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)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 94 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 57, 167, 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 341, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 29 – Murder case -- Anticipatory bail – Interim bail -- Juvenile-petitioner’s reliance upon birth certificate and matriculation certificate -- Without commenting anything as regards the genuineness of the documents, petition disposed of with the directions:

(i) The petitioner to surrender before the Juvenile Justice Board within 10 days and upon the petitioner so surrendering, the Juvenile Justice Board shall release the petitioner on interim bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Board.

(ii) The Board shall conduct an inquiry as regards the juvenility of the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be juvenile, the Board shall consider his release under Section 12 of the Act and pass an appropriate order.

(iii) The petitioner to be present before the Board on the day his bail application is to be heard and on the day when the order on his bail application is to be pronounced or on any other day as directed by Board.

(iv) If the Board, upon inquiry regarding age comes to conclusion that the petitioner is not a juvenile, he shall be produced before Illaqa Magistrate who shall proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on all the dates unless specifically exempted.

(v) The interim bail shall come to an end if petitioner is not found to be juvenile or in case his application is dismissed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014 Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Second petition for anticipatory bail – Compromise – Cheating – Petition allowed, petitioner directed to appear before the I.O. within a period of 10 days and she shall be released on interim bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. – Disposed of.

(Para 1-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15/61, 27-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Contention that the petitioner neither named in the FIR nor any recovery effected from him -- He has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused from whom 4.7 kgs of poppy husk has been recovered which is below the threshold of 50 kgs of commercial quantity -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the submissions, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 3-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354-B, 452, 506, 34 IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Disrobe the woman/minor – POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – There is dispute between two families resulting in registration of two FIR's, taking the allegations in the FIR on its prima facie value, the serious allegations are only against accused S and R, interim bail granted -- Petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation and he is no more required for further investigation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354-D, 506 – Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67(A) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Stalking – Regular bail – Petitioner sent obscene messages to complainant – FIR registered after six months of occurrence -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in judicial custody for the last about five months and also in view of the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 427, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Offence u/s 307 IPC deleted and offence u/s 326 IPC added -- No grievous injury attributed to the petitioner – On interim direction, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer and she is no more required in further investigation of the case – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dacoity case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was later on, nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Petitioner has undergone the custody of 04 months and 15 days -- Considering the fact that challan stands presented; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, petition allowed.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 353, 186, 324, 326, 332, 333 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was arrested and then released on regular bail -- Subsequently, offences under Section 326, 333 IPC had been added -- It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner has misused the concession of regular bail in any way -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required -- Petition accepted.

(Para 3-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity with murder – Regular bail on parity with co-accused -- Petitioner has undergone more than 05 years of incarceration -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner – Case fixed for recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C -- Keeping in view the total custody period of the petitioner without meaning anything on the merits of the case and the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail at par with other co-accused who have already been granted regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2, 6-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, 506, 427, 34 IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Offence u/s 307 IPC deleted and in its place, offence u/s 326 IPC added -- Main accused were arrested and lateron, released on regular bail by the Court -- Petitioner was unarmed, only fist blows are attributed to him and he also damaged the motorcycle of the complainant – Interim bail granted to join the Investigaiton – Petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of IO and he is no more required in further investigation of the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Dowry death case -- Summoning of additional accused -- Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved after commencement of the trial -- Four witnesses already stood examined, thus the application was filed at the proper stage -- Evidence has been tested by way of cross-examination -- Persons were named in the FIR -- Only relevant question to be examined was regarding the 'degree of satisfaction' -- Death was caused due to asphyxia which was caused due to strangulation and throttling -- Thus, employment of external force in the death cannot be ruled out -- Harassment of deceased started on account of dowry immediately after the marriage -- PW-2 has attributed a specific role to father-in-law i.e. that of handing over gold jewellery of the deceased to him before she was rehabilitated on one occasion -- Thus, there exists more than prima facie case against father-in-law and the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Charges have been framed u/s 498-A IPC as well and there was no requirement of proving anything beyond harassment for dowry for summoning the additional accused.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone 1 year, 4 months and 12 days of custody and there is no other case pending against her – Medical evidence on record is in favour of the prosecution -- Death appears to have been caused by throttling which implies use of external force -- Moreover, prima facie, harassment on account of dowry has been established -- Death has taken place within one year and five months of marriage – Not a case of false implication -- It is not a case of inordinate delay -- Petition has no merit and dismissed at this stage.

