Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Robbery case -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law -- JJ Board and Appellate Court depended, upon the proviso to Section 12 of Act in concluding that upon facility of bail, there being every likelihood of his being brought in association with hardened criminals, and, that there is being every likelihood of his hence being exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger – However, both the ld. Courts proceeded to, without any tangible and concrete evidence with respect to the afore factum existing on record rather made the above conclusion prima-facie imaginative, and, also surmisal – Statutory leverage in the Courts below with an alternate being placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer, and/or, under the care of any fit person neither been explored, nor has been thought fit to be worked vis-à-vis the juvenile in conflict with law – Consequently, the impugned orders quashed, and, set aside, with a direction, that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released, and, shall be upon his release, become placed by the District Collector concerned, under, the supervision of the Child Welfare Officer.

(Para 8-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder case -- Extradition of accused from Canada – Accused served through proclamation – Trial stalled due to non-appearance of accused – Prayer to direct prosecution to initiate and conclude the extradition process with Canada – Held, jurisdiction vest with trial judge at this stage not with High court --  Trial Judge and Public Prosecutor directed to initiate the process with the Ministry of External Affairs for ensuring the extradition of co-accused from Canada to India -- Process ordered to be ensured to be completed within four months.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 72F, 78 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Excise matter – Release of vehicle on superdari – JMIC ordered release of the vehicle subject to depositing cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Treasury of the Court – Revision against dismissed – None of the Courts below has made any endeavour to determine the value of the seized conveyance/offending vehicle – No tangible evidence existing on record suggestive that the value of the seized conveyance/offending vehicle – Petitioner may file the credible valuation within 02 weeks, before the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the latter shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned, shall within 03 weeks thereafter, make a fresh order, in accordance with law, upon, the apposite application.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 344 – Perjury – Cognizance of offence against Complainant/victim – Challenge to -- Two material witnesses i.e., the victim and other had not supported the prosecution case -- Court also took notice of the fact that it was very common now-a-days that witnesses, while supporting the prosecution version at the investigation stage of the case take a complete U-turn at the trial by not supporting the prosecution, thereby leading to acquittal of the accused for want of evidence – It is observed that this practice had become a menace in the criminal judicial system – No infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Trial Court.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 446A -- Breach of the bail condition – Personal hearing -- Cancellation of bail – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Warrant of arrest – It was incumbent, upon the learned Special Judge, to issue notice to them and also ensure their participation in the relevant proceedings, imperatively before his ordering for cancellation and forfeiting of personal and surety bonds of the bail petitioners and for his thereafter ordering for issuance of warrants of arrest – Issuance of warrants of arrest, prior to theirs being validly served with a notice has led to gross injustice -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed and set aside.

(Para 5-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446A -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Cancellation of bail bond – Non-bailable warrant issued -- Order does not disclose that the complainants evidence was present or not -- Consequently, the ld. Judicial Magistrate, could not draw any valid conclusion whether merely for non-appearance of the accused, and, of his counsel both were intending to delay the proceedings – Yet a reading of the order also makes a disclosure that the notice for ensuring the personal appearance of the accused before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, rather was issued -- No echoing in the order that the above notice was ever validly served or not upon accused – Therefore, the impugned order is ridden with the vice of breaching the principles of natural justice and also for its untenably interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 3-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal of accused – Revisional Powers for conviction -- Section 401 (3) of Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal by the first appellate court -- Revisional Powers for conviction -- High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial -- High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- Order of conviction is therefore unsustainable, beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C., more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal in complaint case – Right to appeal -- Where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court.

(Para 10.1)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4), 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Non-preferring of appeal by victim -- Revisional jurisdiction -- In a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be.

