Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 307, 323, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was granted interim bail, failed to join the investigation, resultantly, the anticipatory bail was dismissed  --  Not even a single word in the pleadings explaining the reason for not joining the investigation, however, considering that name of the petitioner is mentioned only in the cross-version and he was granted interim bail by the trial court, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to join the investigation within one week.

(Para 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Non-bailable warrants issued -- Non-appearance on 4 dates – Reasons given by petitioner prima facie are not satisfactory -- However, the petitioner is granted another opportunity to appear before the trial Court and to furnish fresh surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited in Poor Patient Welfare Fund of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Gang rape -- Anticipatory bail – Prosecutrix was 36 years of age – I.O. is not in a position to dispute that the prosecutrix has not supported the contents of FIR in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- Medical evidence has been sent to FSL and report is awaited -- Considering the facts of the case and the age (17 years) of the petitioner, he is granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 2, 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the girl in question shows that she had gone willingly with the petitioner and it has been stated by her in no uncertain terms that nothing wrong was done by the petitioner or anyone else -- Only FSL report is on record and not the medical report -- No doubt, the prosecutrix is minor but in view of her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as also taking into account the age of the petitioner too who is 22 years alongwith the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year, Court deemed it proper to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 1,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 437, 439 -- Default bail – Appellant held entitled for bail u/s 167 Cr.P.C., however High Court ordered that he can be re-arrested after charge sheet is filed – Held, filing of charge sheet by itself cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail.

(Para 2, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376-C and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- FIR of 2003 – Compromise between parties -- Incident is 17 years old, the complainant is not willing to pursue the matter, the petitioner is in custody for over 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 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15 and 27-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 506 and 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Disclosure statement -- Petitioner has been nominated as accused on disclosure statement made by co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 09.09.2020 -- Challan has been presented but charge has not been framed, thus consequential trial is going to take time -- Considering the role assigned to the petitioner also considering duration of the custody of the petitioner, the petition, as such, is allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 353, 186, 341, 427, 148, 149, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail – Contention that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner and he himself had received several injuries in the occurrence -- Especially when the petitioner had received several injuries in the occurrence, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Unlawful assembly – Regular bail -- Petitioner alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons formed unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of said assembly committed murder – Petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2019 and he is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose -- Challan has already been presented in Court -- Testimonies of material witnesses complainant and eyewitness have already been recorded and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude – Petitioner deserves the concession of bail.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 5100 tablets of Lomotil  -- Petitioner in custody for about 2 years and three months -- Out of total twelve prosecution witnesses, examination-in-chief of only two witnesses has been recorded -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation – Petitioner ordered to be released on interim bail till 31.05.2021 -- 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 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- Interim bail for 6 weeks for spinal surgery – FIR u/s 307, 392, 223, 224, 120-B, 148, 149, 201, 419, 170, 171, 353, 186, 212, 216, 489, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, u/s 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 of UAP Act, 1967 and offence u/s 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 – On earlier occasion on 19.02.2018 petitioner was released on interim bail for the marriage of his daughter for a period of one week by noting that the investigation was complete and challan had been presented and charges had been framed -- Keeping in view the background and the fact that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and was also an employee of the State Government has his roots deep in the society and in view of the medical recommendations of the experts, petitioner held entitled for the benefit of interim bail for a period of 6 weeks.

