Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Dowry death case – Car given to husband at the time of marriage – Superdari given to husband being registered owner by Special Court holding that since the plea of the petitioner/ complainant was that the car was given in dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter it meant that the same was gifted to the accused-husband -- By getting the car registered in his name the accused-husband accepted the said gift and thus the car cannot be said to be the istridhan of deceased – Held, registration certificate of a vehicle in favour of a person is an important determinative factor of ownership of the vehicle, keeping in view the limited scope of inquiry in a proceeding u/s 451 CrPC -- Petitioner can always stake his ownership on the car after getting the same determined by a competent court of law -- It is yet to be determined whether the car was part of the istridhan -- Ownership rights of the petitioner cannot be determined in proceedings u/s 451 CrPC – Order of Special Court upheld.

(Para 5-13)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Corruption case -- Application u/s 482 by third party to expedite criminal trial – Locus standi – Maintainability of – High Court directed trial court to expedite the criminal trial -- Held, respondent no. 2 (third party) has no locus to file application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to expedite the hearing in criminal trial -- Application was not clearly maintainable -- Impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.

(Para 2-4, 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case – Release of Vehicle on superdari – Agreement to sell in favour of petitioner -- Held, vehicle in question can be released to the petitioner considering the fact that there is already an agreement in favour of the petitioner and also the fact that if the vehicle is allowed to remain parked in the police station it may become unfit for roadworthiness -- Petition allowed and vehicle in question is ordered to be released to the petitioner on Superdari.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 370, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Trafficking of person -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue – Petition allowed, FIR and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 10, 18, 19)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 -- Cheque bounce case -- Deposit of 20% amount of fine or compensation – Whether discretion of Appellate Court – Held, power vested with the lower Appellate Court, though discretionary is supposed to be a ‘rule’ and said discretion should be exercised in all the cases unless there are some exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the said rule.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Deposit of 20% amount of fine or compensation – Power of Appellate Court -- Amount is required to be deposited within a period of 60 days which may further be extended by another 30 days -- Lower Appellate Court having granted one month’s period only for depositing the amount, the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act -- Error needs to be rectified.

(Para 9, 10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 374 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal -- Imposition of any condition at the time of suspending of sentence may be a different matter failing which the order suspending sentence may be vacated -- While giving a wider connotation to Article 21 of Constitution of India, it can even be said that depriving a convict of his right to appeal by imposing any pre-requisite for availing his statutory right to challenge conviction in a higher Court would amount to depriving his liberty without adhering to the established procedure of law.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156, 173 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Closure report – Fair Investigaiton -- Investigation and closure report do not contain any material with regard to the nature of investigation for insufficiency of evidence against them -- Closure report is based on the ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer -- Investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate -- Police has the primary duty to investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence -- This is a statutory duty under the Cr.P.C. apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure that peace is maintained in the society and the rule of law is upheld and applied -- To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate is a preposterous statement, coming from the police – Trial of other accused stayed, closure reports partly set aside insofar as the non-charged sheeted accused are concerned -- I.P.S. appointed to carry out further investigation through a team of competent officers.

(Para 6, 7, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Investigaiton by police – Interference in – Power of -- Police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime in accordance with law as provided in the Cr. P.C. -- Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with -- But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police -- Once the conscience of the court is satisfied, from the materials on record, that the police has not investigated properly or apparently is remiss in the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law -- If the court gives any directions for that purpose within the contours of the law, it cannot amount to interference with investigation -- A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 149, 323, 354-D, 506 – Stalking -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties had appeared before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and got recorded their statements regarding compromise -- Petition allowed -- FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 6-9)

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 2, 9, 11, 12, 39A, 49A, 51, Schedule I, II, III, IV -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Offence under Wildlife Protection Act – Quashing of complaint by High Court – Challenge to – In case a person hunts any of the wild animals which are included in Schedule I to IV, it becomes an offence inviting the penalty under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 -- Veterinary Surgeon has identified the Turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’ whereas the Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972 is “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata).”  -- Although Lissemys punctata is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, however, the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I -- Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure – Held, High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences -- No good ground to interfere with the order of the High Court by which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9-14)

A. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 4, 21, 22, 23-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 414 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Section 22 – Registration of FIR – Cognizance of offence -- Court concluded:

i) that the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted;

ii) the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder;

iii) for commission of the offence under the IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder; and

iv) that in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the concerned In-charge of the police station/investigating officer submits a report, the same can be sent to the concerned Magistrate as well as to the concerned authorised officer as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned authorised officer may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the concerned investigating officer and thereafter it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate.

