Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Conviction for dowry death – Suspension of sentence -- Appellant is confined in jail from 15.12.2016 onwards and father of the appellant was diagnosed with pancolitis – Appeal pending before the High Court – Without going into the merits of the matter, considering the submissions and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15.12.2016, sentence suspended.

(Para 9-11)

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 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 451, 323 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 75 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioner.

(Para 3, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157, 173, 482 – Delay in FIR / Investigation – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- There is unreasonable delay in registration of FIR as well as investigation of the case which warrants interference by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction – Direction given, Commissioner of police directed to ensure expeditious completion of the investigation preferably within sixty days – Chief Judicial Magistrate/ concerned JMIC to monitor investigation by periodically calling for status report from the police and to issue appropriate directions for expeditious completion thereof, if so required.

(Para 9, 21)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157, 173, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Investigation of criminal case -- Investigation has to be fair, prompt, transparent and judicious to both the victim as well as the accused. Ineffective, unfair, obscure, inexpedient and delayed investigation negates and is the antithesis of the rule of law affirmed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 15)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 197, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 166A -- Investigation of criminal case -- Deliberate inaction -- Unreasonable delay -- Failure to collect evidence -- Undue sympathy with/ shielding of the offenders – Remedy to complainant/ victim -- Complainant/victim of a crime may apply to the Judicial Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offences in question on police report, for monitoring of investigation who can issue appropriate directions for expeditious completion of investigation -- Complainant/victim of a crime may also file complaint u/s 166A (b) of the IPC against the Investigating Officer -- Complainant/victim of a crime may alternatively file petition in the High Court for transfer of investigation to an independent agency such as CBI etc.

(Para 16-18)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A, 147, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 386, 401 (1) – Cheque bounce case -- Sentence to accused -- Revisional power – Nature of -- While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court possesses exercises all the powers conferred on an Appellate Court to alter the nature or the extent or the nature and extent of the sentence.

(Para 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A, 147, 148 – Cheque bounce case – Not an offence against society – Imposition of sentence -- Offence u/s 138 of the Act is quasi criminal in nature -- It is not an offence against society and an accused can escape punishment by settling with the complainant -- Thus, while imposing a sentence u/s 138 of the Act, the Court must be alive to the concern of the Legislature in inserting Chapter XVII in the Act and then amending the provisions thereof to make the same more stringent as well as the jurisprudential principles of deterrence and restoration and that the offence is quasi criminal in nature.

(Para 10-14)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Cheque bounce case – Cheque amount of Rs.4 lacs -- Maximum sentence of R.I. for two years imposed -- Compensation of payment of the cheque amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till the date of the judgment also awarded -- Award of maximum sentence is held to be arbitrary -- Petitioner is a poor person and having undergone a protracted trial of almost 10 years, also exist -- Sentence is reduced to RI for a period of one year and six months along with payment of compensation as awarded by the trial Court.

(Para 15-17)

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)

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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401, 482 -- Criminal revision pending against acquittal – Release of passport to accused -- Passport of the petitioner is due to expire -- Petitioner gave undertaking that he shall not leave the country during the pendency of the criminal revision without prior permission of the trial Court and shall return the passport back to the trial Court on or before 31.10.2020 – Direction given to trial Court to hand over passport to the petitioner so that he could get it renewed -- Petitioner shall return the passport on or before 31.10.2020 to the trial Court.

(Para 3-6)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Parole -- 10 year R.I. under NDPS Act -- Parole cannot be denied on mere generalization by recording that generally it has been seen that prisoners on release on parole engage themselves in smuggling activities causing danger to security of the country and contraband are again recovered from them – This can be ensured by asking the petitioner/convict to execute necessary bonds that while on parole he would maintain good behaviour and will not indulge in any smuggling activities, besides, asking him to furnish heavy surety – Petitioner ordered to release on parole. Order dated 22.01.2016 passed in CRWP No.1090 of 2015 (P&H DB), relied.

