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 102 kg poppy straw/ Chura post (Commercial quantity) – Noticing the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2019 and challan was presented on 19.06.2020 and thereafter, on account of Covid-19 pandemic, trial could not proceed ahead coupled with the fact that there is no other case against the petitioner, Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Other criminal cases – Effect of -- Involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases is not a bar to grant of compulsive bail, which is an indefeasible right and accrues in favour of the accused on account of default by the Investigating Agency.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(b), 31, 36-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 51-B – NDPS case – Default bail -- Petitioner is in custody since more than nine months and that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, the impugned order passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge is set aside -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing heavy bail bonds/surety with an undertaking to the effect that he will not indulge in sale, purchase or trade of any prohibited substance and in case he violates the undertaking, it will be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail -- Liberty granted to the State to seek modification of this order or cancellation of bail, in case the outcome of the case in the reference in Julfkar’s case is different than the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta’s case

(Para 10)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A (Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 added later on) – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Compromise – Prosecutrix is now almost 18, compromise states that the petitioner and prosecutrix were in a relationship -- Petitioner is 24 year of age -- In view of the above, especially when the petitioner is in custody for over a year, he is not involved in any other criminal case, 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 1, 2, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 285, 323, 379-B, 427, 506, 120-B (395, 397 added lateron) -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 (27, 30 added lateron) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity case – Regular bail – Compromise between the parties -- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioners, the fact that the matter has been compromised and also the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19, Court inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioners – Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395, 397, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dacoity case -- Regular bail – Interim bail -- Cash amount was looted from an ATM machine – Contention that petitioner was named on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and 08 months; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required -- Conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition partly allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail till 10.06.2021 -- However, the trial Court, after assessing the situation, if the trial has not started in ordinary course and the evidence is recorded, may cancel or may continue the interim bail granted to the petitioner till further orders.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437(6) –Magistrate Trial -- Trial not concluded in 60 days – Right to Bail -- Contention that petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2019; he is not involved in any other case and despite the offences being triable by the Court of Magistrate; investigation has not been concluded within a period of 60 days after first date of recording the evidence i.e. 02.01.2020 – State has not disputed the factual position -- Out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, only 01 PW has been examined so far -- Petitioner is in long custody, due to COVID-19 situation, trial is not proceeding further -- Petition allowed -- Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, set aside and the petitioner is granted bail u/s 437 (6) Cr.P.C.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Promise to procure job on payment – Anticipatory bail -- Amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was deposited in the account of co-accused, Rs.1.00 lac in account of the petitioner and Rs.21.00 lacs were paid in cash to the accused on different dates -- Voluntary statement made by the petitioner that she, without prejudice to her right of defence, will deposit Rs.5.00 lacs with the Illaqa Magistrate within a period of two months -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 6, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20(b), 29, 68Y – Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42-A -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Supply of drugs in jail – Regular bail -- Co-accused used to supply narcotic drugs to the petitioner (DSP Jail) at jail and he used to supply such like contraband to some of the prisoners in the jail – 110 grams of charas has allegedly been recovered from the petitioner along with 11 sim cards -- Petitioner has also been booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act for collecting the illegal money from the prisoners so as to extend them various facilities in the jail -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is custody since 23.07.2020 and there is no other case under the NDPS Act pending against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, as only challan has been presented and charge has yet not been framed in the case so far, this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395, 397, 216 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity case – Regular bail -- Absconded for 18 years – Especially when the petitioner is not named in the FIR while the co-accused was specifically named, he is in custody for about 06 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 4, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Compromise between parties -- Complainant/prosecutrix’s counsel stated that it is correct that affidavit has been furnished by the complainant before the police that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution – Held, there can be no compromise in serious offences like under Section 376 IPC in normal circumstances, however, for the purpose of considering the grant of regular bail various other factors are to be seen, at this stage -- Petitioner is in custody for the last approximately six months and investigation is already complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stands presented -- Trial of the case may take long time, this Court deemed it fit and proper to allow the present petition.

(Para 6-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Challan without FSL report – FSL report presented after 180 days -- Default bail -- Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering the fact that the challan presented without being accompanied by the FSL report, would be treated to be an incomplete challan.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Compromise between parties -- Complainant has already executed an affidavit endorsing the factum of settlement between the parties and he does not wish to pursue the case anymore – On interim bail petitioner has joined the investigation to the entire satisfaction of the Investigating Officer – Petitioner is no more required for further investigation of the case -- Interim order made absolute -- Petition disposed of.

