Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 379-B, 201, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching case – Regular bail -- Allegations are that the car, mobile phone and Rs.200/- cash were snatched from the complainant -- Petitioner is in custody for over 01 year and 04 months, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating and forgery – Regular bail -- Complainant resiled from his statement – Petitioner behind bars since the last about 4 months -- Challan stands presented -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case – Further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition accepted, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- 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 -- Blind murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner behind bars for a substantial period of about 2 ½ years and the trial is likely to consume time as only 7 PWs out of cited 17 PWs have been examined -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case, 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 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 427, 379-B, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Matter has been compromised, the petitioner is in custody for over 5 months, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 60, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Recovery of 9.650 kg ganja -- Regular bail -- Recovery of non-commercial quantity of ganja has been effected from the petitioner, he is in custody for over 3 ½ months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (offences u/s 109, 328, 354-B, 506, 509 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Rape case -- Anticipatory bail -- Complainant as of now is about 51 years of age having grandson and was on visiting terms with the family of the petitioner and visited Singapore and Malaysia with the petitioner -- There are entries of matrimonial status in the passport and joint affidavit of the parties, which according to the petitioner were prepared in order to ward off any objection in the foreign country for living smoothly – allegation of consensual relationship under the pretext of marriage -- Complainant was also married from whom she has not taken any divorce by lawful mechanism except to allege that a Panchayati divorce -- Parties are in advance stage of their life -- Both are having families -- Petitioner being already married is evident from the photographs of birthday celebration of son of the petitioner, which was attended by the complainant and her son – In the light of consensual relationship, it would remain debatable as to whether offence under Section 376 IPC is attracted or not -- Petition allowed.

(Para 8-10)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 397, 201 – Murder case -- Bail to juvenile – Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge not at all considered entitlement of the Petitioner for bail in terms of Section 12 of the JJ Act, which could not have been overlooked even in the situation that he was sent up to face trial by the JJB in the Children’s Court – Grounds for denying bail to him could be within the proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act.

(Para 9)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 397, 201 – Murder case -- Bail to juvenile – Petitioner  allegedly became a member of a gang along with co-accused crossed the age of majority at the relevant time who are already in custody – So there is little chance of the Petitioner being exposed to their association if released on bail – Petitioner remained in detention for almost an year – Petitioner released on bail.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim orders/directions/ protection – Extension of -- All the interim orders/directions issued or protection granted including any order requiring any compliance by the parties to such proceedings, passed by High Court or any other Court subordinate to it or any Family Court or Labour Court or any Tribunal or any other Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, over which High Court has power of superintendence, which are subsisting today shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021 -- If undue hardship and prejudice of any extreme nature, to any of the parties to such proceeding(s), such parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by moving appropriate application(s) before the Competent Court(s), Tribunal, Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Forum.

(Para 2 (i), (xii))

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Civil Suit – Extension of time for filing written statement -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Time for filing of written-statement or return in any Suit or proceeding pending before any Civil Court or any other forum, unless specifically directed, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- It is however will not preclude the parties from filing such written-statement or return before 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2 (iii))

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Execution of eviction, dispossession, demolition etc. -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, etc. passed by High Court or any Court subordinate to it or any Tribunal or Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, which have so far remained unexecuted, shall remain in abeyance till 30th of June 2021.

(Para 2 (iv))

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Interim protection -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim protection given in the anticipatory bail applications by the High Court or Court of Sessions for a limited period, which is likely to expire from now up to 30^th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- However, any party aggrieved by the conduct of the accused on such interim protection, may move the Court over the matter for discontinuation of such interim protection, if any prejudice is caused to him/her, in which event, the Court concerned shall be entitled to take independent view of the matter.

(Para 2 (v))

E. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Interim bail -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – All the interim bails granted under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the High Court or Courts of Sessions, limited by timeframe specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned.

(Para 2 (vi))

F. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3,6 -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3 – Parole – Extension of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Parole granted to a person by order passed by a Court exercising the criminal jurisdiction and limited by time-frame specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned.