(Para 3-9)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914), Section 61, 78(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Excise matter – Anticipatory bail – 25 boxes of liquor were recovered from Boot (dighi) of the car – Two accused were arrested during Investigaiton -- Name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of owner of Car – Neither the car is owned by the petitioner nor he was present at the spot and also the fact that no recovery is to be made -- Petitioner granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 3-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of 4 gram heroin -- Considering the fact that alleged recovery is of non-commercial quantity, no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and it is the only case registered against the petitioner -- Pre-arrest bail granted.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914), Section 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- Secret information received that petitioner is selling illicit liquor and if raid is conducted, she can be apprehended -- Raid was conducted and allegedly 50 kg lahan was recovered from her house –Considering the facts of the case in entirety, more so that it is not forthcoming as to why she was not arrested at the time of raid, petitioner granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914), Section 61(1) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was sitting on the bed at the time of raid, two plastic Cans (60 bottles of illicit liquor) were recovered under the bed where he was sitting -- In raid he disclosed his name, yet nothing is forthcoming why he was not arrested at the spot -- Merely, the fact that there are other cases pending against him, would not be a ground to deprive him of personal liberty – No recovery is to be made from the petitioner -- Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 6,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section Sections 365, 452, 376, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- MLR shows that the age of the prosecutrix is of 19 years -- No external marks of injury have been found on her body -- Furthermore, a perusal of the FSL report shows that human semen was detected only on exhibit-1 (underwear) not detected on rest of the exhibits mentioned in the FSL report -- Challan presented, charges are yet to be framed -- Petitioner is under incarceration since 5.1.2020 -- Due to outbreak of pandemic of COVID-19, trial would take a long time to conclude -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Constitution of India, Article 14 – Anticipatory bail by juvenile – Maintainability of -- Simply because there are special provisions made for grant of bail to a juvenile, would not dilute his right to approach a Court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. so as to seek protection against his arrest -- There cannot be any discrimination against juvenile in the matter of consideration for grant of anticipatory bail because that would be denial of his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Held, juvenile is as much entitled to avail the benefits u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. as any other citizen is entitled.

(Para 7)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 1, 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Excise matter -- Anticipatory bail -- 140 kg of lahan recovered from the house belonging to the petitioner – There is no other case against the petitioner and recovery already stands effected – Petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363 and 366-A (Section 120-B IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping case – Run-away marriage -- Protection petition after marriage -- Regular bail – Matriculation certificate shows that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 26.03.2002 and in this manner, on the date when she solemnised marriage with the petitioner, she had attained the age of majority -- State submitted that as per the birth certificate issued by the Registrar (Births and Deaths), the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 26.11.2002 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324, 326 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Grievous hurt -- Regular bail -- Compromise between the parties – Held, the factum of compromise cannot be a ground to extend the concession of regular bail more so when even the charges have not yet been framed -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Jump of bail – Proclaimed offender -- Petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail by High Court but they failed to put in appearance during trial and warrants of arrest were un-executed -- Though the prosecutrix has already turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution, however, concession of anticipatory bail ought not to be allowed to a person who has been declared as proclaimed offender -- Court deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within a period of one week and move appropriate application for bail -- In case they comply with the aforesaid directions their application for bail may be considered on the date so filed. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, relied.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Contention that neither the petitioner was proprietor, nor the partner in the firm and only allegation against the petitioner is that he has convinced with the complainant to invest the money, rather, the petitioner himself has been defrauded of Rs.5 crores by the company and moved a representation to the S.S.P. prior to the registration of the present FIR – Petitioner was directed to join the investigation with protection of interim bail -- Petitioner joined the investigation now not required for any further investigation -- Interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173, 401 – NDPS case – Challan without Forensic Science Report -- Default bail -- Challan prepared and filed in the Court  -- Application for grant of bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the reason that report from Forensic Science Laboratory had not been attached with challan was dismissed by learned Judge, Special Court – Held, law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of High Court is quite limited – Court did not find any illegality or infirmity with the impugned order much less apparent on the face of it -- Order is certainly not in violation of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence – No reason to upset the impugned order – Revision petition dismissed.

(para 3-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating by agreement to sell – Civil suit pending – Regular bail – Primary allegations against the petitioner are that he along with 3 co-accused have prepared an agreement to sell vide which the complainant has allegedly agreed to sell the property in favour of the petitioner – Said agreement to sell is already subject matter of civil suit – Considering the fact that prior to registration of the present FIR, the matter was already subjudice before the Civil Court, the petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A (420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B added later) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Wrong affidavit in court – Bail to juvenile -- Petition showed date of birth to be 20.08.2000 on affidavit instead of real date of birth as 20.08.2002 – High Court ordered for registration of criminal case for attempt to mislead and hoodwink the Court -- Resultantly, offence u/s 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC added – Challan has been presented – Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the custody of the petitioner since 29.08.2020, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge her on regular bail.

