Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Forgery and fabrication – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations that petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability -- All the documents are already in possession of the police -- Whether the petitioner had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis a vis the documentary evidence already seized – Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(Para 5,6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Co-accused was apprehended while in possession of 12 injections of Bupronorphine (2 ml each), 12 injections of Avil (10 ml each) and 50 grams of ‘Heroin’ -- Upon interrogation she disclosed that she had purchased the aforesaid contraband from the petitioner -- Since the petitioner was never arrested at the spot and no recovery was effected from him and he is nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, it will certainly be debatable as to whether the aforesaid disclosure statement would be admissible in evidence against the petitioner or not -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21,61,85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 400 grams of heroin – Custody since 12.08.2019 -- Regular bail -- FIR of 12.8.2019 do not give any time and place of apprehending the petitioner -- No independent person has been joined in the proceedings – Case property was produced before the Magistrate and the representative samples were drawn on 13.08.2019 and samples were ultimately sent to FSL only on 16.08.2019 -- Challan has been presented on 23.01.2020 -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case – Contended that according to instructions/notification No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the samples are required to be sent to FSL within 72 hours, the non-compliance would entail in grant of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage – Without adverting to the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 4-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 -- Alprazolam recovered – Regular bail -- Alleged recovery from the petitioner is 110 grams of intoxicant material which is ultimately found to be Alprazolam as per report of FSL – Keeping in view the recovery of contraband which is marginally higher than the commercial quantity, petitioner enlarged on regular bail.

(Para 4,9)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Record or the circumstances of the case do not show that there is any reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is likely to bring himself into association with known criminals if released on bail; or that he will expose himself to some moral, physical or psychological danger – Policy and provision of the Juvenile Justice Act is in favour of grant of bail to the juvenile -- Since the circumstances or the grounds justifying denial of the bail are not discernible in the case, therefore, the petitioner deserve to be allowed concession of bail.

(Para 1, 5-7)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 325, 506, 34 --  Child conflict with law – Regular bail – Right of -- Petitioner is less than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence – Grant of bail to a juvenile is the rule -- Bail to a juvenile can be declined only in case his release is likely to bring him in association with known-criminals or expose him to moral, physical or physiological danger or where his release would defeat the ends of justice -- Gravity or nature of the offence is not a relevant consideration -- Furthermore, u/s 3(i) of the Act, a presumption of innocence of any malafide or criminal intent arises in favour of the juvenile – Petitioner has spent more than 07 months in incarceration – Detention of the petitioner would mar his future education and prospects in life -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, grandfather of the petitioner shall regularly monitor the movement of the petitioner and ensure that the petitioner does not come in association with any known-criminals and does not indulge in any other offence.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 -- NDPS matter -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 1.1.2019 and the investigation is already complete and the charges have already been framed on 4.5.2019 and out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution none has been examined till date -- It is not the case of the prosecution that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail then he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or he may repeat the offence -- Apart from that even the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with which may result in vitiating the trial itself and becomes a good ground for presuming that petitioner is not guilty and therefore, it would be certainly a fit case where departure can be made under the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 376(2)(n), 376D, 328, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang Rape – Compromise -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix was offered for medical examination, but she has not come forward to undergo such medical examination – Petition so as to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise filed -- Prosecutrix is residing in the matrimonial home as she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner -- Though, the allegations in the FIR are serious but considering the fact that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and has not opted for medical examination, Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 2,6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, Section 15, 25, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Recovery of four bags containing 35 kgs. each of poppy-husk from co-accused -- Petitioner implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and there is no other material/evidence connecting him with his co-accused and the narcotic substances recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested from the spot and no recovery was made from him -- Rigors of Section 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act are not applicable qua the petitioner and in any case the same stand satisfied by due implication – Trial against him is likely to take long time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2, 8, 9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Life of – Conditions to be imposed -- Protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr. PC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time -- Normal conditions under Section 437 (3) read with Section 438 (2) should be imposed; if there are specific facts or features in regard to any offence, it is open for the court to impose any appropriate condition (including fixed nature of relief, or its being tied to an event) etc.

(Para 91)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Life of – Life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial -- Again, if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.

(Para 91)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Registration of F.I.R. – Requirement of – It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.

(Para 92-1)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Nature of – Power of -- Following need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, Cr. PC:

(1)   Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab [1980 (2) SCC 565], when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.

(2)   It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the public prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail.

(3)   Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified – and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.

(4)   Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

(5)   Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

(6)   An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.

(7)   An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail.

(8)   The observations in Sibbia regarding “limited custody” or “deemed custody” to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that “if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya.”

(9)   It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, for a direction under Section 439 (2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.

(10)  The court referred to in para (9) above is the court which grants anticipatory bail, in the first instance, according to prevailing authorities.

(11)  The correctness of an order granting bail, can be considered by the appellate or superior court at the behest of the state or investigating agency, and set aside on the ground that the court granting it did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances. (See Prakash Kadam & Etc. Etc vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr [(2011) 6 SCC 189]; Jai Prakash Singh (supra) State through C.B.I. vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21]). This does not amount to “cancellation” in terms of Section 439 (2), Cr. PC.