(Para 10.2)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401(5) -- Power of High Court to treat Revision as Appeal -- Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

(Para 11)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 401(3)(5) -- Acquittal of accused – Conviction by High court in revision – Impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused quashed and set aside – Matters remitted to the High Court – High Court directed to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law on their own merits.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 310, 311, 319 – Misc. applications u/s 310, 311, 319 of Cr.P.C. -- Decision of misc. application with main appeal – Permissibility of --  Impugned order insofar as it orders for conjoint listing, and, hearings being made upon the main appeal, and, upon the miscellaneous applications, quashed, and, set aside – Direction given to Ld. Additional Sessions Judge before making a decision upon the main appeal, to decide miscellaneous applications, so as to give an opportunity to the aggrieved concerned, to access the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclamation Person – Accused was at abroad -- Averred that at the relevant time, of the serving constable proceeding to execute the proclamation notice, the petitioner was outside India -- Without believing the afore averment, supported by an affidavit, rather the impugned order yet depended upon the infirm report of the serving constable, and, hence becomes ridden with a vice of infirmity, as it was incumbent, upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to ensure, that prior thereto, his eliciting a report of the serving officer, whether the petitioner was residing at his abode, as mentioned against his name, in the memo of parties -- Service of the proclamation notice never became validly caused upon the petitioner – Impugned order quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82((2)(i)(a) – Proclaimed offender -- Proclamation notice – Service of – Mandate of – Non-compliance of -- Serving executing officer in his report/statement, made a disclosure that he affixed one copy of the proclamation on the gate of the house of the accused -- However, a reading of the afore report, does not disclose, that he had also read it publicly in some conspicuous place of the town or village, in which the accused ordinarily resides -- A reading of the apposite report, not disclosing that he had also meted compliance to Clause (a) of sub-sub-Section (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 82, of the Cr.P.C, thereupon, his report is in departure of the statutory injunction, as therethrough, became cast upon him -- Consequently, the knowledge of the proclamation notice, was not hence completely acquired by the petitioner, and, also the endeavour of the executing officer to serve the proclamation notice, upon the accused, is completely deficit on score.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82((2)(i)(a) – Proclaimed offender – Resident of Canada – Procedure of Service -- Petitioner is residing in Canada since 23.10.2008, therefore, it was rather imperative, for the learned trial Magistrate concerned, to even if he intended to secure his appearance before him, or before any other Court of law, to ensure that personal service of the process of Court, became through, the Embassy of India, located in Canada – Neither the executing officer, has ensured the causing of personal service upon the accused at Canada, nor the learned Magistrate concerned, has ensured that any proclamation notice became served, upon, the accused at Canada, hence through the aegis of the Embassy of India, located in Canada -- Petition allowed, and impugned order declaring the petitioner, as a proclaimed offender, as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, become quashed, and set aside.

(Para 8)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – Order made by Appellate Court is a discreet, and, tacit attempt, to proceed to impermissibly review, and scuttle the effect of the binding order -- It is ridden with a vice of infirmity, if so, and, even if assuming the order did hold some aura or tinge of validity, yet until and unless there was some evidently deterrent circumstances, prevailing upon the learned Appellate Court, as comprised in the appellant rather deliberately delaying the making of an expeditious decision, upon the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to make the order -- De hors finality being assignable to P-3/order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.

(Para 2-9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Cheque bounce case -- Interim deposit of compensation u/s 148 of NI Act – Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Order of – Requirement of -- Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant -- However, the directions, as legally required to be made, while being seized with an application, u/s 148 of the NI Act, are not existing, hence the order suffers from an infirmity.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 67 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Confessional statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act – Recovery from one accused -- Bail to all accused – Challenge to -- Arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/ voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail -- CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial – Bail order upheld, except respondent-M from whom recovery of substantial commercial quantities of drugs from a rented accommodation occupied by him -- This respondent cannot seek parity and no such benefit could have been extended to him in view of Section 37 of the Act when he was found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances – Bail granted to the respondent-M cancelled forthwith, he directed to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within a period of two weeks, for being taken into custody.

