Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 14(2), 18 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – SC/ST Case – Cheating -- It has not been specifically stated IN FIR that the appellants had any knowledge that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste and even no specific words have been attributed by the appellants – Prima facie, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act are not made out and thus, the appeal is allowed and in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 302, 506, 285 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Murder -- Anticipatory bail – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Complainant as party -- No force in contention of State so as to implead the complainant as a party -- Petitioner not named in the FIR to be amongst the assailants and he has been named for the first time in supplementary statement of the complainant – On surrender by petitioner, the Trial court directed to release him on bail.

(Para 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- NDPS Case -- Interim bail – Birth of daughter – Recovery of 530 grams of Heroin – Without adverting to the merits of the case and considering the fact that a baby girl is born to the petitioner who has been in custody for more than 5 months deserved to be released on interim regular bail to enable him to share his love and affection to the newly born baby -- Petitioner ordered to be released on interim regular bail for a period of two weeks.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail -- According to the FIR, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the co-accused on 28.04.2023 -- It is he who revealed that he had purchased narcotic substance from the applicant – Contention that applicant at the relevant time was in jail – Bail allowed.

(Para 1-8)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 18(3) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) Section 5(j)(ii), 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3), 506 -- POCSO – Rape -- Child in conflict with law – Bail under juvenile law – Even if a CIL is transferred for trial as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Act, his bail application shall be entertained under Section 12 of the Act -- Bail to a CIL may be denied if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger, or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 18(3) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) Section 5(j)(ii), 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3), 506 -- POCSO – Rape -- Child in conflict with law – Bail – Both the CIL and the victim were neighbours -- Both were young, the CIL was 17 years of age, whereas, the victim has stated her age as 15 years -- Victim has already been examined at trial -- After 6 months of pregnancy, the incident could be revealed -- FIR records that 4/5 times, the relationship were established -- Various questions would find deliberation during trial, which includes whether the relationship were consensual? Whether the parties were in relationship? If for the first time the offence was done, why the victim did not raise any alarm? Where the incident took place? etc. -- Social Investigation Report does not reveal anything adverse against the CIL -- The CIL was a student at the relevant time studying in class XII -- His conduct was good with everyone -- Fit case for bail and the CIL deserves to be enlarged on bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 14-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29(c), 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Petitioner involved on disclosure statement of co-accused -- No recovery from petitioner, admissibility of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused would be debatable – No other case, petitioner in custody since 06.05.2024 -- Quantity of Tramadol recovered from the co-accused is a commercial quantity but this alone would not be sufficient to deny the concession of regular bail to the petitioner – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Regular bail -- Recovery of 10.9 grams of heroin -- Petitioner was apprehended on 15.03.2024 -- No other criminal case and she is a lady aged about 69 years -- Challan has already been presented and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation – Prosecution has cited 14 witnesses and it will take sufficient long time to examine them – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

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 -- Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Applicability on High Court/ Supreme Court -- Provisions of Sections 36-A and 37 have to be read together and interpreted harmoniously so that Section 36-A(3) does not become redundant or otiose -- Restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were meant to be applicable to Courts other than the Constitutional Courts and in view of the provision contained in Section 36-A (3) of NDPS Act, those restrictions do not apply to the Constitutional Courts.

(Para 36)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 23, 29, 37, 52A, 68, 76 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022, Rule 3, 9, 10, 11 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- Samples in presence of Magistrate – Non-compliance of – In recovery memo, packets recovered were not numbered serially for the purpose of identification, as provided in Rule 3 (2) of the 2022 Rules -- Samples were not drawn in presence of a Magistrate, as provided in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and Rule 9 of the 2022 Rules -- Although 14 packages are claimed to have been seized from the applicant, samples have not been drawn from all the packets and a single sample has been drawn, that too not in duplicate and thus the authorities have violated Rule 10 of the 2022 Rules -- Authorities themselves have violated the mandatory provisions contained in Rules of 2022 -- Applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.01.2024 -- Bail application allowed.

(Para 46-51)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10, 12 -- Anticipatory bail by minor/ juvenile – Maintainability of -- In the absence of any exclusion as such that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. would not apply, Court do not see any valid reason as to why any restrictive view is to be taken -- Bail is the rule and denial is the exception and for a child to be placed under disadvantage on account of the fact that the word “arrest” has not been mentioned in the Act does not do any justice to the purpose of the Act -- Omission as such has been made and it would not debar the children from the benefit of the provisions of Section 438 of the Act. View taken in CRM-M-19907-2020, Krishan Kumar (minor) through his mother vs. State of Haryana decided on 24.07.2020 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15162 approved.