(Para 3-6)

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 -- Petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused i.e. driver of the vehicle -- Petitioner is not owner of the vehicle – Interim bail granted, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and he is not required in any further investigation of the case – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 324, 323, 148, 149, 506 (326, 307 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner joined investigation, subsequently offences u/s 326 and 307 IPC have been added which has again given apprehension of arrest to the petitioners – Contention that in the given facts custodial interrogation may not be necessary – State Counsel states that petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation for the time being -- Interim bail made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22(b), 27-A, 61, 85 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – On contention that petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of Co-accused from whom the alleged contraband was recovered hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, interim bail was granted – Petitioner joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and not required in any further investigation of the case -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Dowry death case – Proclaimed absconder -- Accused was not in India at the time of incident – Contention that service of summons never effected/ co-accused acquitted -- On interim direction petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court, joined the proceedings and has been released on interim bail – As such the purpose for which the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated stand achieved and the petitioner no longer remains an absconder – Bail order made absolute.

(Para 7-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 120-B, 148,149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Custody since 23.11.2020 -- Role attributed to the petitioner is that she raised lalkara – Challan is likely to be presented soon -- Trial is likely to take time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bar any longer – Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Third anticipatory bail application – Maintainability of -- On the third occasion, the learned Judge acceded to the request of respondent No. 2 and granted anticipatory bail, without referring to crucial facts noted in the status report -- None of the reasons cited can be said to be just basis to show indulgence to respondent No. 2 -- Successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation – Specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge – Impugned judgment and order set aside, I.O. is free to take respondent No. 2 into custody forthwith.

(Para 7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506 & 34 (offences u/s 363, 366-A, 120-B & 109 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Detention for 1 year, 2 months and 8 days -- Evidence of the material witnesses including Prosecutrix recorded – As per MLR there is “no evidence of any injury anywhere on the body, breast well developed. Axillary and Pubic Hair present. No Injury anywhere on external genitalia” -- Chemical Examiner's Report is also not helpful to the prosecution case -- In view of the long detention undergone by the petitioner as also the fact that the deposition of the material witnesses including the Prosecutrix have already been recorded, on account of which, there is no possibility of their being subjected to any kind of threat or pressure, at this stage, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail allowed.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Petitioner was one of those two cut surd persons who were carrying two different black colour plastic bags in their hands – Petition of co-accused allowed after noticing prima-facie facts that the offer was partial offer and Section 50 of NDPS Act was not complied with – Petitioner in custody since 25.09.2019 – Challan has already been presented, no PW has been examined so far – Keeping in view the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, petition allowed.

(Para 5-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Counterfeit currency case -- Proclaimed offender – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 19.12.2020 -- Charges framed, other co-accused, who faced the trial have already been acquitted by the trial Court – No other case against the petitioner -- Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 (Section 326 IPC added later on) -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail in cross case – FIR u/s 302, 307, 324, 323, 148 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act  against opposite party – Allegation that petitioner had given a ‘gandasi’ blow near the right eye of ‘G.S’, who is also an accused in the FIR – Especially when it is a case of version and cross-version, the brother of the petitioner was killed in the incident and the petitioner having joined investigation, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 6, 23, 27 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Pre-natal Sex determination and sex-selective abortion --  Regular bail -- Parity with co-accused – Allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet, as well the disclosure statements made by the petitioner and the co-accused u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reveal that prima facie, the petitioner had a more active role in conducting the alleged illegal medical practices of sex determination and sex-selective abortion -- Whereas the alleged role of the co-accused was limited to merely picking up and dropping off the petitioner’s clients -- No grounds for granting parity with the co-accused to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Culpable homicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner had given kicks and fist blows to the deceased -- Petitioner was neither attributed any injury with any weapon nor any weapon was recovered from the his possession – Allegation regarding common intention is to be established during trial -- Deceased died due to head injury, and this injury is not attributed to the petitioner – He is in custody since 17.8.2020, coupled with the fact that trial in the case may take long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release him on regular bail.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Challenge to -- Deceased approached respondent No. 2, who was his immediate boss, for his reinstatement, but he had allegedly demanded bribe which had upset him and committed suicide – Deceased was suspended by the order passed by the Executive Engineer, who is the competent authority -- Respondent No. 2 was working as Sub Divisional Officer -- It has also been noticed that the authenticity of the suicide note is yet to be determined – No illegality in the impugned order granting anticipatory bail.