(Para 9-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Cross-case -- Submission that it is a case of version and cross-version and in the FIR case, father of the petitioner was murdered and cross-version was registered after 05 days -- It is further submitted that in the DDR version, the petitioner is attributed simple injury with a stick, whereas in the supplementary statement, the petitioner has caused a firearm injury -- It is also submitted that in the FIR version, two accused have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail noticing the aforesaid facts – Further submitted that primarily, it is a dispute with regard to possession of agricultural land, which both the parties claim that they have purchased it and are in possession of the same and even in the anticipatory bail granted to accused in the FIR version, it is noticed that it is a case of free fight regarding the possession over the land in dispute -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any further investigation – Order granting interim bail confirmed.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Power to summon witness – Nature of -- Section 311 Cr.P.C. gives wide powers to the Court to summon a witness or re-examine a witness who has already been examined and the word 'any' which has been used as a pre-fix would also include a person who is not cited as a witness -- Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose an additional person can be summoned while invoking provisions of Section 311 Cr. P. C.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Summon of additional witness – Complainant/ PW-15 reveals that at the time of occurrence in question, he alongwith his cousin-Arashdeep (being pillion rider) on motorcycle was following his father (since deceased) who  was going ahead of them on his scooter -- Further, two days after formation of Special Investigation Team (SIT), third statement of petitioner/complainant was recorded (Ex.P-15/A) which reveals that Arashdeep (cousin of petitioner/complainant) was accompanying him at the time of occurrence in question and even there is an endorsement of the said fact by Arashdeep at the foot of said statement -- It is not a case where the petitioner (complainant) was making an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case but it was merely a fall out of an oversight committed by the Prosecuting Agency conducting the case – Held, a fair chance has to be given to petitioner (complainant) assisted by State to prove its case and, thus, to arrive at the truth, which is the only object and guideline while exercising the powers u/s 311 Cr.P.C., incorporation of name of Arashdeep, in the list of prosecution witnesses and examination of said Arashdeep as prosecution witness, appears to be essential for the just decision of the case -- Impugned order dismissing the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. -- Petition allowed.

(Para 13-15)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Life imprisonment or Sentence of imprisonment -- Subsequent sentence/ life imprisonment -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Consecutively running of sentence – Provision explained:

-- When a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced -- Meaning thereby both sentences shall run consecutively unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

-- As per Sub­section (2) of Section 427 of Cr.PC when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence -- Therefore, in aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence.

In aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. Otherwise the subsequent sentence shall run consecutively and the imprisonment in subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced.

(Para 8.2)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Concurrent running of sentence – Consecutively running of sentence – Law summarised :

(i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced;

(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence;

(iii) the general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 of Cr.PC;

(iv) under Section 427 (1) of Cr.PC the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence; however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.

(Para 9)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 23, 29 -- NDPS case – Conviction in two different trials -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Appellant sentenced to undergo 12 years RI for the offence u/s 23 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act by Amritsar Court – In another case he has been sentenced to undergo 15 years RI for the offence u/s 29 read with Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act by Delhi Court -- In one case he has been convicted for having possession of 4 kg of heroin and in another case for having 750 grams of heroin -- In the subsequent judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the Delhi court there is no specific order passed by the learned Trial Court (Court at Delhi) that the sentences to run concurrently – Held, while awarding sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, interest of society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration – Even while applying discretion u/s 427 of Cr.P.C, discretion shall not be in favour of accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Material witness given up – Additional evidence for – Witness had procured the CCTV footage from the camera installed in the building, where the occurrence in question took place -- It has been submitted that the prosecution would just take one day to examine the aforementioned witness and hence it would in no way hamper or delay the proceedings before the trial Court – Trial Court directed to record the evidence of PW-8/Constable, as prayed for -- However, prosecution shall ensure that the evidence of PW8/Constable is recorded and concluded within two days.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149, 506, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Proclamation Notice – Period of 30 days to appear – Non-providing of -- Quashing of Proclaimed offender order -- Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that a period of not less than 30 days has to be provided for causing appearance from the date of publication of such proclamation -- Accused was required to appear on 9.11.2020, it was on 23.10.2020 that the proclamation was actually effected -- As on the date when the proclamation was effected i.e. on 23.10.2020, the accused was afforded only 16 days to cause his appearance – Declaration of proclaimed offender order set aside.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 45 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 212(6) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43D (5) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) -- Bail after filing charge-sheet – Consideration of -- Categories/Types of Offences – Guidelines issued :

“Categories/Types of Offences

A)    Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

B)    Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

C)    Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

D)    Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

REQUISITE CONDITIONS

1)       Not arrested during investigation.

