A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1), 389(3) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – In view of mandate of Section 389(3) of the CrPC, the principles are different in the case of sentence not exceeding three years and/or in the case of bailable offences -- Discretion u/s 389(1) is to be exercised judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to consider whether any cogent ground has been disclosed, giving rise to substantial doubts about the validity of the conviction and whether there is likelihood of unreasonable delay in disposal of the appeal.

(Para 26, 27)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Dowry death -- Object was to curb dowry death -- Section 304B does not categorize death, it covers every kind of death that occurs otherwise than in normal circumstances -- Where the other ingredients of Section 304B of the Code are satisfied, the deeming fiction of Section 304B would be attracted and the husband or the relatives shall be deemed to have caused the death of the bride -- In dealing with cases under Section 304B, this legislative intent has to be kept in mind -- Once there is material to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment before death, there is a presumption of dowry death and the onus is on the accused in-laws to show otherwise.

(Para 28-30)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389, 439 –Bail being the rule and jail an exception  -- Regular bail – Suspension of sentence – Difference between -- There is a difference between grant of bail u/s 439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence u/s 389 of the CrPC and grant of bail, post-conviction.

-- In the earlier case there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception.

-- In case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial.

(Para 36)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors -- There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 36)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Death took place within 7 or 8 months and there is oral evidence of the parents of cruelty and torture immediately preceding the death -- Also evidence of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent-Accused by the victim’s brother -- Respondent No.2-accused has not been able to demonstrate any apparent and/or obvious illegality or error in the judgment of the Sessions Court, to call for suspension of execution of the sentence. Held,

-- In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous.

-- Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail.

Appellant spent money beyond his financial capacity, at the wedding of the victim and had even gifted an I-10 car -- Failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim is inconsequential -- Parents and other family members of the victim obviously would not want to precipitate a complete breakdown of the marriage by lodging an FIR against the Respondent No.2 and his parents, while the victim was alive. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender for being taken into custody -- The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Para 38-42)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B -- Anticipatory bail -- Cheating -- Case pertains to an agreement to sell -- Petitioner was shown as one of the witness therein -- This being the limited role attributed to him, it would suffice if the petitioner cooperates with the police -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to forthwith join investigation and in event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22C -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 1500 capsules of Ridlay Parvorin-Spas Tramadol -- 15 witnesses to be examined, petitioner in custody for more than one year -- Keeping in view that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 980 loose intoxicant tablets containing salt of Alprazolam – 5 grams above the commercial quantity – Keeping in view order granting concession of bail to the co-accused and the fact that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Complainant also part of illegal activity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since January, 2020 -- Challan filed -- Allegations against the petitioner is that he took money from the complainant to get him admission in MBBS -- If it is so, then the complainant too is equally indulging in the illegal activity -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25 – NDPS matter – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Recovery of 5 grams heroin and 270 grams of intoxicant powder -- Commercial quantity is 250 grams -- Hence, the quantity recovered is marginally higher than the commercial quantity – Keeping in view recovery of marginally higher than the commercial quantity of intoxicant powder and that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 323, 377, 379-B, 34 – Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Allegations that two persons in a drunken condition had slapped the complainant, taken away his phone and then called up his mother and thereafter the 3rd person (unnamed) took him besides the canal and did a wrong act with him -- A sum of Rs.5000/- and two mobile phones were also snatched – Initial allegation was against an unnamed person -- Complainant suffered a supplementary statement in which the name of the present petitioner has figured – DNA report of the complainant also does not support the prosecution version -- Petitioner was arrested on 18.11.2019 -- Trial is at the initial stage and would take time to conclude particularly keeping in view the current Covid-19 situation -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(Para 4-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 25, 37 – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail. Judgment dated 10.08.2020 passed in CRM-M-12541-2020 titled as Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha V/s. State of Punjab relied.

(Para 4, 5)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Run-away marriage – FIR under POCSO/IPC – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Now victim has been residing at her matrimonial home -- Petitioner has been in custody since 06.6.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 255 gram of heroin recovered – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 13 months – Till date, no witness has been examined, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner, is marginally above commercial quantity and no case pending against the petitioner -- Petition allowed, petitioner be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395, 397, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 – Dacoity – Regular bail -- No other evidence against the petitioner as on date except the statement of the co-accused which cannot be read against him -- Similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride with a total weight of 413.92 grams recovered -- Challan has been filed but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined – In view of the submissions, especially when the petitioner is in custody for over 10 months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 313, 323, 34, 376 (2) (n), 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape on pretext to marriage – Regular bail – Prosecutrix is still married, no legal divorce and only statement that she got divorce before panchayat – Material witness i.e. prosecutrix has already been examined and there is no likelihood of petitioner influencing the trial, as there are no such allegations – Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2019, regular bail granted.