(Para 3-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of poppy husk is non-commercial quantity -- No recovery effected from the petitioner and he is being arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused – Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act –Anticipatory bail granted.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching of mobile phone – Regular bail – Submission that it remained unexplained as to from which sources, the complainant came to know about the names of the persons, who had allegedly snatched his mobile phone – Petitioners remained behind bars for about 3 months – Challan already stands presented – Interim directions pertaining to grant of interim bail made absolute.

(Para 3-5)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61/1/14 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 473 IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- 45 boxes of country made liquor were recovered from a car and co-accused was arrested at the spot -- Petitioner is not the owner of the car – Other co-accused was arrested later and stated that he was to hand over liquor to the petitioner – On direction petitioner joined investigation, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Interim bail -- FSL report in the case has not been received so far -- Petitioner deserves the concession of interim regular bail till receipt of FSL report -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on interim regular bail till receipt of FSL report -- On receipt of FSL report, the petitioner shall apply for regular bail before the trial Court. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail – Petitioner in judicial custody since November, 2018 -- Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the co-accused of the petitioner is on bail -- Out of total fifteen prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far -- Trial is likely to consume considerable time to conclude in the wake of outbreak of pandemic-COVID-19 – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 458, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 (Sections 325/326 IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Lalkara -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is attributed a 'lalkara' only although the other co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries – Interim bail given, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and even challan has been presented to Court – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

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 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Proclamation order – Challenge to – Bail to petitioner – Right of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Cr.P.C. 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 -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abatement to suicide – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Allegation that deceased committed suicide on receiving threats by petitioner -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.01.2020; he is not involved in any other case; the trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation and also in view of the fact that matter stands compromised between the complainant and petitioner, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5, 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18/61, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail -- Petitioner was carrying a black bag on his shoulder – Petitioner and co-accused arrested carrying 3 kilograms each of Opium – Petitioner cannot be denied bail merely on the ground that he belong to Bihar -- Moreover by offering the surety amount to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, the apprehension of the petitioner absconding is met to an extent – Petitioner is behind bars for more than 1 ½ years -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Story put forth by the prosecution gives an arguable issue to the petitioner -- Nothing on record to show that the concession of bail is likely to be misutilised -- Petitioner granted bail subject to furnishing surety/sureties to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 4-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody for more than two months -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non vital part -- Thus, it is a debatable question as to whether the said injury would entail the offence u/s 307 IPC, and the same can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Injury attracting the mischief of Section 307 IPC has not been attributed to either of the petitioners – Fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19 -- Petition allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Run-away marriage with minor -- Victim had left the house of her own and gone to Bihar with co-accused, where they had performed the marriage -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had allured the victim, who is a minor girl -- Petitioner, who is having a minor child, has been in custody since 14.08.2020 -- No witness has been examined so far -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34, 365, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail – As many as 13 injuries were found on the person of the injured -- However, all the said injuries are virtually on non-vital parts inasmuch as the receipt of the said injuries are either on shoulders, arms, legs, knees or hands -- Even the three injuries classified as ‘grievous’ injuries are on non-vital parts -- Nothing to suggest that any of the injuries had been caused by running over the car on the injured -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 6 months and 5 months respectively and challan already stands presented -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 307, 325, 341, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has given a Jaily blow on the leg of victim, which is declared to be a simple injury and the injury, invoking Section 307 IPC, is attributed to co-accused, who was having an axe -- Petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail and direction given to join the investigation -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for further investigation in the case – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 4-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Agreement to sell – Civil nature dispute – Anticipatory bail by Ld. Addl. Session Judge -- Cancellation of -- Main dispute between the parties is regarding breach of an agreement to sell and it is based on documentary evidence -- Dispute is purely of civil nature – Allegations and counter-allegations levelled by both the parties against each other can only be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence -- Court found no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail – Ground of -- When a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with the evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulge in similar activity, which would hamper smooth investigation of trial, is a ground for cancellation of bail.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping – Regular bail -- Victim 17 year old taken away on the pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- She has refused to get herself medically examined -- Challan has been presented -- Charges have also been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Looking to the facts and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Bail -- Proclamation at incomplete address – Effect of -- Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has been served, the proclamation proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not likely to be sustained because of his incomplete address on the proclamation notice – Order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside -- In case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on interim bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to its satisfaction.