(Para 2 (vi), (vii))

G. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41A -- Cognizable offence – Arrest in -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Unless there is necessity of arrest for maintenance of law and order or any other emergent case, in a cognizable offence prescribing sentence up to seven years imprisonment, the police shall desist from arresting the accused up to 30th of June, 2021, without complying with the provision of Section 41A, Cr.P.C. -- This however may not be understood as an interdict on the power of the police to arrest, but should only be considered a mere advisory in the face of the ongoing crisis following second wave of Coronavirus.

(Para 2(viii))

H. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Eviction/ Demolition by government/ Corporation/ Council/ Board/ Panchayat etc. – Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – State Governments, Union Territory, Chandigarh, or any of its Departments or any Municipal Corporation / Council / Board or any Gram Panchayat or any other local body or any other agency and instrumentality of the State shall not take any action for eviction and demolition in respect of any property, over which any citizen or person or party or any Body Corporate, has physical or symbolic possession as on today till 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2(ix))

I. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Auction sale by Bank/ Financial Institution -- Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Any Bank or Financial Institution shall not take action for auction in respect of any property of any citizen or person or party or any Body corporate till 30th June, 2021.

(Para 2(x))

J. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued to Government bodies in suo motu PIL – If the Government of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and/or any of its Departments and/or functionaries, Central Government and/or its departments or functionaries or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Public or Private Companies or any Firm or any individual or person is/are, by the order of this Court or any Court subordinate to it or the Tribunals, required to do a particular thing or carry out certain direction in a particular manner, in a time frame, which is going to expire at any time from now up to 30th June, 2021, the time for compliance of such order shall stand extended up to 30th June, 2021, unless specifically directed otherwise by the Court concerned.

(Para 2(xi))

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(VII)(a), 20-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 20 kg of Ganja – Samples sent to FSL after 25 days -- Contention that Ganja upto 20 kgs. is non-commercial as per definition u/s 2(VII)(a), i.e. quantity greater than 20 kg would be commercial and weight of contraband was inclusive of packing – Held, quantity greater that 20 kg of ganja would be commercial, samples were required to be sent to the FSL within 72 hours – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 306, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Initially the FIR was registered us/ 302 IPC -- Final report u/s 306 IPC -- Charges have been famed, but the trial is yet to commence -- Co-accused of petitioner has already been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is almost similar -- Apart from it, the belligerent re-emergence of pandemic COVID-19 would delay the conclusion of trial  -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case of similar nature – Petitioner in judicial custody after his arrest on 9.10.2020 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-6)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v), 18 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 365 (Sections 201, 302 deleted, Section 306 added) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Kidnapping of SC victim -- It is not a case of the accused that they were not aware of the fact that the victim in this case belong to SC community -- Relief of anticipatory bail was rightly declined to them by the Court of Sessions in view of bar of Section 18 of the Act – Merely, because appellants have been directed to join investigation and they are said to have been done so; that does not confer any valuable right upon them, making it entitlement for grant of pre-arrest bail, when the statute itself clearly bars the remedy sought for.

(Para 7)

A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43(5)(D) – Bail to accused -- Prima facie case – While considering the grant of bail under Section 43 (5) D, it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire material on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.

(Para 11)

B. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 17, 18, 21, 43(5)(D) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120B, 414, 384, 386, 387 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25 (1B) (a), 26, 35 -- Bail to accused – Terror funding -- No prima facie case – Main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy / extortion amount to the terrorist organization – Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding – Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business – Appellant revealed in his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC that he was summoned to meet A-14 and the other members of the organization in connection with the payments made by him – Amount of Rs. 9,95,000/- seized from the house of the Appellant which was accounted for by the Appellant who stated that the amount was withdrawn from the bank to pay salaries to his employees and other expenses – There is no allegation that Appellant was receiving any money – On the other hand, the Appellant is accused of providing money to the members of TPC – No prima facie case made out – Appellant is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 11-13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 304-B -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Dowry death – Regular bail -- Plea in bail application that the deceased was “suffering from severe headache and was mentally disturbed since the past nine months” and that she was taken to a doctor by the first respondent -- Medical prescription, would prima facie indicate that there was no serious ailment -- Medical prescription of the Ayurvedic doctor and the remedies prescribed belie such a claim -- Prima facie, there are serious allegations in the FIR in regard to the harassment suffered by the deceased in close proximity to her death over demands for dowry by the accused -- In view of the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC, as well as the presumption which arises u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act, the High Court was clearly not justified in granting bail.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 304-B -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dowry death – Regular bail – Setting aside of -- Order of the High Court granting bail contains absolutely no reasons at all -- High Court has merely recorded the submissions and in the extract proceeded to grant bail without any evaluation of the rival submissions – Seriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the allegation that she was being harassed for dowry; and that a telephone call was received from the accused in close-proximity to the time of death, making a demand -- An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process – Order of the High Court granting bail set aside.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2) (N), 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3 (W) (I) and 3 (2) (V) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Repeated complaints – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix is a married woman -- She lodged F.I.R. u/s 376 IPC against another person, who has been acquitted in the case -- Further got registered an F.I.R u/s 376 IPC against another, who was also acquitted -- Similarly she got one more F.I.R registered – Petitioner is behind bars for more than eight months and petitioner is not said to have any past criminal record, Court find it a fit case to accept the present petition and grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 34, 341, 506 (Sections 307 & 325 IPC added) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Challan presented and trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2020 and there is no other case against him, this Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b), 27-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 12 grams Heroine -- Involved in three more cases – Petitioner is in custody since 12.1.2021; investigation is complete; no recovery is to be made and the recovery is of small quantity -- Petitioner is not involved in any other NDPS case and mere involvement in other case would not be a sufficient ground to deprive the personal liberty -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2020 and the very gold chain allegedly snatched in the case has already been recovered by the police coupled with the fact that there is no other case against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22-C -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Recovery of commercial quantity – Challan without FSL report -- Default bail – Regular bail -- Petitioner was found in possession of 1000 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg SR Tablets Radol-100, which fall in the commercial quantity -- FSL report not filed along with the challan -- Public Prosecutor did not make any application or report to the Special Court concerned under the provisions of Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of time for filing the FSL report – Held, indefeasible right of the petitioner to grant of default bail u/s 167(2) read with Section 439 Cr.PC has accrued -- In the absence of FSL report not being a part of the challan, it would be deemed to be an incomplete challan, hence, entitling the petitioner to the grant of default bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- Interim bail -- Chemical Examiner/FSL awaited -- In view of the judgment of this Court in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953, wherein it has been held that awaiting the report of Chemical Examiner/FSL, the sentence of the petitioner can be suspended till receiving of such report -- Accordingly, petition allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail till receiving of the FSL report.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25, 27, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 20000 tablets of Tramadol from co-accused – Petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2020 and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose -- Challan has already been presented in the Court -- Since consequent 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 – Petition allowed.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 188, 341, 379-B, 392, 397 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail -- Trial is likely to take some time -- Petitioner in custody since 21.07.2020 and challan stands presented -- No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars any longer -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 363, 366-A, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – POCSO case – Bail to juvenile -- No reasonable explanation or finding given as to how the petitioner, if released on bail, would come into association with any known criminals -- Petitioner who is a juvenile, is in judicial custody since 14.10.2019 -- Both the Courts below have not referred to any social investigation report prepared by the respondent-State, as to the background of the petitioner or with whom he associates with -- To reject the appeal on a presumption that he would come into association with any criminal is wholly unjustified – Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Revision petition allowed, petitioner directed to be released on bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Hostile witnesses -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution version while appearing in the witness box and have been declared hostile -- Petitioner has been in custody since 13.1.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude because of Covid-19 pandemic -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars – Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Quarrel between students -- Regular bail -- Case in hand seems to be a brawl amongst the young students, turned ugly with unanticipated consequences much to the shock of all involved -- Be that as it may, the same is for the trial Court to adjudicate, based upon the evidence to be adduced -- Even though the trial is going on, but its pace is slowed down due to the pandemic -- Same is not likely to conclude anytime soon -- On the other hand, petitioner is on the cross roads of his life and his entire career is at stake -- Any further preventive custody, would severely jeopardize his future prospects -- Material witnesses i.e complainant and father of the deceased victim, have already been examined – No useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody -- In the premise, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition allowed.