(Para 39, 49-51)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10, 12 – Anticipatory bail to Child in conflict with law/ CCIL – Nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant and the possibility of fleeing from justice etc. are the factors which are to be kept in mind under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case of a normal accused which would not stand in the way of CICL.

(Para 45)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 121A, 122, 153(A), 505(1)(b),(c),(2) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 13, 18, 18A, 18(B), 43D – Bail in UAPA case by High Court – Setting aside of -- Court satisfied from the chargesheet as also the other material/ documents relied upon by the appellant that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail -- Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences, previous criminal history, the period of custody undergone by the respondents being hardly one and half years, the severity of punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and prima facie material collected during the course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and set aside.

(Para 4, 22-24)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 216, 427, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 29, 30 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not amongst the assailants -- Only attribution to the petitioner is that he was handed over a pistol and two live cartridges by co-accused, which he concealed in a farm house and later on, handed over the same to the same co-accused -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year 4 months and 27 days -- Trial may take time to conclude -- Though he is involved in two more criminal cases, but having regard to the nature of attribution to the petitioner, mere criminal antecedents of the petitioner cannot be a reason to decline him bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 147, 149, 188, 269, 270 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Petitioner name come in disclosure statement – No specific attribution or any overt act is attributed to the petitioner -- None of examined prosecution witnesses named the petitioner to be amongst the assailants – Petitioner in custody for the last 02 years 09 months and 28 days, though involved in various other cases as well -- Only 09 witnesses have been examined so far out of 54 witnesses -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- Material witnesses have already been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-12)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436A – PMLA case – Bail -- Appellant will complete 3½ years of incarceration on 26th May, 2024, half of the prescribed sentence -- Trial has not started, as the charge has not been framed -- Section 436A of Cr.PC will apply even to a case under the PMLA -- But the Court can still deny the relief owing to the ground such as where the trial was delayed at the instance of the accused -- No occasion for the appellant to cause the delay in trial, as even charge has not been framed -- Appellant order to be enlarged on bail on 27th May, 2024 u/s 436A of the Cr.PC.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Regular bail -- Alleged occurrence, in which the three occupants of the car had given beatings to deceased and injured fled away -- None of the petitioners are named in the FIR, complainant did not disclose in the supplementary statement about the source, by which he came to know about the participation of the petitioners in the crime – Nothing in status report that whether any of the petitioners have any connection with that car -- Material witnesses have already examined --  Petitioners in custody for the last 1 year 2 months and 13 days and none of them have any other criminal case pending against them -- Trial may take time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 469, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating – Extortion -- Regular bail -- Allegations against the petitioner are based upon the disclosure statement – He is in custody for the last 5 months and 22 days -- Although, he is involved in one more case, but has already been allowed bail -- Out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined so far and thus, trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- The case is triable by Magistrate – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 342 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – POCSO – Anticipatory bail – Neither the victim nor his father is inclined to pursue the matter against the petitioner any further, interim bail granted – State acknowledged that petitioner has joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not required – Petition allowed, interim order made absolute.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446, 449 – Forfeiture of surety bond – Penalty – Show cause notice -- It was impossible for the appellant/ surety to produce the accused before the Trial Court on specific date as he was confined in some other case and this fact was not in the knowledge of the appellant as well as the Trial Court -- No show cause notice was ever issued by the Trial Court in terms of Section 446 of Cr. P.C. nor the Trial Court had recorded the grounds of proof of forfeiture of the bond – Held, mandatory provision, as laid down by Section 446 of the Cr. P.C had not been followed and the impugned order is legally unsustainable – Order of Additional Sessions Judge, whereby a penalty of Rs.50,000/- ordered to be recovered from him as arrear of land revenue, set aside.

(Para 1, 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323, 324, 160, 148, 149,  212, 216, 120-B, 201  -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- It is a case of version and cross version wherein both the parties have received injuries at the hands of each other -- Petitioner too have received injury in the occurrence -- Possibility of the trial concluding any time in the near future looks remote – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 160, 323, 324, 148, 149, 212, 216, 201, 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 54, 59-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has clean antecedents and in the occurrence in question no specific role or injury has been attributed to him, other than his presence being reflected in the FIR -- Possibility of the trial concluding any time in the near future looks remote – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Regular  bail -- Petitioner in custody since 21.05.2022 and only 03 out of 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far -- He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him -- In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail – Delay in FIR for more than 100 days -- Two others accused are there -- Only circumstantial evidence against the petitioner is her disclosure statement coupled with the recovery of knife allegedly used in the crime -- FSL report is not on record to show as to whether there were any blood stains on the knife and as to whether those blood stains matched with the blood of deceased or other physical evidence as collected from the spot -- Petitioner in custody for the last 3 years 6 months and 22 days with no other criminal case -- Out of 19 only 8 have been examined so far – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 506, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Speedy trial – Right of -- Petitioner suffered incarceration of 05 years, 08 months and 12 days -- Investigation is complete, challan stands filed, out of total 35 prosecution witnesses, 33 witnesses have been examined -- Trial will take long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for uncertain period -- Bail is a rule and jail is an exception – It would also violate Article 21 of the Constitution -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 506, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has not been named in the FIR, his tower location was not found at the place of occurrence, specific injuries attracting Section 307 IPC attributed to the co-accused and there is nothing on record against the petitioner in the final report filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against the co-accused, interim protection was granted -- Petitioner joined the investigation, interim bail order confirmed.