(Para 7-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c) – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- From two co-accused 2600 tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride were allegedly recovered -- Co-accused are alleged to have stated that they had purchased the same from one ‘B’ and ‘B’ stated that he had purchased the same from ‘J’, who stated that he had purchased the same from the petitioner -- Thus, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – On direction petitioner joined investigation, in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Intoxicant tablets and powder were recovered from the car – Accused pleaded no knowledge about the presence of intoxicants in the car – Petitioner found to be innocent in the inquiry conducted by S.P. – He is involved in seven other case and on bail in all other cases -- Without meaning anything on merits of the case and in view of situation arising out of pandemic covid-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail – It will be debatable as to whether it is a case of suicide or murder – In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 1 year and happens to be a cousin of husband of the deceased and maintaining a separate house and mess, though in adjacent premises, and is not stated to be involved in any other case, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted.

(Para 7, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Petitioner was apprehended with 21 intoxicant bottles of ONEREX weighing 100 ML each and 21 strips of CARISOPRODOL -- Petitioner in custody for the last 02 years and 11 days – Out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-4)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Petitioner is originally a resident of U.P., and presently was residing with his father in New Delhi, which falls in a different State from where the trial is taking place, i.e. Gurugram in Haryana – JJ Board declined bail by saying the petitioner may have to face revulsion and outrage from members of the society on surmises and conjectures -- Ld. ASJ upheld the decision by saying release would associate him with known criminals and it would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, whereas JJ Board never speculated upon such possibility – Held, petitioner who is a juvenile and has already remained in detention for a period of one year, one month and twenty days by now, should be released on bail – Revision allowed.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Recovery of dowry article – Requirement of -- Bail opposed by complainant on the ground that recovery of the dowry articles is yet to be effected -- Submission is totally misplaced and misconceived, case pertains to the offence u/s 498-A IPC and is not u/s 406 IPC where the entrustment of articles is mandatorily required to be made to the person, by whom, it is misappropriated – Petitioner has joined the Investigation, no more required for further Investigation -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3,4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 482 -- Proclaimed offender – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail – Right of -- When an accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender, a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., impugning that order is not maintainable and accused should first move the Court which declared him a proclaimed offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation and that power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding or avoiding service -- If an accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, he should not be granted anticipatory bail -- Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to surrender before the trial Court and move application seeking regular bail. Mehnga Singh’s case 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 501 and Pradeep Sharma’s case 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269 relied.

(Para 3,4)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(f), 376(3) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Rape with minor cousin sister – Prosecutrix was residing in house of petitioner being brought up by his mother -- Juvenile’s bail – Prosecutrix entire statement recorded – Petitioner was aged about 15 years when the FIR was lodged still continues to be a juvenile -- By now, he has already remained in Safe Custody for more than one year and one and a half months –  His further detention there would not appear to be in his overall interest due to the fact that there are likely to be more juveniles in conflict with law, housed in the same premises -- Prosecutrix has already been shifted from the parental house of the petitioner -- No reason to deny petitioner the opportunity of coming back to the custody of his parents -- Trial is likely to take its own substantial time, particularly on account of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic -- Revision petition allowed -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 4-8)