(Para 5,6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 25, 27-A, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case -- Challan without FSL – Default bail -- Following the dictum of Court in Suresh’s case (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15648 and considering the fact that the petitioner, who has unblemished antecedents, is in custody since more than nine months and that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, the impugned order set aside – Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail -- Liberty to the State to seek modification of this order or cancellation of bail, in case the outcome of the case in the reference in Julfkar’s case (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15385 is different than the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta’s case (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121.

(Para 9, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 325, 326, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt -- Second anticipatory bail application – Changed circumstance -- When the first anticipatory bail application was withdrawn, there was no cross case/DDR – Both the parties have suffered injuries and who is the aggressor out of the two, is yet to be proved during the trial and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is only being asked for recovery of the weapon attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the police and ordered to be released on interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required at this stage – Interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 349, 120(B), 101, 143, 147, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 4, 25 -- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (22 of 1951), Sections 37(1)(3), 135 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Application for regular bail – Interim direction for producing CCTV footage – Legality of -- Impugned order indicates that the directions regarding the CCTV footage were made by the High Court on submissions by Respondents-accused before the High Court that they wished to rely on the same to prove their non-participation in the alleged incident – Held, it was not appropriate directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial -- Direction of the High Court directing the IO to examine the CCTV footage and to submit a report, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

(Para 4, 9, 10)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Corruption case -- Bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- For the last over three years, the petitioner has undisputedly joined investigation and cooperated -- His arrest was not considered necessary at any point of time during this long period of investigation -- Petitioner has since retired from service, hence would not be in a position to tamper with the evidence -- Respondents did not require his judicial custody till date – Direction given that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer on furnishing a personal bond.

(Para 10, 11)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Bail to juvenile – Three other accused persons identified as accused out of which two are already arrested -- None of the other culprits is a Juvenile -- Following arrest of the other culprits, there is very little chance of the petitioner now coming into association with any criminal or being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger – Petitioner in custody for more than four months -- Considering the long period of detention undergone by him as also the Social Investigation Report, petitioner released on bail.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching of cash of Rs. 9500/- and ATM – Regular bail – Contention that Test Identification parade was done by force -- Authenticity of the test identification parade is a debatable issue and it is subject matter of trial -- Further, investigation in the case is already complete and challan stands presented on 20.10.2020 and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case -- It is also not the case of the State that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may influence the witnesses or tamper with any evince – Petition for regular bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 440, 482 – Surety for Bail -- Personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount -- Petitioner ready to furnish personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) cash in the court as he is not having two local sureties and prays for modification – Order modified to the extent that the petitioner would furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and that too by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in cash with the Court concerned -- Condition imposing furnishing of two local sureties by the petitioner vide impugned order is quashed.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 376-D, 506 -- 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 -- Previously also FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable u/s 376-D, 365, 323, 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012, whereby a cancellation report submitted by the police has been accepted after hearing the complainant -- On similar allegations, the present FIR has been registered -- Affidavits given by the complainant and her daughter, wherein they have retracted from the allegations – Final report was filed on 06.02.2020, but the charges are yet to be framed -- Considering the custodial period of the petitioner, his further detention behind the bars may not be necessary -- Outbreak of pandemic COVID-19 may delay the conclusion of trial -- Petition allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 25 (Section 29 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is the first offender; he was neither named in the secret information nor named in the FIR, the petitioner directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days and ordered to be released on interim bail – Petition disposed of.

(Para 1, 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Acquittal of co-accused – Regular bail for proclaimed offender/Petitioner -- Contention that main accused was arrested and acquitted, under the circumstances, no case against the present petitioner is sustainable and he deserves to be granted the concession of regular bail -- Without going into the merits of the case, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 377, 506, 34 (Section 376(2)(n) IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Unnatural offence -- Live-in relationship – Anticipatory bail – Promise to marry, resiled after selection as constable – In FIR complainant has stated that she had been socially divorced and leading a single lady life she had been in a live-in-relationship with the petitioner since 2016 and before that she was leading a single lady life --  Interim bail was granted to join Investigaiton – Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for any further investigation – Petition allowed.

(Para 3-6)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65-B – Whatsapp Messages – Evidential value -- NCB placed reliance on Whatsapp messages by which the petitioner could be implicated -- Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required when reliance is being placed upon electronic record – Certificate not shown, said message would be of no evidentiary value as on date -- Narcotics Bureau would be at liberty to rely upon the Whatsapp messages after due compliance of provisions of Section 65-B Evidence Act. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar’s case  (2020) 7 SCC 1 relied.