(Para 12,13)

United Provinces Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (8 of 1939), Section 2 -- Long incarceration of 29 years (approx.) – Pre-mature release -- State Government has to see (i) antecedents (ii) conduct in the prison and (iii) the person, if released, is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life -- Joint Secretary, Government of U.P. failed to apply his mind to the conditions of Section 2 the Act -- Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2 -- Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the SSP and the DM confirming that the prisoner is not “incapacitated” from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released from prison –Held, order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind to Section 2 of the U.P. Act -- Order set aside, petitioner ordered to set free.

(Para 4-6)

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)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Procuration of Minor girl – Doubt created by defence – Consideration of -- Sweeping generalisations and superficial analysis – Permissibility of -- Reasoning is generic and is premised upon generalisations which may not be necessarily true always -- It is indisputable that parents would not ordinarily endanger the reputation of their minor daughter merely to falsely implicate their opponents, but such clichés ought not to be the sole basis of dismissing reasonable doubts created and/or defences set out by the accused.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Procuration of Minor girl -- Father eye-witness – Delay in 5 days in FIR – Effect of -- Five-day delay in registration of the FIR gains importance -- Difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen before moving the law into motion -- Sweeping assumptions concerning delays in registration of FIRs for sexual offences, send a problematic signal to society and create opportunities for abuse by miscreants -- Instead, the facts of each individual case and the behaviour of the parties involved ought to be analysed by courts before reaching a conclusion on the reason and effect of delay in registration of FIR.

(Para 11)

C. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Re-appreciation of evidence by Supreme Court -- Ordinarily, the Supreme Court ought not to reappreciate evidence -- However, where the courts below have dealt with the material-on-record in a cavalier or mechanical manner which is likely to cause gross injustice, then the Court in such exceptional circumstances may justifiably reappraise the evidence to advance the cause of justice -- Such re-assessment ought not to take place routinely and ought not to become substitution of an otherwise plausible view taken by the Courts below.

(Para 16)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Procuration of Minor girl -- Contradictions highlighted by defence -- Reversal of Burdon of proof – Permissibility of -- Trial Court has summarily disregarded the contradictions highlighted by the defense side, on the premise that such contradictions had no material bearing and that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix -- High Court too has opined that PW-1 and PW-2 have completely corroborated each other and their testimonies were impeccable -- These reasons are not only contrary to the record but they also lead to an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof imposed in criminal trials.

(Para 17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Plausible version by accused – Analysis of – Requirements of law -- Any alternate version of events or interpretation proffered by the accused must be carefully analysed and considered by the trial Court in compliance with the mandate of Section 313(4) -- Such opportunity is a valuable right of the accused to seek justice and defend oneself -- Failure of the trial Court to fairly apply its mind and consider the defence, could endanger the conviction itself -- Unlike the prosecution which needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove their alternate version by mere preponderance of probabilities – Held, once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea.

(Para 21)

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Criminal Intimidation -- Proving the intention to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act, and not mere utterances of words, is a pre-requisite of successful conviction under Section 506 of IPC -- Trial Court has undertaken no such separate analysis or recorded any finding on this count, thus calling into question the conviction for criminal intimidation – Conviction set aside.

(Para 25, 26)

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 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 482 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Kidnaping – Compromise quashing – Petitioner and girls were minor at relevant time -- No evidence of actual commission of an offence under the POCSO Act, warranting to take a stricter view – Fit case for exercise of inherent powers so as to give a quietus to the issue – FIR and all proceedings pertaining thereto are quashed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – NDPS case -- Conviction for 1 year – Sentence reduced to already undergone --  Appellant has undergone about 09 months, is a very poor person and has his own family to support -- Appeal partly allowed and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him – Fine also reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.4,000/- to be deposited by appellant within a period of 03 months.

(Para 14, 15)

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 374 -- Appeal against conviction -- Dismissed in default – Permissibility of – Appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed in default but must be taken up and decided on merits even if the appellant in-person or the counsel representing him, is not present – Judgment and order set aside – Matter remanded to be disposed of on merits -- Meanwhile, considering that the appellant has been in jail for a period of almost 11 years, bail granted. K. S. Panduranga’s case (2013) 3 SCC 721 relied.