2)    Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

(No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth Vs. State of UP, 2021 SCC online SC 615)

CATEGORY A

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance

a)    Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

b)    If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

c)    NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

d)    NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

e)    Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

CATEGORY B/D

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

CATEGORY C

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.”

Category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases -- Trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications -- While issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest -- This aspect would be guided by the statutory provisions.

Separate set of offences are categorized as “economic Offences” not covered by the special Acts. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Court has observed that in determining whether to grant bail both aspects have to be taken into account:

a)       seriousness of the charge and

b)       severity of punishment.

Copy of this order ordered to be circulated to the Registrars of the different High Courts to be further circulated to the trial Courts so that the unnecessary bail matters do not come up to Supreme Court -- This is the only purpose for which guidelines issued, but they are not fettered on the powers of the Courts.

(Para 2-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Defence witness at appellate stage – Conviction u/s 279, 304-A and 427 of the IPC –  Appellate Court dismissed the application -- Evidence closed by the trial Court on 04.10.2016 -- Statement of the petitioner u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.10.2016 and he had been granted adequate opportunity to lead his evidence -- Witness, who has been sought to be examined at the appellate stage, was not examined in defence before the trial Court – Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 4)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS case – Recovery from bag – Recovery effected from a bag and not from personal search of the accused, Section 50 of the Act would have no application.

(Para 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Recovery of 1 kg 200 grams of heroin -- Regular bail -- In a case where compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not required but yet an offer is extended and there is some defect in the same, the same would not immaterial -- However, the absence of signatures on the consent memo and recovery memo cannot be said to be just a “defect” in procedure but is something which rather absolutely negates what the police claims to have done at the spot -- Omission of signatures on the said documents would tend to show that the DSP was not present at the spot -- At this stage, since some kind of doubt has been created, the petitioner may be extended the relief of grant of bail, particularly keeping in view that the petitioner has already been behind bars since the last about more than 1 year -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Standard prescribed for the grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the person is not guilty of the offence -- Test which are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 19, 20)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail by High court – Challenge to -- Respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh with the co-accused -- Complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicates that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons who were known to him – Quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a commercial quantity -- Contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused -- High Court, apart from observing that no contraband was found from the personal search of the respondent has ignored the above circumstances – High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established -- In failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes unsustainable – High Court ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of the crime which it has failed to do – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside -- Respondent shall accordingly surrender forthwith.

(Para 31-34)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of Additional accused -- Trial court dismissed application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Challenge in revision -- State Counsel submitted that names of four persons surfaced in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., after a period of about three months, therefore, there is every possibility that in order to implicate more persons, the complainant side has named the aforesaid four persons to be the accused and were found to be innocent in investigation – Held, case is not covered by guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (1) RCR (Crl.) 623 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14978 -- Accordingly, the petition dismissed.