(Para 18-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 167(2), 439(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 28, 29 – NDPS case -- Default bail -- Cancellation of -- Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.c. could have been cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Appellants to file regular bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which may be considered on merits and be decided expeditiously.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Non-sharing of profits – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Case of civil nature as dispute between the parties relate to the non sharing of the profit or loss of the partnership firm concretized between them -- Dispute has arisen relating to the payment of the amount so invested and non-sharing of the profits -- Considering the civil clippings of the disputes, without dilating further on merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 376(2n), 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Relation on pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix already married – Regular bail -- Petitioner was already married -- Prosecutrix was married and staying with GC (the elder brother of her deceased husband) -- Unless the prosecutrix proves that she has taken divorce from GC, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage – Petitioner in custody since 31.08.2020 and the parties being mature enough to understand the implications of such like relationship and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 149, 323, 302, 506, 188, 216 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR wherein several persons have been named, she is stated to be armed with 'danda' and present at the place of occurrence, no specific injury has been attributed to her, she is 37 year old lady with two minor children, is in custody for almost 05 months, is not involved in any other criminal case -- 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 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 303, 212, 201, 387, 120-B, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 29, 54, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner in prison for more than 1 year and 2 months -- Trial is yet to commence inasmuch as even the charges have not been framed and no less than 71 witnesses have been cited on behalf of the Prosecution Side -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude in view of the on-going Covid-19 Pandemic -- Further detention of the Petitioner for an indefinite period is not justified -- As such, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4,5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 29 – Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- No recovery from the petitioner has only been roped in on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused from whom the actual recovery was done has already been extended the benefit of regular bail -- Statement of co-accused implicating the petitioner is yet to be proved -- Call details between the petitioner and the son of the co-accused, who is confined in jail, is also yet to be proved -- Keeping in view the above, the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required at this stage – Interim order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Keeping in view the petitioner has already been acquitted in the other two FIRs and no recovery has been done from the petitioner in present case and he has been roped on the basis of statement of co-accused -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage -- Petitioner directed to join the investigation forthwith and in the event of his arrest, he was ordered to be released on interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required at this stage – Interim order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 255 grams of 'heroin' from dash board of vehicle – Regular bail -- Whether it will be conscious possession of passenger – It will be debatable as to whether the petitioners can be attributed conscious possession as normally it would be the owner or driver of the vehicle, who would be said to be having domain over the articles being carried in the vehicle, unless there is other evidence to show the complicity of the other passengers in the said vehicle – In any case, since the petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 7 months, their further detention will not serve any useful purpose -- Petitions accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7,8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 364, 302, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Murder case – Anticipatory bail -- While noticing that It is not a case where any injury is alleged to have been caused to the deceased, petitioner is stated to have joined investigation and is fully cooperating with the police, the petition merits acceptance -- Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 343, 506, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 – Gang rape with minor – Regular bail -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.12.2019 and the victim and her father/complainant have not supported the version of the prosecution, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 302, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 54, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other case and complainant has died prior to conducting his cross-examination and also in view of the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.08.2018, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), 22-B, 22-C, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 180 capsules of Parvorin Spas (Tramadol) and 09 bottles containing Chlospheniramine Maleate & Codeine Phosphate -- Considering the fact that investigation is complete; petitioner is not involved in any other case and the trial is likely to take a long time as out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, the petition allowed.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354, 376, 406, 498-A, 506, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation that when the complainant was present in her room, the petitioner forcibly entered into her room and caught hold of her from the backside and started imposing himself with a bad intention and also started pressing her breasts – Superintendent of Police, was directed to file a specific affidavit as to how the present FIR has been registered u/s 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC keeping in view the allegations in the FIR – As per the statement of the victim and medical report, no case u/s 376 IPC is made out and the same stands deleted and Section 354 IPC has been added subsequently -- Petition allowed, interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36-A -- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18(A), 18(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Challan without FSL -- Petitioner ought to be granted bail in any case since he has already remained in detention for more than 8½ months and there is no involvement in any other case under the NDPS Act, and on account of on-going Covid-19 Pandemic, the trial which could not commence is likely to take a considerable time in its completion.