(Para 6-13)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Compromise between the parties – Regular bail -- Investigation is already over and challan has also been filed -- Prosecutrix seems to have made complaint under the pressure of her parents, which led to registration of FIR in question -- Petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2020 -- Trial is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon on account of current pandemic conditions due to COVID-19 -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21,22,29 – NDPS matter -- Possession of 4,000 tablets containing Clavidol (Tramadol) and 05 grams of heroin – Petitioner, who is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 11 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2) (n), 120-B – Rape case – Minor girl aged 15 years – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 22 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 55 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules (total 1320 in number) and 14 plastic vials of Corex Syrup were recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested on the spot, there is no question of effecting any recovery of contraband from his conscious possession – Petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2019 -- Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not sufficient enough to establish the petitioner's culpability satisfactorily -- Petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however, there is no mention of the petitioner being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Long detention undergone by the petitioner, as also the fact that the trial is not likely to be commenced or completed in a reasonable time on account of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic -- Ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 380, 452, 34 (lateron added 395, 397) – Regular bail – Compromise between the parties – Seeing the nature of accusation against the petitioners and also the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 concession of regular bail extended to the petitioners.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- 50 kg of Poppy husk weighed with bag -- Default bail – Regular bail -- In case the poppy husk had been weighed separately from the bags wherein it was contained, it would not have come under the commercial quantity -- Challan ought to have been presented within a period of 60 days, considering the fact that the recovery was not of commercial quantity, which has not been done -- There is delay in the presentation of challan – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10,12 -- Anticipatory bail by minor/ juvenile – Maintainability of -- An inference cannot drawn that the legislature intended to debar a juvenile from seeking relief of pre-arrest bail -- Children below age of 18 years coming within definition of juvenile be treated with kindness and compassion even if they are found in conflict with law – Could not be the  intention of the legislature that such juvenile should be first apprehended and then produce before Juvenile Justice Board -- Petition is found to be maintainable.

(Para 1,7,8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Delay in furnishing bail bonds – Effect of -- Petitioner did “avail of” his right u/s 167(2) of the Code and furnished personal bail bond with surety, which was accepted and attested by the Court, he would be deemed to have been released from custody -- Petitioner was not released because two other cases were pending against him – Surety withdrew the surety furnished by him -- Court permitted the petitioner to furnish fresh bail bond with surety -- Since he was in custody in other cases, therefore, he did not furnish the fresh bail bond with surety – After granted bail in other cases, petitioner requested the Court to accept the personal bail bond with surety as directed vide earlier order, which was declined – Held, mere delay in furnishing personal bail bonds/surety cannot visit the petitioner with adverse consequences and the order granting bail u/s 167(2) of the Code does not cease to exist or comes to an end or stand eclipsed -- Petitioner is directed to furnish personal bail bonds with surety and thereafter ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 141 – Judgment passed by Supreme Court of India -- Courts below ignoring the judgment by saying not applicable, without discussion – Permissibility of -- Ld. Court below, in the order has taken notice of the judgment, but refuses to follow the same by observing that “these judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case” – Held, a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India -- No doubt, the ratio decidendi laid down in a judgment is binding and not obiter dicta -- However, before distinguishing judgment, the Court is required to analyse that what is the ratio laid down in the judgment and thereafter, proceed to explain the same -- Manner in which the ld. Court below has ignored the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not appreciable.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 506, 120-B, 34 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has categorically deposed as to having been raped by the petitioner -- However, State has not been able to dispute the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, where she has admitted that she had gone with the petitioner to various places -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2018 and that out of 14, only 8 witnesses have been examined so far -- Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420 IPC -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of1983), Section 10, 24 – Immigration matter – Anticipatory bail -- Rs.3 lacs paid to co-accused -- It is not disputed that the petitioner is not directly related to co-accused -- No amount is stated to have been paid to the petitioner -- Anticipatory bail granted.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 494 – Rape case – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2019 -- In the interest of both the sides, the matter has been compromised between the parties -- Complainant has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 7A -- Default bail – Right of – Accused on interim Bail – Effect of -- Petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61 – Anticipatory bail -- 450 tablets of tramadol recovered from co-accused, who apprehended at the spot, named another person from whom he purchased – Later petitioner has been implicated on the statement of other co-accused – On direction, petitioner joined Investigaiton and released on ad-interim bail – In view that petitioner joined investigation and not required for custodial interrogation, the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34, 452, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Murder case – Lalkara alleged -- Regular bail – Petitioner is attributed only a 'lalkara', he is in custody for over 09 months, the complainant and 02 eye witnesses have been examined, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Tramadol tablets (282 grams) – Regular bail -- Intoxicating tablets containing tramadol with a total weight of 282 grams has allegedly been recovered from her – Petitioner is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 09 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Alprasafe (2900 tablets of 05 mg each) were recovered from two – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2020 -- Applicability of provisions of NDPS Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is a debatable question that will be adjudicated at the trial only -- In the present scenario of Covid-19 pandemic where the Courts are working with restrictions and taking up only urgent matters, there is no likelihood of commencing or concluding of trial in near future -- Petitioner is a widow with minor children -- FSL report has yet not received to ascertain the quantity of the alleged scheduled drug contained therein -- Petition is allowed.