(Para 3-7)

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)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 1 -- POCSO Act was enforced on 14.11.2012, therefore, the incident which occurred on the eve of Lohri festival in 2011 cannot be made basis to try and convict the appellant under POCSO Act.

(Para 28)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 164 – Contents of FIR – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. – Deposition before court – Improvements  in -- Slight change in the facts -- One cannot be expected to have eidetic/photographic memory -- Natural variation do happen and such depositions are considered and relied upon by the courts after its careful analysis.

(Para 34)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – FIR – Contents of -- FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of the entire case of the prosecution -- An FIR is a mere first information sent to the prosecuting agency for setting criminal law in motion -- It is wrong to expect that in the FIR, complete detail of all the incidents must be disclosed -- An FIR is not expected to contain the proposed evidence to be produced by the prosecution.

(Para 35)

D. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 42 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 354-A -- Sentence cannot be awarded both under POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code simultaneously with respect to the offences enlisted in the Section 42 of POCSO Act -- Section 354-A overlaps to certain extent with offence u/s 7 of POCSO Act – Trial court committed an error in convicting the appellant u/s 354-A IPC as well as Sections 8 of POCSO Act -- Sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 354-A is set aside.

(Para 51, 52)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Framing of charge – Prima-facie -- At the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to sift and weigh the prosecution material on record only for the limited purposes to find out if it, prima-facie, discloses the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence against the accused and their involvement in the crime.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder –Framing of charge – Intention or knowledge – Prima facie -- Intention has to be absolute and specific and cannot be confused with the recklessness of the offender -- Unless and until this necessary ingredient is present, the charge u/s 307 IPC would not be made out -- Court has to satisfy itself that at least, prima-facie, the act by accused irrespective of its result was done with such intention or knowledge and under the circumstances, as mentioned in the section.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Medical opinion -- Framing of charge -- Medical opinion given by a doctor is only a guiding factor for the Courts and the opinion does not carry a binding effect -- Courts are free to examine and evaluate the nature of injuries independently to arrive at a just conclusion.

(Para 15)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 326 – Attempt to murder – Injury on head – Relevance of -- Merely because the injury was caused on the head, this alone would not be sufficient to charge for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC -- Nowhere mentioned that the assailants had come with an intention to commit murder -- Nature of injury does not, prima-facie, make out an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC -- Considering the nature of the weapon (Spade/kassi) used while causing grievous hurt, a prima-facie case u/s 326 IPC would be made out for charge.

(Para 15,17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 447 -- Criminal trespass – Joint land – Framing of charge – Partition suit is still pending and rights of co-sharers are yet to eb determined -- Land in question was described as joint -- Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal trespass punishable u/s 447 IPC are not made out.

(Para 16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Covid-19 restriction – Effect of -- Neither eclipsed the time prescribed u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed.

(Para 25, 26)

B. Principle of Comity of Courts  -- All Courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court have to follow a principle of Comity of Courts -- A Bench whether coordinate or Larger, has to refrain from making any uncharitable observation on a decision even though delivered by a Bench of a lesser coram -- A Bench sitting in a Larger coram may be right in overturning a judgment on a question of law, which jurisdiction a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench does not have -- In any case, a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench or a Larger Bench has no business to make any adverse comment or uncharitable remark on any other judgment.

(Para 33)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B, 406 – Dowry death – Regular bail -- Custody since 25.07.2018 – Trial is likely to take some time -- An application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution for summoning the additional accused -- Covid-19 pandemic situation -- Courts are not working at full strength, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 353, 186, 212, 216-A, 148/149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Sections 25/54 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No injury is attributed to the petitioner, he is 24 years of age, is in custody for over 01 year -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 1,5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354, 354-A, 451, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Sexual assault to child – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2019 -- Investigation is over and commencement of trial is still awaited -- In the current pandemic scenario, the trial of the case is not likely either to start or get over soon -- Petitioner is admitted to bail.

