the second disclosure statement of co-accused -- Petitioner allegedly brought the sex determination machine -- Co-accused has already been granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge by observing that it is not the case of prosecution that he had used any such techniques in detection of gender of fetus, rather according to prosecution, the determination machine used by him was a simple monitor of computer and simply cheated the decoy patient by using an ordinary monitor – Petitioner has joined the investigation to the entire satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and no more required for further investigation of the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 100(4), 438 -- Excise matter – Anticipatory bail – On the contention that FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, but the police has not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C, ad interim bail was given -- Petitioner joined the investigation to the entire satisfaction of the Investigating Officer -- Petitioner is no more required for further investigation in the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail – Compromise between parties -- Contends that the FIR is the outcome of a monetary dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 (complainant) which has been resolved, who contends that the matter has indeed been compromised – In view of the submissions Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, (Sections 393 and 411 IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Snatching case – Jump in bail -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had earlier been granted regular bail by the trial Court, but he had absented once as he had noted the wrong date and consequently his bail was cancelled – Petitioner undertakes that the he shall henceforth appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing and would not absent himself except without prior permission of the Court – Petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court and has been released on interim bail -- Order granting interim bail to petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 21 kgs 500 grams of poppy husk from the petitioner and co-accused -- State contends that petitioner is also involved in several other cases under the NDPS Act -- Challan has been filed but no prosecution witness has been examined – Recovery is of non-commercial quantity, petitioner is in custody for over 05 months, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15, 18, 25, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 3.5 kgs. Opium -- 06 out of 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is convicted in a case under Section 302 IPC -- Petitioner is in custody for over two years and five months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, the Covid-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 308, 323, 325, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 (2) – Attempt to commit culpable homicide – Cancellation of Regular bail --  In respect of the alleged threats by accused, no complaint has been made to the police -- Court does not find any material on record to show that the concession of bail extended to the accused has been misused -- Prayer for cancellation of bail dismissed by Court of Sessions -- Resultantly, no ground is made out for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 406, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating – Regular bail -- Petitioner joined the investigation and handed over the FDR of Rs.2.50 lacs to the Investigating Officer – I.O. submitted that some amount is yet to be recovered – Held, it is not the job of the Investigating Officer to oppose the prayer for bail on the ground that he is to recover some amount -- Petition allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attesting witness to Will – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was an attesting witness to the Will executed by the father of the complainant -- Will is a matter of challenge in the Civil Court -- Neither the ownership nor the possession of the property has changed and no harm is caused in real terms -- Beneficiaries of the Will are in custody -- No allegation that any benefit has been derived by the petitioner who is 55 years of age and is not involved in any other case -- Similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail – On interim direction, petitioner joined the Investigaiton – Order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43D(2) – Default bail – Extension of time for challan granted -- Since the Challan was not presented till 05.08.2020, the appellant moved an application on 06.08.2020 u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. praying for default bail -- Prayer of the prosecuting agency for extension of time to present the Challan was granted vide order dated 07.08.2020, which has, since, attained finality – Appellant was/is not entitled to the relief of default bail.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 307, 324, 506 (Sections 379-B, 201, 34 IPC added and Sections 148, 149 IPC deleted later on) -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 54, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Knife blow by petitioner on the stomach of injured who has fully recovered from the injury -- Motorcycle of injured recovered from the co-accused – Petitioner is not involved in any other case – Petitioner is in custody for over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 (C), 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail --  Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 600 capsules of Tramadol -- Petitioner was driving the motorcycle while the co-accused was pillion riding -- Polythene bag was in the hands of the co-accused from which total 600 capsules of Tramadol with a total weight of 387.6 grams were recovered – Contention that if the recovery is divided between the accused, it will fall below the commercial quantity – Petitioner is in custody for over 9 months, is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (Act No. 57 of 1994), Sections 4, 5(2), 6(B), 23, 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Pre-natal sex determination case – Regular bail -- Without commenting anything on merits, considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody for the last 04 months and 14 days; the petitioners are not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, the petition allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail.

(Para 5)