(Para 9-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Although the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, but it is a case of a single injury received by the deceased with a firearm, which would show that the petitioner had not caused any injury with the 'rod' which he was allegedly carrying -- In any case, petitioner is behind the bar from last more than 9 ½ months and conclusion of trial is likely to take time and not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 392, 342, 395, 379-B, 120-B, 212, 216, 201, 450, 120-B, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59, 25.1B(F) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dacoity/ Snatching case -- Regular bail – Detention for more than one year -- Petitioner was not named in the FIR nor any actual recovery was effected from him -- His complicity has however transpired only from the Disclosure Statement of Co-accused -- Co-accused who was similarly placed was granted Regular Bail – Further detention of the Petitioner for an indefinite period at this stage is not called for, since it transpires that so far only Challan in the case has been presented and the trial is yet to commence -- Regular Bail allowed.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34 --  Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Testimony of PW-1/ complainant stated that he had suspicion and had come to know from the people that the petitioner along with his brother had committed the murder – Submission that strangely the complainant was completely silent as to who were those persons, who had seen or informed him about the role and involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime nor were any of those persons cited as a witness by the prosecution in the challan so filed – 08 material witnesses out of the 30 prosecution witnesses cited had been examined – Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19 -- Petitioner has been in custody since 09th July, 2019, Court deemed it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 366, 323, 354-B, 347, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 54, 49 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case -- Regular bail -- Person with whom the prosecutrix got married i.e. the petitioners' brother, and other co-accused, have been admitted to anticipatory bail by High court -- Petitioners' brother and the prosecutrix had earlier filed petition seeking protection of life and liberty upon having married each other – Testimony of the prosecutrix does not support the case of the petitioner, yet, keeping in view the entire circumstances, petition allowed – Order admitting the petitioner to interim bail, made absolute.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Compromise -- Since the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased -- Incident took place after seven years of the marriage -- It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased was being harassed by her in-laws and she consumed poison due to harassment by her husband -- Also contends that there is a delay of 24 hours in registering the FIR and there is no suicide note – Petitioner was  directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation -- Petitioner having joined investigation, the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 420, 494 495 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Petitioner married the complainant – Thereafter, the complainant came to know that divorce proceedings of the petitioner with his ex-wife were pending -- FIR was lodged – Petitioner in custody since 08.01.2021 – A compromise has already been effected between the parties -- Trial of the case would take long time to conclude -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379, 411, 429  -- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), Sections 11, 59, 60 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Animal smuggling – Anticipatory bail -- Stated that petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been arraigned as an accused as the pickup vehicle wherefrom cattle was recovered is stated to be registered in the name of the petitioner -- Vehicle was sold by the petitioner and from the cabin of the vehicle a country made pistol and live cartridges were recovered -- Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case -- Petitioner having joined investigation, the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452, 354A, 323, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Condition of tying rakhi – Acceptability of -- Using rakhi tying as a condition for bail, transforms a molester into a brother, by a judicial mandate -- This is wholly unacceptable, and has the effect of diluting and eroding the offence of sexual harassment.

(Para 33)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 – Bail in Sexual offences – Duty of courts -- Use of reasoning/language which diminishes the offence and tends to trivialize the survivor, is especially to be avoided under all circumstances -- To say that the survivor had in the past consented to such or similar acts or that she behaved promiscuously, or by her acts or clothing, provoked the alleged action of the accused, that she behaved in a manner unbecoming of chaste or “Indian” women, or that she had called upon the situation by her behavior, etc. are only illustrations of an attitude which should never enter judicial verdicts or orders or be considered relevant while making a judicial decision; they cannot be reasons for granting bail or other such relief.