(Para 1, 4,5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Regular bail -- 85 injections of Avil and 85 injections of Buprenorphine each containing 2 ml. are stated to have been recovered from the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody for over one year and four months; he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Orders of the Coordinate Benches, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 1,5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 173(2),  203 – Registration of FIR – Cancellation report – Protest petition – Dismissal of complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. -- Whether amounts to rejection of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. -- Magistrate, u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed the police to register a criminal case, investigate and submit police report in 90 days -- Police after investigation submitted a report u/s 173(2) that the accusations were false – Protest petition was registered as complaint case -- Magistrate, after hearing the respondent/complainant, not being satisfied, dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. – Held, it was therefore not a rejection of an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 173(2),  203, 401 – Registration of FIR – Cancellation report – Dismissal of protest petition u/s 203 Cr.P.C. – Right of accused for hearing in revision -- Additional Sessions Judge, in a revision preferred by the respondent against the dismissal of his complaint, set aside the dismissal order, effectively restoring the complaint case arising out of a protest petition and directed further inquiry by the Magistrate -- High Court declined to interfere with the order – Held, restoration of the complaint by the Additional Sessions Judge was undoubtedly to the prejudice of the appellant -- Matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge to hear the revision application afresh after notice to the appellant also.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 362 -- Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C dismissed in default – Restoration application also dismissed – Review or amend – Power of -- Criminal court cannot allow or review its own order except correcting clerical errors in it, it is well settled as there is no provision for review under the Code -- Held, order dismissing the petition for maintenance in default can be recalled or set aside and the case can be restored to its original position for effective adjudication on merits – Impugned order set aside and petition u/s 125 of the Code is ordered to be restored to its original position to be heard on merits.

(Para 2,3,6-11)

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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Non-appearance of accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond -- Summoned through non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of -- Held, it is always open to approach the Special Court at the first instance to show the grounds as such for non-appearance and pray for necessary relief – Having not approached, anticipatory bail petition as such for the said relief is not maintainable.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- FIR to Ilaka Magistrate/CJM with delay of 11 days – Effect of -- Held, delay in compliance of Section 157 of the Code cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the appellant -- Albeit, this fact has to be considered at the time of examining the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses.

(Para 3, 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- Murder -- Name of deceased missing in proceedings – Effect of -- Fact that the field unit had not recorded the name of the deceased in the proceedings, is inconsequential for these details are duly mentioned in the panchayatnama and other documents which were prepared on the same day and were sent to Doctor (PW-3) who had conducted the post mortem -- Lapse on the part of the field unit in non-mentioning the name of the deceased would not justify an order of acquittal.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36(A) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173(2) -- Challan without Chemical Examiner report – Default bail – Right of --  Held, State is bound to annex the report of Chemical Examiner along with the challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C. -- On the other side, if the report is not accompanied with the challan, then the prosecution can seek time for placing on record the said report – When the first application for grant of default bail was filed, no application for extension of time was made by the prosecution – Held, petitioner deserves the concession of bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., Ajit Singh’s case CRR No.4659 of 2015 = Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 relied.

(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, 29 – Regular bail -- 7040 intoxicant tablets and 3000 intoxicant capsules recovered from co-accused, no recovery from the petitioner -- Interim bail granted by the Ld. Trial Court on 03.09.2019, thereafter, surrendered on 17.02.2020, not misused the concession of interim bail – In the disclosure made by the main accused, there is no allegation that petitioner facilitated or abated the commission of the offence – Mere allegation is that petitioner also used to purchase the contraband from “K” -- “K” is found to be innocent during investigation -- Charges are yet to be framed, trial will take sufficient long time -- Further incarceration would not serve any purpose – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8,9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32 – Fundamental Rights – Protection of -- Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the constitutional duty entrusted to Supreme Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

(Para 32)

B. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) – Right to speech and expression – Fundamental right of Journalist – Airing of views -- Exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) -- Exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2) -- Right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak and express.

(Para 32)

C. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173 -- F.I.R. -- Allegation against police -- Transfer of Investigation to CBI -- Power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances” – An accused person does not have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be carried out or in regard to the investigating agency – Court do not find that levelling such allegations would by and itself constitute a sufficient ground for the transfer of the investigation.