(Para 13)

B. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 4, 21, 22, 23-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 414 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Section 22 – Offence under Mines Act and IPC -- Compounding of offence – Effect of -- In a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section1 of Section 23A, considering sub-section 2 of Section 23A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any rule made thereunder so compounded -- However, the bar under sub-section 2 of Section 23A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under the IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further.

(Para 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 482 -- Proclaimed offender – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail – Right of -- When an accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender, a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., impugning that order is not maintainable and accused should first move the Court which declared him a proclaimed offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation and that power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding or avoiding service -- If an accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, he should not be granted anticipatory bail -- Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to surrender before the trial Court and move application seeking regular bail. Mehnga Singh’s case 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 501 and Pradeep Sharma’s case 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269 relied.

(Para 3,4)

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

(Para 1-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial – For transfer of trial from one Court to another, the Court must be fully satisfied about existence of such factors which would make it impossible to conduct a fair trial -- General allegation of surcharged atmosphere is not however sufficient -- One must also be mindful of the fact that when trial is shifted out from one State to another, it would tantamount to casting aspersions on the Court, having lawful jurisdiction to try the case -- Hence powers u/s 406 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases when fair and impartial trial uninfluenced by external factors, is not at all possible -- If the Courts are able to function uninfluenced by public sentiment, shifting of trial would not be warranted.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial -- Petitioners are on bail, being residents of Punjab, they continue to reside at their usual place and are going about their routine affairs -- If their threat perceptions were genuine, they could not have gone about their normal ways --  For this reason, the Court is inclined to believe that the atmosphere in the State does not justify shifting of the trial venue to another State.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial – Alternative place without pleading -- Submission that, if the Trials cannot be shifted to Delhi, they should be shifted to Chandigarh – Held, this was not the pleaded case of the Petitioners -- Suggested alternate venue is Punjab’s capital and even though Chandigarh is an Union Territory, the population pattern in the city is like the rest of Punjab -- Such alternative plea on the grounds pleaded in these matters cannot therefore be countenanced.

(Para 20)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial -- Transfer of trial from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State’s judiciary -- Except for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked -- Present bunch of cases are not perceived to be amongst such exceptional categories -- Cases are found devoid of merit, dismissed.

(Para 21-23)

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

(Para 3-8)

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

(Para 12)

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

(Para 18-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 308, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 -- Incident of 2002 – Sentenced reduced to already undergone -- Considering the fact that the incident occurred on 13.01.2002 and the appellant has already served more than two years of sentence, while maintaining the conviction for the offence u/s 308/ 34 IPC and u/s 326 IPC, Court reduced the sentence for the period already undergone -- Compensation awarded for the offence u/s 308/34 IPC reduced to Rs.5,000/- and for offence u/s 326 IPC also reduced to Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 12)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 134 -- Hostile witness – Consideration of other evidence for conviction -- No doubt large number of witnesses turned hostile and the Trial Court was also not happy with the manner of prosecution conducted the case -- In the absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has to examine whatever is the evidence which is capable of being considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice to convict the accused.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313, 433, 433-A -- Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction of husband – Appeal against – Commutation of sentence -- Death by asphyxia due to strangulation -- Minimum five minutes of forceful pulling to cause the death -- Most important aspect is where the death was caused and the body found -- It was in the precincts of the house of the appellant/husband where there were only family members staying – No possibility of somebody from outside coming and strangulating the deceased – Appellant/ husband is alleged to have caused the death of his wife by strangulation -- No explanation has been given as to how the wife could have received the injuries -- This is a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of the crime -- Appellant was under an obligation to give a plausible explanation regarding the cause of the death in the statement recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. and mere denial could not be the answer in such a situation – Appeal dismissed -- Respondent/State directed to examine for release of appellant on completion of 14 years of actual sentence in accordance with norms.

(Para 23-27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Conviction under Arms Act – Dismissal of revision in default – Sustainability of -- Held, High Court was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default, on the ground that the appellant’s advocate had remained absent on the previous four occasions -- Since the revision before the High Court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel -- Liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner – Appeal allowed, Revision restored to the file of the High Court.