(Para 6, 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only when there is a strong and cogent evidence against a person and not merely on a bald statement – Prima facie there should be a case established from the evidence led before the court that such evidence if goes rebutted would lead to conviction – There is no specific role attributed to the proposed accused who was found innocent during investigation – Her name does not find mention in either of the two statements given under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and even in the complaint made, there is no role attributed to her other than stating that the accused is involved – Main allegations have been made against “S” and “A”, who are already facing trial – Trial Court dismissed the application – Finding no infirmity in the order, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 3,7,8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Parity in bail -- Once, the co-accused, who is similarly situated as the petitioner, has been granted the benefit of regular bail, the petitioner cannot be denied the same benefit on the ground of parity unless and until a differentiating fact between the petitioner and the said co-accused is pointed out -- Petitioner and the co-accused are similarly situated -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail on account of parity -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 389 -- Dowry death – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Initially, applicant was declared innocent by the police during enquiry and she was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Already undergone actual sentence of 04 years, 07 months and 29 days out of rigorous imprisonment for life – Case is covered by Dharam Pal's case, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal), 600 -- Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the remaining sentence of applicant is ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cross-version -- Delay in reporting cross-version – Ground of -- Mere delay in registration of the cross version is no ground for quashing of the same -- It is a case of version and cross version, which can only be decided after leading evidence – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 – Conviction in dowry case -- Compensation to victim – Reduction of sentence -- Object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim -- It is towards this objective that Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. is enacted in the statute -- Objective of which is to apply whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied on payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence -- Voluntarily offering the amount albeit to seek a reduction of sentence – Appellant has now undergone about seven months of sentence, sentence reduced to already undergone in case the appellant pays Rs.3.00 lakhs for complainant and her children.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – First Information Report/ FIR – Nature of -- FIR is certainly the starting point of the investigation, but it is well within the rights of the prosecution to produce witness statements as they progress further into the investigation and unearth the specific roles of accused persons -- FIR as is known, only sets the investigative machinery, into motion.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120B, 147, 148, 324 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Conviction in murder case – Test Identification Parade/ TIP -- Two courts have concurrently concluded that appellant’s name not being specifically mentioned in the FIR, would not justify his acquittal as he was specifically identified by PW2, PW4, & PW6 -- In view of his positive identification by the eye witnesses, the TIP not being conducted, was held to be immaterial -- Eye witnesses here have ascribed the same specific role to the appellant and narrated the events in same chronology, without material discrepancies – Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this case involves multiple persons attacking in a group with deadly weapons and it is not reasonable to expect recollection of every minute details by the eyewitnesses -- Prosecution has produced cogent evidence of the appellant being part of a conspiracy by all the accused in the assault, which led to the death of BM and injuries to PW1 and others -- As such, the conviction of the appellant by the trial court, as upheld by the High Court, cannot be faulted.

(Para 15-18)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification Parade/ TIP – Requirement of -- Identity of the appellant/accused was known to the witnesses and he was specifically identified by PW1, and PW2 as the person who wielded the sword and inflicted the injuries -- TIP was unnecessary in the case -- In the face of appellant’s such identification by name in the testimony of the eye witnesses, it can, be safely concluded that the failure to conduct the TIP for the appellant will not vitiate his conviction.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 482 -- Framing of charge – Quashing of Charge-sheet/ criminal proceedings -- Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court quashed charge-sheet/ criminal proceedings -- High Court ignored what has emerged during the course of investigation, and entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- High Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal -- High Court ought not to have quashed the chargesheet -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354 (A)(1), 148, 149, 323 -- Summoning of additional accused -- Investigation was carried thoroughly, which was appreciated by an officer of DSP rank -- Complainant and other witness were examined as PW-4 and PW-1, on a conjoint reading of their deposition, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. do not make out any case when it is tested on the law settled in Hardeep's case 2014 (3) SCC 92 i.e. summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power and it should be used sparingly and not in a routine manner and satisfaction drawn for summoning of the accused should be more than the satisfaction for framing of the charge and less than that of resulting in conviction – Dismissal of application by courts below do not suffer from any infirmity – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 325, 323/34, 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Injury case -- Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Petitioner No.1 has already undergone 04 months and 23 days of actual sentence, and petitioner No.2 has undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 07 days out of 2 years – Petitioner No.1 is 57 years of age and petitioner No.2 is 33 years of age – FIR is of the year 2017 and the petitioners have suffered agony of trial for the last four years -- Petitioners never misused the concession of bail/parole nor were involved in any other case and they are also married and are bread-winners for their family -- Petitioners are also ready to compensate the complainant -- While maintaining the impugned judgment of conviction, the sentence awarded by the Courts below to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them -- Sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- each to Rs.55,000/- each.