-- Validity of Division Bench's decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case  (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) cannot at this stage be said to be altogether beyond controversy, since the matter has now been referred for consideration afresh in view of the decision in Julfkar's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15385) which has subsequently been followed in the case of Rinku vs. State of Haryana (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15615).

Criminal Revision allowed at this stage and the Petitioner is permitted to be conditionally released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court concerned. In case of any different result coming forth from that in the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order, if warranted at that stage.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 27-A – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of 1 kilogram and 100 grams of ‘opium’ from co-accused – Petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement and has already joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not warranted – Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Huge loss to State ex-chequer – Regular bail -- Right of -- It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period -- No doubt, the offence alleged against the accused is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter the Court from enlarging the accused on bail when there is no serious contention of the State that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence -- Petitioner in judicial custody since 07.09.2020 and is not required for any further investigation of the case -- Offences are triable by the Magistrate – Without adverting to the merits of the case and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012(1) SCC 40 relied.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 447, 471, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437(6), 439 -- 2nd petition for regular bail – Trial not concluded in 60 days – Right to bail -- Petitioner filed second petition on account of a right which has accrued to him under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and also in view of the fact the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and about 08 months; he is not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time -- Petition allowed -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 29 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 70 strips of Clovidol (each strip containing 10 tablets) i.e. total 700 intoxicant tablets – No other case pending or registered, petitioner in custody since 16.01.2020 -- Not disputed that recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally higher than commercial quantity -- Challan was presented on 10.07.2020, trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Without commenting anything on the merits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85, 37 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, Rule 66 -- NDPS case – Recovery of commercial quantity of 70 injections of Pheniramine Maleate 10 ml Avil and 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each – Contention that the same would not constitute an offence as the same was required to be used for personal medical use (although recovery denied) – Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature, however, departure can certainly be made in case the conditions contained in the aforesaid section itself are satisfied -- First condition being that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application and Second condition being that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable doubts for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and both these conditions are co-existent.

-- State was granted opportunity and time was also granted for filing of reply but the same was not filed.

-- So far as the condition of existence of any reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence is concerned, would be a debatable issue as it is also subject to fulfillment of ingredients of first proviso to Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules. In case Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules is applied in the case then the same would be a reasonable ground and something more than prima facie ground to believe at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence.

-- Apart from this, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than two years and is not involved in any other case at present is also a relevant factor. Keeping in view the above facts and totatility of circumstances of case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition allowed.

Petitioner granted the concession of regular bail.

(Para 7-10, 26, 27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for the last two years and one month; recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally more than the commercial quantity and that trial is not proceeding because of limited working of the courts due to Covid-19 pandemic, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 50, 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 500 grams of ‘Heroin’ from pocket of jacket – Regular bail -- Offer as to whether petitioner wishes his search to be effected in the presence of some Gazetted Officer of the “Police Department” -- It would be debatable as to whether the provisions of Sections 50 NDPS Act stand complied with in letter and spirit or not -- In any case since the petitioner has already been behind bars for a substantial period of 2 years and 10 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 392, 394, 34 – Robbery and voluntary causing hurt while committing robbery – Compromise between parties -- Regular bail – Petitioners assaulted complainant and snatched Rs.8000/- from him -- One of petitioner took knife out from his pocket and inserted it in stomach -- Petitioners were arrested on 27.05.2020 and challan was presented on 23.7.2020 – In compromise deed respondent No.2-complainant has stated that he has not received any serious injury and the compromise has been effected between both the parties – Petitions allowed, petitioners directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 34, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder -- Version and cross-version case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant and his wife by paying Rs.50,000/- each towards medical expenses subject to final outcome of the case -- Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2020; investigation is complete and it is to be decided during the trial, as to who was the aggressor party, this petition allowed and direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B  -- Snatching case – Regular bail – Petitioner in custody since 10.08.2020 not involved in any other criminal case – Complainant has given affidavit that the present petitioner was not involved in the alleged commission of offence – Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. presented and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars – Above all, conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Petition allowed.

(Para 6-8)