(Para 42)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 – Sexual offences -- Bail conditions – Directions issued:

(a) Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim. Such conditions should seek to protect the complainant from any further harassment by the accused;

(b) Where circumstances exist for the court to believe that there might be a potential threat of harassment of the victim, or upon apprehension expressed, after calling for reports from the police, the nature of protection shall be separately considered and appropriate order made, in addition to a direction to the accused not to make any contact with the victim;

(c) In all cases where bail is granted, the complainant should immediately be informed that the accused has been granted bail and copy of the bail order made over to him/her within two days;

(d) Bail conditions and orders should avoid reflecting stereotypical or patriarchal notions about women and their place in society, and must strictly be in accordance with the requirements of the Cr. PC. In other words, discussion about the dress, behavior, or past “conduct” or “morals” of the prosecutrix, should not enter the verdict granting bail;

(e) The courts while adjudicating cases involving gender related crimes, should not suggest or entertain any notions (or encourage any steps) towards compromises between the prosecutrix and the accused to get married, suggest or mandate mediation between the accused and the survivor, or any form of compromise as it is beyond their powers and jurisdiction;

(f) Sensitivity should be displayed at all times by judges, who should ensure that there is no traumatization of the prosecutrix, during the proceedings, or anything said during the arguments, and

(g) Judges especially should not use any words, spoken or written, that would undermine or shake the confidence of the survivor in the fairness or impartiality of the court.

(Para 44)

D. Remarks against women – Duty of Court -- Courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order, to the effect that (i) women are physically weak and need protection; (ii) women are incapable of or cannot take decisions on their own; (iii) men are the “head” of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family; (iv) women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture; (v) “good” women are sexually chaste; (vi) motherhood is the duty and role of every woman, and assumptions to the effect that she wants to be a mother; (vii) women should be the ones in charge of their children, their upbringing and care; (viii) being alone at night or wearing certain clothes make women responsible for being attacked; (ix) a woman consuming alcohol, smoking, etc. may justify unwelcome advances by men or “has asked for it”; (x) women are emotional and often overreact or dramatize events, hence it is necessary to corroborate their testimony; (xi) testimonial evidence provided by women who are sexually active may be suspected when assessing “consent” in sexual offence cases; and (xii) lack of evidence of physical harm in sexual offence case leads to an inference of consent by the woman.

(Para 45)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a ‘Captain’ in Army and that the complainant is a matured educated lady aged about 32 years who is working as a Lecturer, complainant and petitioner were friends and there had been physical relationship amongst them on several occasions -- FIR lodged when the relationship went sour subsequently – On these contentions ad-interim bail was granted – Petitioner has joined investigation and is not required for any custodial interrogation -- Alleged rape would be debatable -- Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(Para 2-4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Cancellation of bail -- Forgery with court records -- Grant of bail by High Court – High Court ought to have been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged to have forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been charge-sheeted having found prima facie case and the charge has been framed -- Seriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail, which has not been considered at all by the High Court while releasing accused on bail – Bail order quashed.

(Para 8.2, 8.3, 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) --Cancellation of bail – Locus to file application -- Appellant approached the High Court alleging tampering of court record by the accused and thereafter on enquiry FIR has been lodged -- Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has no locus to file application for cancellation of the bail.

(Para 8.4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376-D -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Compromise -- Parties are stated to have amicably resolved their issues and while also noticing that the petitioner in any case has been behind bars since the last about 10 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition, as such, accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail – Supplementary statement of complainant after 3 months -- Petitioner himself is not alleged to have participated directly in the murder and the role attributed to him even as per the supplementary statement is that of instigation and of harbouring the co-accused -- Veracity of such statement made after about 3 months of the occurrence, when the complainant was very well aware about the enmity between the two families, would be debatable -- Petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 4 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial will take some time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Life of anticipatory bail -- Anticipatory bail by Trial Court – High Court, on an application made by the complainant, indicated that the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant-accused by the Trial Court had come to an end with the filing of a charge-sheet, and directed him to surrender and apply for regular bail – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside -- Anticipatory bail granted to the appellant by the Trial Court restored.