(Para 35-44)

D. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 – Whether the allegations contained in the FIR do or do not make out any offence as alleged will not be decided in pursuance of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, to quash the FIR -- Petitioner must be relegated to the pursuit of the remedies available under the CrPC -- Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available before the High Court – Held, a petition under Article 32 is not maintainable.

(Para 49)

E. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- One cause of action – FIR against -- Multiple FIRs and complaints – Quashing of -- Multiple FIRs and complaints in several states and in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir – Fairness in the administration of criminal justice would warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 to quash all other FIRs -- Filing of multiple FIRs arising out of the same telecast of the show hosted by the petitioner is an abuse of the process and impermissible -- Quashing of those FIRs would not amount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of the FIR which is being investigated.

(Para 2, 51)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Quashing of complaint/summoning order after Proclaimed offender order – Held, it would be in the interest of justice to see at the first instance whether any offence is made out against the petitioners as per allegations levelled against them in the complaint or not -- Because if the complaint fails, as a necessary corollary, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom would automatically go.

(Para 1, 14, 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Summoning order -- Proclaimed offender order – Quashing of -- Father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law – Role of – Specific allegations – Requirement of – No direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that they had given beatings to the complainant or demanded any dowry article or misappropriated the shtridhan – It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives – Casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners – Held, case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law -- Consequently, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings including the summoning order and order declaring proclamation offender, qua petitioners are quashed.

(Para 1,18,19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance under DV Act – Liability of husband to pay – Both proceedings are independent, however, while fixing the maintenance to the wife, earning capacity of the husband has to be seen as well -- Husband ordered to pay Rs.8,000/- p.m. u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and Rs.8,000/- p.m. under DV act – Held, petitioner-husband is at liberty to pay the said amount either in the terms of the order u/s 125 Cr.P.C. or under the D.V. Act.

(Para 7-14)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 19 -- House rent for accommodation – JMIC awarded Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards house rent -- Rs.8,000/- p.m. maintenance out of pension of Rs.23,000 p.m. already awarded -- An additional amount of Rs.5000/- towards rent would mean he is paying a total of Rs.13,000/- out of Rs.23,000, which is more than 50% what he gets -- No doubt, the petitioner being the husband is duty bound to maintain his wife and allow her to live life with dignity according to their social status and strata, but it has to be within his means -- Amount of Rs. 5000/- towards rent is highly excessive – Amount reduced to Rs. 1000/- per month.

(Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 -- Cheating for getting employment -- Regular bail -- Co-accused are alleged to have made the fraudulent assurance to the complainant of getting employment for him in FCI and to have received the amount from him -- Petitioner is merely alleged to have accompanied the complainant for his joining on asking of his co-accused and did not make any fraudulent representation and did not receive any amount from the complainant -- Question as to involvement of the petitioner in commission of the subject offences is to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial -- Due to pandemic of Covid-19 trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail, he is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 9,10)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Offence under SC/ST Act – Ingredients of offence – Strict interpretation -- To constitute the offence under the Act, it must be alleged that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe in any public place within public view -- Since these are the penal provisions, the same are to be given a strict construction and if any of the ingredients are found lacking, it would not constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act.

(Para 10-15)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Offence under SC/ST Act – Talks on mobile – Mens rea -- Alleged conversation over the mobile phone was not in a public gaze nor witnessed by any third party, the alleged use of caste words cannot be said to have been committed within the public view -- Merely uttering such wrong words in the absence of any public view does not show any intention or mens rea to humiliate the complainant who besides being Sarpanch, belongs to Scheduled Caste community -- It would not, thus, ipso-facto, constitute acts of commission of offence, which are capable of being taken cognizance under the SC and ST Act, 1989.

(Para 10-12)

C. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Offence under SC/ST Act and IPC -- Discharge by Trial court – Power of -- It is a settled law that if two views are possible and one gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at that stage, it is not to be seen whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.

(Para 13)