(Para 7-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Section 170 does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet – Held, if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody -- The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the chargesheet.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate -- Occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond -- Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made -- A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it -- If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the chargesheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C – Held, such a course is misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 13)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 170, 173 – Filing of Investigation report/ Challan/ Charge-sheet -- Arrest of accused – Requirement of --  Appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR -- No reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record – Counsel for the appellant has already stated before the Court that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court -- Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Sections 10, 24 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – 377 complaints – Regular bail -- After dismissal of bail more than a year elapsed – Against a total of 377 complaints only 17 have been looked into till date and challans having been presented, investigation process may not be concluded for another couple of years -- Petitioner has already faced incarceration since 26.04.2018 -- Investigation is in progress would not be a ground to keep the petitioner indefinitely in custody -- Amount of money which is alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on account of having duped the investors/complainants would be a subject matter of trial on the basis of evidence adduced – Bail after having suffered incarceration for a period in excess of three years cannot be declined on the demand of the complainants that certain amount be first refunded to them -- Investigation/trial is bound to take time to conclude -- Petitioner is held entitled to benefit of bail.

(Para 13-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 62 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case -- Recovery of Poppy husk -- Superdari of truck -- Son of petitioner was found in possession of 60 kilograms of 'poppy husk' while he was driving the truck -- Truck being case property has been taken into possession by the police, which is liable to be confiscated -- However, as on date, the trial is yet to commence and there is no such finding that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence – Held, in case, the vehicle in question is not released on superdari, the condition of the same is likely to deteriorate on account of its disuse and on account of vagaries of weather, which would not be in the interest of anybody, as unnecessarily the value of the truck in question get diminished – Vehicle in question is ordered to be released.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 28, 29, 30, 31, 427 – Concurrent running of default sentence – Permissibility of -- Default sentence cannot be directed to run concurrently.

(Para 10)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Object of -- Purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency prima facie was proceeding in the right direction where the accused may be unknown or there was a fleeting glance of the accused.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- FIR was registered against unknown persons -- Case of the prosecution solely rests on identification in the TIP -- A test identification parade u/s 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence -- Mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Onus to Prove -- Onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with law -- It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid TIP having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises -- If the prosecution has failed to establish that a TIP was properly held by examining the witnesses to the same, there is nothing for the accused to disprove.

(Para 10)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- Magistrate conducted the TIP -- Magistrate has not been examined -- No explanation is forthcoming why the Magistrate was not examined -- Only evidence available is that of PW-4 the SHO that during the investigation the TIP was held in the District Jail and he identifies the proceedings in the Court -- Identification of the proceedings is irrelevant as he could not have been present during the TIP -- There cannot be repeated TIPs till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused -- PW-1 who is the mother of PW-2, and both of them are stated to have been present in the house when the occurrence took place, did not identify any of the appellants -- Identification by a minor boy and that too in the 3rd and 4th rounds insofar as the present appellants are concerned -- In the nature of the TIP held it is completely non est in the law and the benefit has to go to the accused.

(Para 11,12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail -- Application for default bail filed, there was no challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C against the petitioner, who was in custody for a period of 94 days – Held, Court below has erred in denying default bail on the ground that evidence had already been collected and a challan presented against the other co accused and, therefore, since evidence was available – Challan presented against the co-accused clearly stated qua petitioner that he is yet to be arrested and separate challan would be prepared and presented against petitioner -- An indefeasible right accrues – No provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorising detention of an accused in custody after the expiry of the period indicated in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 excepting the contingency indicated in Explanation I, namely, if the accused does not furnish the bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 316, 34 – Summoning in medical negligence case – Challenge to – Mens-rea – Requirement of -- High Court set side summoning order impressed by the fact that there was no evidence regarding mens rea, to show malicious or bad intent – Held, view taken by the High Court is erroneous -- When it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent.