(Para 1,2,5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Regular bail -- Allegation that couple entered into marriage and boy side to spend money to facilitate immigration of couple to Canada – Girl has been successful in migrating to Canada and the boy has failed to do so and apparently appears to be a matrimonial dispute – A debatable issue arises over the very applicability of Section 420 IPC and his joining the investigation would suffice the purpose – Petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and on his doing so, he shall be released on bail till submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) – Thereafter, he will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 34, 506 – Criminal intimidation – Anticipatory bail -- All the offences except the offence under Section 506 IPC, alleged against the petitioners are bailable -- Petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 326 458, 34 – Grievous hurt not attributed to petitioner -- Anticipatory bail -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and one of the co-accused has already been granted protection against his arrest – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 406, 120-B, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 307, 341 & 506 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner, however police had not recovered even any empties/fire bullet from the spot -- In this incident no injury is caused to the complainant by any fire arm – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(Para 1,5,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 451, 109, 323 & 34 – Outrage modesty of woman – Anticipatory bail -- In attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, petitioner had pulled the chunni of the complainant and also caused bruises with his hands on the face and breast of the complainant -- However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had not used any weapon -- Therefore, nothing is required to be recovered from him, as such – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(Para 1,5,6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 2 ½ kilograms of opium – Regular bail – By consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2019; that petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose; that challan has been presented in the Court; that trial has already commenced and since consequent trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the concession of bail – Regular bail granted.

(Para 2, 6,7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 50 – NDPS matter – Joint Memo of recovery – Regular bail -- Consent memo and recovery memo shows that a joint memo was prepared and even a joint consent was taken from the accused persons – High Court has issued guidelines from time to time with regard to investigation to be carried out in the NDPS cases, however, it appears that the investigating officers are not following the same -- Petition allowed -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 37 -- NDPS matter – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of heroin weighing 322 grams and 66 mili gram from two accused – Disclosure statement implicating the petitioner as the person from they borrowed the heroine -- Recovery of 53 grams 63 mili grams from petitioner -- Prima facie, due to inadmissibility of disclosure statements of co-accused in evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from his co-accused and Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act will not be applicable qua the petitioner – Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 8, 12 -- Juvenile/ Child in conflict with law – Right of Bail –Duty of Juvenile Justice Board:--

-- Very constitution of a Juvenile Justice Board, headed by a Metropolitan Magistrate with at least three years’ experience, is with the intention that such an experienced judicial officer, assisted by two social workers, would be conscious of their pious duty to ensure protection of the rights of juveniles.

-- Manifest in no uncertain terms the duty cast upon the Juvenile Justice Board to implement the letter of the law in true spirit, keeping in mind the ultimate interests of the child.

Section 12 of the Act of 2015 makes it clear that grant of bail to the child in conflict with the law should be the norm and the proviso thereto requires denial of such bail only if release of the child is likely to bring him or her into association with known criminals or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice.