(Para 2, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 50, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 251 kgs of poppy husk was effected when disclosure statement of the accused was recorded in the police station -- In first recovery, only 49 kgs of poppy husk was recovered at the spot -- Police officer initially gave offer to the petitioner in respect of his option to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and thereafter, proceeded to effect search on reposing faith in him by the petitioner – Submitted that even in case of chance recovery, if offer is given by the police officer, then it becomes mandatory to comply with requirement of Section 50 of NDPS Act -- In view of aforesaid position, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 9-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(C), 27-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Acquitted in earlier case – Recovery of 600 tablets in the shape of 60 strips of Tramadol from co-accused -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 months and 14 days; the petitioner was nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, the petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Snatching case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner happens to be involved in 3 other cases registered under NDPS Act -- One mobile phone is stated to have been snatched by the accused, which already stands recovered -- While noticing the fact that the petitioner has since joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required, the petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(Para 1, 4, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149, 120-B – Murder accused -- Temporary release for marriage function -- Marriage of brother -- Presence of petitioner would be necessary – He is in custody for over 3 ½ years and is not involved in any other case -- Petition allowed,  Superintendent, Central Jail directed to send the petitioner from the Central Jail to the place of marriage at 7.00 am in police custody in a conveyance to be provided/paid for by the petitioner – He shall report back to the Central Jail, by 07.00 p.m. on the same day.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Jump of regular bail – Bail bonds / surety bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest issued – Petitioner was attending the proceedings but could not appear before it on 06.01.2020 on account of his illness resulting in his bail bonds / surety bonds being cancelled and he was ordered to be arrested by issuing non-bailable warrants -- No error in the order of the ld. trial Court for issuing non-bailable warrants for securing his presence -- However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner given one opportunity to appear before the ld. trial Court by furnishing bail/ surety bonds along with undertaking that he would not jump bail and would appear on each and every date before the ld. trial Court till the conclusion of the same.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 25 kg 400 grams of Ganja Patti -- Contraband recovered from the petitioner is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity – Petitioner has clean antecedents -- Period of incarceration of the petitioner, nature of allegation, gravity of offence and the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 406 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Non-recovery of dowry articles – Effect of -- Petitioner was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail – In the FIR u/s 498-A and 406 IPC, interim bail cannot be rejected on the ground that dowry articles have not been returned – Petitioner joined the investigation, order granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute. Bhupinder Singh’s case 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 109 relied.

(Para 3-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail by Trial Court – Challenge to -- Allegations primarily are against co-accused who is alleged to have taken money on the pretext of sending the complainant abroad -- Money is stated to have been paid in cash -- Matter was settled and cheques issued by co-accused were dishonoured -- No specific allegation against the private respondents have been roped in because they are related to co-accused -- No infirmity in the order granting anticipatory bail to them.

(Para 4)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail on same day – Legality of -- No merit in the contention that bail was granted on the same day as there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. which stipulates that the bail cannot be granted on the same day.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 379, 382, 148, 149, 201 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Order declaring Proclaimed offender – Challenge to – Release on bail -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested -- Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, he was ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11, 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender/person – Anticipatory bail -- Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender -- Petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture in his leg and arm, due to which, he could not walk -- He requested his counsel for his exemption, but due to some reason, he could not move appropriate application before the trial court -- Petition disposed of with a direction that, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on bail. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Pendency of other criminal cases -- Pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot itself be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail -- Investigation against the Petitioner completed -- His further detention for an indefinite period in the present case at this stage is, therefore, not called for, since the trial is likely to take its own substantial time -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case -- Anticipatory bail -- On submission that petitioner and the prosecutrix were willing to marry each other and it was only because of refusal by the mother of the petitioner that the marriage could not be solemnised and he is still ready and willing to marry with the prosecutrix, no MLR because the FIR is 9 months after the alleged occurrence, delay would certainly be material, interim bail was granted to join the investigation -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further investigation of the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3, 4)