(Para 5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Circumstances raises a finger of serious doubts for date and time of taking the petitioner into actual custody by the police, he was actually abducted from Delhi one day prior to showing his date of arrest, have come on record which needs to be examined by leading evidence before the trial Court – Petitioner has already incarcerated for a period of 01 year 05 months and 29 days in custody -- Petitioner not involved in any other offence -- Trial is bound to take long time -- Petitioner cannot be detained behind bars for an indefinite period -- Article 21 of the Constitution provides for a right to speedy trial even to an accused -- Judicial precedent is also to be borne in mind that “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception” – Bail allowed.

(Para 16, 17)

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 153-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Offence under UAPA – Regular bail -- Secessionist slogans painted on the walls of College and School – Petitioner not named in the FIR, arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused in another case -- Recovery of paint, clothes and mobile phone effected from the appellant in connection with the investigation in another FIR, no recovery made from him in the instant case -- No material to indicate that any monetary transactions had taken place and that the appellant had used a particular mobile phone for recording the incident and sending it to other accused -- Appellant in custody for 01 year and 09 months – Challan filed but charges are yet to be framed, prosecution cited 14 witnesses, therefore, the conclusion of trial would take some time – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Default bail -- Extension of time for investigation for another 180 days – Report of Public prosecutor – Requirement of -- Application for extension reveals that it was prepared by the Investigating Officer and forwarded by the Public Prosecutor, with no report submitted by the Public Prosecutor as per the mandate of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Held, there has thus, been a failure to adhere to the requirements outlined in section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Order of the trial Court granting extension of time to the investigating agency for completing investigation was erroneous -- Consequently, the impugned order set aside -- As a sequel to the above, since the investigation remained incomplete on the day application u/s 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on default bail – Default bail allowed.

(Para 11-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Both the parties sustained injuries in the same incident -- Three persons sustained injuries from the side of accused/ petitioner party; whereas three persons sustained injuries on behalf of the complainant party – Section 307 IPC has been invoked in both the cases -- It will be a matter of trial, as to which of the party is aggressor – Petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner not named in the FIR but his name has been mentioned in the disclosure statement of co-accused -- Even during the course of the Trial the witnesses not properly identified the petitioner -- A co-accused though a juvenile treated as an adult has been granted the concession of bail -- Petitioner is otherwise a first time offender, in custody since 16.09.2021 and only 07 of the 35 Pws had been examined so far -- Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), Section 132 -- Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), Section 20(XV) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – FIR under GST laws -- Regular bail -- Criminal liability of the petitioner is yet to be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial -- Petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2023 and the maximum sentence provided under the statute is five years -- Prosecution is based on the testimonies of official witnesses and the petitioner may not be in a position to influence the witnesses -- Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot be confined in jail as an under-trial for an indefinite period – Bail allowed.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Non-furnishing of bail bonds – Cancellation of bail – Permissibility of -- Non-presentation of final report within the stipulated period creates an indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner and which cannot be extinguished by subsequent filing of the final report -- Indefeasible right could not be extinguished merely because the petitioner could not furnish his bail bonds.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- No effective steps taken to conclude the trial -- Petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2022 and is in custody since then -- Bail declined, the Special Judge directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months.

(Para 5, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 406, 468 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Cheating -- Petitioner already facing prosecution u/s 138 of the NI Act -- Submitted that mere dishonour of cheque does not amount to cheating – Appeal allowed, in case of arrest petitioner be released on bail by the arresting/ investigating officer/ trial court.