(12)  The observations in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2011 (1) SCC 694] (and other similar judgments) that no restrictive conditions at all can be imposed, while granting anticipatory bail are hereby overruled. Likewise, the decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [(1996 (1) SCC 667)] and subsequent decisions (including K.L. Verma v. State & Anr [1998 (9) SCC 348]; Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr [2005 (1) SCC 608]; Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal [2005 (4) SCC 303]; Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. & Anr [2004 (7) SCC 558]; HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan [2010 (1) SCC 679]; Satpal Singh v. the State of Punjab [2018 SCC Online (SC 415] and Naresh Kumar Yadav v Ravindra Kumar [2008 (1) SCC 632]) which lay down such restrictive conditions, or terms limiting the grant of anticipatory bail, to a period of time are hereby overruled.

(Para 92)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Criminal breach of trust -- Second Anticipatory bail – Considering the deposit of the amount in question by the petitioner and the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary -- Without commenting on merits, Court considered that the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 4-7)

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 – Interim bail on contention that the allegations against the petitioner are that 60 bottles of country made liquor for sale in Chandigarh were recovered from his house – He also contends that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the Excise Act – Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for any further investigation – Interim bail granted to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 364, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Bail to juvenile – Right of -- Intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and the same can be declined only in case where reasonable grounds are there for believing that the release :

--       is likely to bring him into the association of any known criminal or

--       expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or

--       that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless the case falls in the exceptions carved out in the provision itself but nothing was available on record to show that any of the three exceptions specified under Section 12(1) of the Act was existing -- Both the Courts below have not satisfied the requirement of provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act and without having any material on record, the bail application of the petitioner has been declined -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 10-13)

Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 212(1)(c), (6), (15) – Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), Section 43(2), (3)(c)(i) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 309 – Custody of 60 days – No-cognizance taken by Court – Power of remand – Default bail – Held, section 309 Cr.P.C., would come in to operation only after taking cognizance -- It is undisputed that remand cannot be beyond 60 days u/s 167 Cr.P.C. and further remand could only be at post cognizance stage -- Petitioners are lying incarcerated in custody beyond the period of 60 days without the trial Court having taken cognizance and the petitioners, in such circumstances, are entitled to statutory bail, it being their indefeasible right – Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1, 18-24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 61, 85 – NDPS matter – 1.5 kg of Heroin -- Regular Bail – Custody since 21.01.2018 -- Indictment of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner was not travelling in the said bus from where the alleged contraband was recovered from possession of co-accused -- Trial of the case is likely to take time – Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4,5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 – Default bail given – New sections/offences added – Anticipatory bail applied -- Petitioner was given benefit of bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. as challan was not presented against him – Main case of the prosecution remains the same regarding disproportionate assets – Held, if some other offences have been added in the FIR, even then, the petitioner is not required for further interrogation purposes etc. – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail in newly added Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 285, 304-A, 34, 384, 447 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Death by negligent act – Anticipatory bail -- Fire had been caused due to a blast of LPG cylinder in an adjacent hut and that Contractor, who is charging an amount of Rs.1500/- per hut illegally, had not made any arrangements for extinguishing fire – It would certainly be debatable as to whether the petitioner was under any kind of statutory or contractual obligation to provide for fire extinguishers or for such like facilities in the huts constructed on land – Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Condition requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh), that too directly to the informant/complainant, is harsh and unacceptable -- Condition set aside -- Appellant must comply with other conditions specified in the impugned order for availing the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cancellation of anticipatory bail – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of – When the order was passed by the High Court, the appellants were not present either in person or through counsel – Order passed by the High Court set aside, matter remitted before the High Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the appellants on the application for cancellation of bail, in the interest of justice.

(Para 3-5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A(4) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 – NDPS Matter – Chemical Examination Report – Requirement of -- Chemical Examiner's report is an essential; integral and inherent part of the investigation under the N.D.P.S. Act as it would lay the foundation of an accused's culpability without which a Magistrate would not be enabled to form an opinion and take cognizance of the accused's involvement in the commission of offence under the Act.

(Para 25-28)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A(4) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173 -- NDPS Matter – Investigation Report -- Chemical Examination Report – Default bail – Right of -- It is essential that the report of the Chemical Examiner be included in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and without which it can at best be termed to be an incomplete challan -- If it is not submitted within the requisite period of 180 days, it would essentially result in a default benefit to the accused unless an application is moved by the Investigating Agency apprising the Court of status of investigation with a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the Court.

(Para 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 441 -- Involvement in 31 cases – Bail by trial court -- Number of Sureties – Submission that the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties – Order modified to the extent that petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- and there shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- -- Court clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.

(Para 6-8)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61/1/14 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail – Ad-interim bail was granted on the contention that FIR registered on the basis of secret information, 720 bottles of country made liquor were recovered from the fodder room which belongs to the petitioner and he is not involved in any other case – Petitioner has joined the investigation, and he is no more required for further investigation – Interim bail order made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506  -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 437(6) – Magistrate Trial -- Trial not concluded in 60 days – Right to bail -- Prosecution applied u/s 319 Cr.P.C to the trial Judge and by now two adjournments have been granted for arguments on the said application -- Provision appears to be mandatory, as is clear from the language used in sub-section 6 of Section 437 Cr.P.C. -- 60 days is already over since the first date of taking the case, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Proclaimed offender in cheque bounce case – Anticipatory bail -- Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(Para 6-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41 – Arrest of accused – Procedure of -- All cases where the arrest of a person is not required u/s 41(1), the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time -- Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary -- At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged u/s 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A etc. -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 – Dowry case – Offence punishable upto seven years -- Arrest of accused – Procedure of -- Practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued -- Police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically – Following direction given:

-- (1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

-- (2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

-- (3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

-- (4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

-- (5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- (6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- (7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

-- (8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

(Para 11-13)