(Para 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 21, 22, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Total 57000 tablets i.e. 20,000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg (Trade Name Clovidol-100 SR) from “PK” and 37,000 from “BK” – On disclosure of statement “PK”, petitioner was named as a person who had sent the contraband to her for its onwards dispatch to other “BK” – After notice u/s 67 of Act, petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2020 – Investigation complete and the challan stands presented -- 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 on execution of adequate personal/ surety bond of an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs.

(Para 3, 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- Challan without FSL report – Interim bail -- Petitioner directed to be released on interim bail till receiving of the FSL report -- Petitioner shall submit an undertaking before the trial Court along with his bail/surety bonds that he will surrender before the trial Court on receiving the report of FSL. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case, 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), 21, 61 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – NDPS case – Bail to juvenile – Right of -- Recovery of 100 gram of charas -- U/s 12 JJ Act, 2015 and rules framed thereunder, the gravity of offence is immaterial -- Complicity of the petitioner would be debatable -- Only consideration at this stage is to reach at a prima facie conclusion that whether by enlarging the juvenile in conflict with law on bail, ends of justice would be defeated or not -- Bail can be rejected only in three eventualities i.e. where reasonable ground exists for believing that the release of juvenile in conflict with law is likely to bring him in association with known criminal(s), the release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically and the release would defeat the ends of justice -- At this stage, no such firm opinion can be made -- Petitioner ordered to release on regular bail.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been summoned to face the trial pursuant to the order passed in the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- No justification in keeping the petitioner behind the bars, especially when the case is at the trial stage -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Death by negligence driving -- Proclaimed person – Regular bail – Proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C. published on 02.08.2018 for 04.08.2018 and the proceedings were adjourned by the trial Court to 04.09.2018 to complete the requisite period of 30 days -- Argument that such a procedure is violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 82 – Considering period of incarceration, nature of allegation, gravity of offence and the fact that the mandatory provisions of Section 82 have apparently not been adhered to before declaring him as a Proclaimed offender and the trial is likely to take time due to spread of contagion, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further – Petition allowed.

(Para 3, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 148, 149, 188, 269 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner -- Fatal blow to deceased is said to have given by co-accused – Challan filed but charge is yet to be framed -- Conclusion of trial shall take considerable time -- Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape case – Regular bail – Complainant filed an Affidavit to the effect that the subject FIR was registered on a misunderstanding – Medical examination report of the girl did not disclose the commission of rape upon her and there were no signs of any use of force -- Forensic DNA test report disclosed that no human semen was detected -- Final opinion of the expert was that there were no signs suggestive of penetration of the vagina or anus of the victim – Held, no case of sexual assault is made out, prima facie, against the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(c), 25, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- During checking of car, 150 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner and 270 grams from KS – State submits that 420 grams of heroin was recovered in total, which is commercial in quantity -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and no recovery is to be made -- As per the case made out, non-commercial quantity of heroin has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner – Petition allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- Kidnapping case -- Anticipatory bail – Prosecutrix in her statement to the Judicial Magistrate had stated that she had gone on her own and no physical harm was caused to her by the petitioner – On ad-interim bail, petitioner joined the investigation and not required for custodial interrogation – Order granting interim bail made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506, 511 (Section 367 added lateron) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to rape – Regular bail – Compromise between parties – Prosecutrix is 36 years of age -- An affidavit was executed by the complainant/prosecutrix wherein she has stated that the parties have since entered into Panchayati Compromise and therefore, she did not want to pursue any further with the proceedings – Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 7-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436(2) – NDPS case – Non-appearance on one date – Cancellation of bail – Non-bailable warrants -- Legality of -- Trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order for solitary absence of petitioner, who was on regular bail since 29.05.2019 -- Accused or his counsel can be prevented by sufficient reasons and every such absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Explanation offered by the petitioner appears to be probable and therefore, the same is accepted -- Impugned order and subsequent issuance of warrants (if any) set aside.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61/1/14 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- Considering the fact that the petitioner was not apprehended from the spot, the alleged recovery is of 50 litres of Lahan, the information was that he was preparing illicit liquor and selling the same, however, there is no seizing of any equipment to show that the liquor was being prepared at the said spot -- Petitioner was granted interim bail – Petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required -- Interim bail made absolute.

(Para 3-5)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366 -- (Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act were added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Compromise between parties -- Petitioner has allegedly enticed away the victim on the pretext of marrying her -- FIR pertains to July, 2019 and at that time, the victim was below 18 years of age and now in view of the compromise, she has performed the marriage and is residing with the petitioner -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 27.09.2019; till date no PW has been examined due to COVID-19 situation and also in view of the fact that no motive or previous enmity is attributed to the petitioner and the conclusion of the trial will take some time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6)