(Para 1-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 (c), 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – High Court rejected the bail – Appellant   in custody for approximately 1 year 9 months -- Charge-sheet filed on 18.7.2022, additional charge-sheet has to be filed and 20 witnesses are to be examined in the trial -- In the earlier case the petitioner acquitted, as he is a trader dealing in medical products – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Extortion – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that the maximum sentence provided for commission of offences as alleged in the FIR is upto 3 years and no notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued -- Petitioners joined the investigation and are not required for further custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 506, 120-B -- Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (32 of 2014), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating with investors – Regular bail -- Amount of Rs.7 lakh deposited in the account of petitioner by the complainant -- Petitioner arrested on 28.12.2020, only 11 witnesses out of the 68 cited by the prosecution have been examined till date -- Husband of the petitioner, who is the prime accused is behind bars – Whole case of the prosecution rests on documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the police and is part of the challan – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Regular bail -- Speedy trial -- “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception” -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 8)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO -- Attempt to unnatural offence -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case -- Statement of victim (minor child), recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, does not support the case of prosecution -- No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, who has faced incarceration of about 07 months and 10 days -- Trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 12)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21 (1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Mining case – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has already obtained all requisite permissions including the registration certificate from the competent authority, no mining material has been recovered at the spot, involved in the case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, FIR indicates that no offence under Section 379 of IPC and Act, 1957 is a special statute that provides a complete mechanism for dealing with any violation of the Act and Section 379 of the IPC was added in the FIR only to make the offence non-bailable, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was admitted to interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Murder – Anticipatory bail -- No documentary evidence or allegations leveled in the FIR that the petitioner at the time of alleged occurrence had instigated the main accused, or even provided the weapon of offence -- Only his presence at the time of alleged occurrence had been shown and that too, in the supplementary statement after two days of the alleged occurrence – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder of husband – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2021 and is in custody since then -- Out of 13, 4 witnesses, who are private and vital witnesses, have been examined -- Taking into consideration the period already spent by the petitioner in custody, coupled with the fact that she is required to take care of her three minor children, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, bail granted.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Fixed sentence – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Out five years, the appellant has undergone half of the sentence – Appeal not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence, a case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence – When there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted.

(Para 1-6)

A. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Bail -- If detaining authority is apprehensive that in case detenu is released on bail he may again carry on his criminal activities, then in such situation, the authority should oppose the bail application and, in the event, bail is granted, the authority should challenge such a bail order in the higher forum and that merely on the ground that an accused in detention is likely to get bail, an order of preventive detention should not ordinarily be passed.

(Para 12)

B. Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – There is no live link between the last activity and impugned detention order because FIR has been taken into account by detaining authority while passing order impugned, unmindful of the fact that detenu has been bailed out in the said FIR and there have been no further activities alleged against detenu -- Impugned order of detention quashed, respondents directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.

(Para 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 362, 201, 392, 411, 414 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 8.10.2018 but only 02 of the 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for a right to speedy Trial which prima facie seems to have been violated in the instant case -- Further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420,406, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Breach of agreement to sell -- Every breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction -- Allegations of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to initiate the criminal proceedings -- Agreement to sell in favour of the complainant, however, sale deed in favour of other -- Complainant, instead of initiating the civil proceedings, had got the FIR registered -- Both the petitioners were the attesting witnesses to the agreement and had joined the investigation -- Documents had already been collected by the police and their custodial interrogation is not required -- Interim orders made absolute.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Appeal in cheque bounce conviction – Suspension of sentence – Deposit of 20% compensation -- Appellate Court passed order in a mechanical manner without giving any reasons directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within 60 days – Direction to deposit 20% of compensation amount set aside, appellate Court directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case 2023 (10) SCC 446 -- Till fresh orders are passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 – Bail in 23 cases – Personal bond and common surety -- Petitioner booked 31 cases under Electricity Act. Out of those 31, in 23 cases he stands admitted to bail -- Petitioner is not been able to furnish separate bail bonds in each of the cases – Direction given to the Courts below to release the petitioner on bail in the 23 cases on executing one personal bond in each of the case as well as two common sureties of the like sum which shall hold good for all the 23 cases.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 342, 379-B, 384, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 21.07.2023 -- None of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Compromise arrived between the parties – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506, 201, 120-B -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- 13 out of 24 witnesses cited by the prosecution have already been examined and trial may come to an end early -- Material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case -- It will not be proper to keep the appellants detained, once it has come in the testimony of the material witnesses that appellants are not the assailants – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 379, 447, 425, 427, 506, 511, 120-B, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Harvesting of crops with armed weapons -- Allegations that petitioners along with various other co-accused entered the fields of the complainant and harvested the crop while armed with weapons – Dispute is civil in nature regarding possession of the land in question -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 7 -- Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Section 63 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Misbranded food – Regular bail -- Samples found to be of sub-standard -- Labels of some renowned companies were also found and the spurious ghee was being sold -- Accused were also possessing and selling mis-branded food – It is a moot point as to whether provisions of IPC can be attracted -- Investigation already completed, challan filed – Custody for the last more than 06 months -- Trial may take time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 109, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 101(5) – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Regular bail -- Except the personal opinion expressed by the Children’s Court, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner would face wrath and outrage from the members of the society in case he is granted the concession of bail – Petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2022 and none of the 37 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, therefore, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)