(Para 1-4)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 316, 34 -- Summoning in medical negligence case – Challenge to -- Medical evidence – Requirement of -- Trial Court summoned without insisting for medical evidence or examination of professional Doctor as required in terms of the exposition of this Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 – Appropriate course is to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as summoning order issued by the Trial Court and relegate the parties before the Trial Court for reconsideration of the issue afresh -- Appeal disposed of.

(Para 6-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138  N.I. Act -- Revisional jurisdiction – Condition of pre-deposit of fine/ compensation – Trial court sentenced fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, in the event of default, appellant/ convict would undergo S.I. for six months -- Rs.5,90,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to the State – High Court ordered unless the fine amount is deposited, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing the petition filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C – Held, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing of the revision petition – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 3, 4, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Bail granted by JMIC u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on 22.6.2021 on account of failure of the investigating agency to file challan within the prescribed period -- Requisite bonds were not furnished on behalf of the petitioner-accused on that very day, rather, on 25.06.2021, when an application was filed on behalf of petitioner/accused for furnishing of requisite bail bonds, the application was dismissed for the reason that the investigating agency had filed the challan on 22.06.2021, after passing of the order -- Impugned order cannot be sustained – Petition allowed.

(Para 2-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 50, 67 -- NDPS case – Acquittal of accused in appeal – Investigaiton by Adhoc ASI -- Over-writing on consent Memo – Effect of -- Being not a substantive Assistant Sub Inspector, HC/EASI was an Ad hoc ASI and holding the substantive rank of a Head Constable -- As such, he was not competent to exercise the powers and perform the duties as specified in Sections 42 and 67 of the NDPS Act – Besides this, over-writing in the notice and consent memo u/s 50 NDPS Act, is sufficient to hold that thick clouds of suspicion are hovering over the case of the prosecution -- It is a cardinal principle of the criminal law that the prosecution has to prove the guilty of the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, however, the prosecution has failed to do as such -- Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court set aside; and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed by giving the benefit of doubt.

(Para 13-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 188 -- Offence committed abroad – Prior sanction from Central Government – Requirement of -- Previous sanction of the Central Government u/s 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by a citizen of India outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance -- However, trial of the criminal case cannot commence without sanction being accorded u/s 188 Cr.P.C -- High Court dismissed application for quashing of FIR -- Special Leave Petition is dismissed, petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground pertaining to sanction before the commencement of the trial. Thota Venkateswarlu’s case 2011 (9) SCC 527 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Petroleum Act, 1934 (30 of 1934), Section 7, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Storage of diesel in excess of 2500 litres without licence – Seizure of diesel -- Release of diesel on superdari -- Petitioner is ready to furnish a bank draft before the trial Court of an amount equivalent to the price of diesel – Product seized is inflammable and has property of evaporation -- It would be suffice if lab report is taken as to nature of the product, if not already taken -- Product be measured in presence of the petitioner and his counter-signatures be obtained as a token of his acceptance to the measurement and thereafter product be released -- Petitioner shall deposit a Demand Draft equivalent to the price of diesel with the trial Court -- Trial Court shall keep the amount in an F.D.R. in a nationalized bank subject to outcome of the trial.

(Para 9,10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468 -- Cheating and forgery -- Any alteration in any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security is also fall within the ambit of cheating -- Substitution of pages of a sale deed would amount to tampering and forging the original sale deed, it is not just offence u/s 465 IPC, which would be attracted, but the graver offences punishable u/s 467 & 468 IPC would also get attracted as the forgery was of valuable security and for the purpose of cheating.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 211 – Addition of more charges than Challan – Power of -- Mere fact that the Investigating Officer at the time of presentation of charge-sheet does not specifically mention a particular offence would not prevent the Court from looking into the entire facts and frame charges for such offence/s which are found prima facie to be made out from the facts of the case.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 -- Child witness – Reliability of -- Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded -- A child who is aged about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably developed mental faculty to see, absorb and appreciate -- Evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction -- Mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness -- More so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Value of -- Allegation that the appellant stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased was serious and specific against her – Held, in the absence of any question having been put to her in this regard u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has been seriously prejudiced in her defence -- Procedure u/s 313 CrPC is but a facet of the principles of natural justice giving an opportunity to an accused to present the defence -- Burden of proof on an accused in support of the defence taken u/s 313 CrPC is not beyond all reasonable doubt as it lies on the prosecution to prove the charge -- Accused has merely to create a doubt -- It will be for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused.