(Para 5)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 8, 12 -- Juvenile/ Child in conflict with law – Right of Bail –Duty of Juvenile Justice Board – Juvenile Justice Board declined the bail lackadaisically recorded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that if the petitioner was released on bail, it was likely to bring him into association with a known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger – Ld. Principal Magistrate further recorded that his release would defeat the ends of justice -- This mechanical reproduction of the legal provision was mere lip service by the learned Principal Magistrate to the legal requirement but is of no avail -- This is not the level of care or the approach expected of a Magistrate heading a Juvenile Justice Board -- Very purpose of constituting such Boards would be defeated by such uncaring and inept discharge of functions by judicial officers entrusted with the duty of giving effect to this welfare legislation -- Revision allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail forthwith without sureties.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 120-B – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner has neither alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix nor has he done anything, which would be termed as an overt act and further the petitioner in custody, has now completed more than 14 months -- With the prevailing circumstances, trial is not likely to proceed soon as the Courts are not recording evidence at present -- Petitioner is directed to be release on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 34 – Kidnapping/ Abduction of girl -- Regular bail -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and the fact that the prosecutrix has given statement that she has gone on its own with the accused, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 25, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 60 Kgs. of Dodapost -- Investigating Officer, when apprehended both the petitioners, gave them notice u/s 50 of the Act, in which the petitioners gave consent to be searched by the Investigating Officer and not before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and thereafter, the same Investigating Officer conducted the search and recovered 60 Kgs. of Dodapost from the petitioners – Charges have been framed, however, no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Without commenting upon merits, considering the facts that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 25.11.2019 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, the petitions allowed.

(Para 4-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2), 506, 201 – Allegation of rape – No medical examination – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and the trial is likely to take sufficient long time due to Covid-19 – FIR has been lodged after one year of the occurrence and even the medical examination of the complainant was not got conducted at the relevant point of time or subsequent thereto, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose -- Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376(3) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution case, the petitioner is in custody for almost a year -- Covid 19 pandemic and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376(2) – Kidnapping and rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has failed to support the prosecution version nor her mother i.e. complainant has supported the prosecution story – Challan has been filed, charges have been framed and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 05 have been examined -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, especially during the prevailing conditions of corona virus pandemic -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Contents of FIR – Amendment in – Registration of FIR -- Later on, by registering two DDR certain new facts were added in the FIR, a procedure which is unknown to the criminal law – Held, there is no such provision in Cr.P.C. for amending the contents of the FIR.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Allegation of cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail -- Dispute regarding agreement to sell and receiving of Rs.10 lacs -- Petitioner No.1 is ready to deposit the said amount in the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to show his bona fide -- Admitted case of the complainant that they had business transactions with the petitioners and have already filed suit for recovery – Held, entire case is based upon the documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required -- Petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail -- Two month time granted to deposit the amount of Rs.10 lacs before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate without prejudice to their right of defence.

(Para 24-26)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – NDPS matter – Accused was minor -- Regular bail -- Petitioner was a minor on the date of the alleged offence though have been treated as a major -- Petitioner and the other co-accused were apprehended in possession of 850 tablets of Clovidol-100, however, no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner -- A juvenile who is accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence would ordinarily be entitled to be released on bail if the Court is convinced that such release would not be likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice – No other case against him under the Act of 1985 -- No evidence of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 being attracted to the case on hand – Furthermore, no basis for the opinion formed by both the Courts below that the release of the petitioner would be likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger -- Continued incarceration of the petitioner is neither required nor desirable – Petitioner shall be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Period of challan to be reckoned -- It is now settled that the word ‘custody’ occurring in the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. encompasses police custody as well as judicial custody.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173  – Default bail – Language of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is clear -- If a challan is not presented within the said period, the accused gets an indefeasible right to bail which cannot be defeated by filing the challan after 90 days but before the release of an accused on bail.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Petitioner not arrested kept in Column no. 2 -- Evidence necessary for commencement of trial collected by the investigating agency -- Warrants of arrest had been requested for – Held, it is not essential for a person to be arrested before a challan can be presented against him -- Only requirement for applicability of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is that investigation should be pending against the petitioner -- Trial Court dismissed the application for default bail – No merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.

(Para 1, 3, 10-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 354-A, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2019 -- Prosecutrix has denied the fact that the petitioner established physical relations with her -- Prosecutrix was got declared hostile by the prosecution – It would not be appropriate to further continue to incarcerate the petitioner – Conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7,8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 506, 148, 149 – Charges framed u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner suffered three injuries including two fractures on the fingers of his left hand – Though in the said case, the police had filed a cancellation report, yet the fact remains that in the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the SDJM – Petitioner is attributed a sword blow on the abdomen of Taya of the complainant -- Whether or not the petitioner is an aggressor, is yet to be determined -- Petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2019 -- Challan has already been presented and the charges have also been framed -- Petition allowed, regular bail granted to petitioner.

(Para 11-13)