(Para 9, 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Dowry death/ Murder – Acquittal of Jethani -- PW-2/ Child witness was examined nearly one year after the occurrence -- Court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and what was deposed was nothing but the truth -- According to PW-2, the appellant stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased, thereafter others tied her up and set her on fire leading to 95% burns -- He states that after the deceased had suffered burn injuries he had seen the entire scenario including the room where the burnt articles were kept including that he was a witness to his sister being put in a vehicle while being taken to the hospital -- He then states that the deceased in that condition was speaking -- At no stage has the witness deposed that the cloth was taken out from her mouth -- It stands to reason that if cloth was stuffed in the mouth of deceased she would have been unable to speak -- PW-8/ Doctor deposed that there was no cloth recovered from the mouth of the deceased -- He states that the mouth of the deceased was closed, the jaws were shut, no cloth was present in the mouth but burnt cloth was present on the whole body starting from the wrist -- More crucially he states that all the 32 teeth were intact – Blisters were present at various parts of the body but he does not talk about any blister being present in the mouth -- No injuries of any nature have been found inside the mouth neither has the cloth been found – Court not satisfied that the evidence of PW-2 attributing a specific role to the appellant is of such a sterling quality so as to inspire confidence in the court to base the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness -- Appellant was a daughter-in-law like the deceased herself -- Nature of the evidence makes it highly unlikely that she would have engaged in such actions -- Benefit of doubt in the circumstances has to be given to the appellant.

(Para 7, 11-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 498-A, 304B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Dowry death case -- Father-in-law and mother-in-law – Earlier anticipatory bail was granted with the observation that, after charge sheet is filed, it is open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for the Regular Bail before the Competent Court – Held, same does not preclude the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. after filing of the charge sheet -- It also cannot be said, that same is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail -- Husband of the deceased was granted Regular Bail after he was arrested – Held, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 25 (Sections 27/29 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Involvement in 4 more FIRs but on bail -- Petitioner could not repelled by the prosecution regarding the discrepancies in the documents prepared at the spot; the affidavit of independent witness and the Certificate given by the Panchayat; the manner in which the investigation is conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has only verified one document and has not signed any other documents; all the memos are typed documents and in some documents, FIR number is blank and filled by Pen and in some documents, it is typed by mentioning the FIR number; the discrepancies in the order of the Illaqa Magistrate and the FSL report -- Pendency of other cases cannot be taken as a bar -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months; till date even charges have not been framed and therefore, no PW has been examined; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 62, 65-B(4) -- Exhibition of documents – Objection to – Sustainability of -- Court is to visualize as a determinative factor that whether the evidence in question is essential for just decision of the case or not -- Trial cannot be held up on objection at the time of tendering of documents in evidence – Document had already been exhibited in the statement of PW-14 at the time of production of certificate u/s 65-B of the Act -- Reasonable opportunity has been given to the defence counsel to examine the witness -- Having acquiesced the opportunity by cross-examining the witness, the petitioner cannot turn around and object to the tender made by the witness.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 304-B, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Dowry death – Abetment to suicide -- Discharge u/s 306 IPC – Permissibility of – High Court discharged the parents in law u/s 306 IPC -- Considering the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the suicide notes as well as the statements of witnesses, respondents no.1 and 2 (parents in law) ought not to have been discharged of the offence u/s 306 IPC, especially when the charges u/s 304B IPC and other related sections had already been framed and confirmed – Order of High Court set aside.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail – Compromise between parties -- Contends that the FIR is the outcome of a monetary dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 (complainant) which has been resolved, who contends that the matter has indeed been compromised – In view of the submissions Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)