(Para 7,8)

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

(Para 3-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Bail on incomplete facts -- Cancellation of bail -- It is the duty of the Court to consider the entire actual facts and circumstances and then decide whether a particular accused is entitled for the grant of bail or not -- At the time of grant of bail to respondent No.2, the recovery of the knife and the corresponding injuries upon the deceased were not brought to the knowledge of the Court and were not taken into consideration -- When the said facts brought to the notice of the Court by the State, the same have been declared as insignificant so as to review the order granting bail – Held, once, a recovery of knife has been attributed to respondent No.2 as per his own disclosure statement and admittedly, there are corresponding injuries with the said weapon, which are fatal in nature received by the deceased on his head, the said facts cannot be treated as insignificant for considering the grant or cancellation of bail, especially when a person has lost his life -- Order granting bail cannot be sustained – Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender before the jail authority.

(Para 7-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 307, 447, 506, 511, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Murder case -- Second petition for regular bail – Considering allegation against the petitioner is of pelting of stone and the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 2 years and 4 month, coupled with the fact that out of the total 83 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 23 witnesses have been examined so far and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r) -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Abuse in public view -- Allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building -- It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house -- Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out -- Charges against the appellant u/s 3(1)(r) of the Act quashed. Swaran Singh’s case (2008) 8 SCC 435 relied.

(Para 14, 15, 24)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r) -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Civil litigation between parties -- Dispute about the possession of the land -- Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting complainant to cultivate the land for the last six months -- Any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe -- Allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property -- If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out – Finding that appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law.

(Para 13-22)

C. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Part quashing of charge-sheet -- There is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part -- In a petition filed u/s 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice -- Charges against the appellant u/s 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out -- Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. Ishwar Pratap Singh’s case (2018) 13 SCC 612 relied.

(Para 23,24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006), Section 17(1)(a)(b) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 141 – Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Legality of – Remand to fill lacuna of case – Permissibility of -- No material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly -- Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint -- Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(Para 22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 401 – Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42-A -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – First appeal against conviction – Condonation of delay – Right of -- Held, first appeal against conviction should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation -- Appellate Court was in error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation -- Revision petition allowed, matter remitted to the same Court for deciding the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. State of Odisha v. Surendra Munda’s case 2020 (4), RCR (Criminal), 286 relied.

(Para 6)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 -- Test Identification Parade – TIP -- Principles which have emerged from the precedents of Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

(i) The purpose of conducting a TIP is that persons who claim to have seen the offender at the time of the occurrence identify them from amongst the other individuals without tutoring or aid from any source. An identification parade, in other words, tests the memory of the witnesses, in order for the prosecution to determine whether any or all of them can be cited as eye-witness to the crime;

(ii) There is no specific provision either in the CrPC or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which lends statutory authority to an identification parade. Identification parades belong to the stage of the investigation of crime and there is no provision which compels the investigating agency to hold or confers a right on the accused to claim a TIP;

(iii) Identification parades are governed in that context by the provision of Section 162 of the CrPC;

(iv) A TIP should ordinarily be conducted soon after the arrest of the accused, so as to preclude a possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before it is held;

(v) The identification of the accused in court constitutes substantive evidence;

(vi) Facts which establish the identity of the accused person are treated to be relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act;

(vii) A TIP may lend corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if so required;

(viii) As a rule of prudence, the court would, generally speaking, look for corroboration of the witness’ identification of the accused in court, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. The rule of prudence is subject to the exception when the court considers it safe to rely upon the evidence of a particular witness without such, or other corroboration;

(ix) Since a TIP does not constitute substantive evidence, the failure to hold it does not ipso facto make the evidence of identification inadmissible;

(x) The weight that is attached to such identification is a matter to be determined by the court in the circumstances of that particular case;

(xi) Identification of the accused in a TIP or in court is not essential in every case where guilt is established on the basis of circumstances which lend assurance to the nature and the quality of the evidence; and

(xii) The court of fact may, in the context and circumstances of each case, determine whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the accused for refusing to participate in a TIP. However, the court would look for corroborating material of a substantial nature before it enters a finding in regard to the guilt of the accused.

(Para 36)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 – Acquittal in murder case – Serious infirmity in evidence -- Refusal to go Test Identification Parade/ TIP – Effect of -- Identification in the course of a TIP is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused -- Finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade -- Presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the scene of the occurrence is seriously in doubt -- Ballistics evidence connecting the empty cartridges and the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased with an alleged weapon of offence is contradictory and suffers from serious infirmities -- Hence, in this backdrop, a refusal to undergo a TIP assumes secondary importance, if at all, and cannot survive independently in the absence of it being a substantive piece of evidence -- Prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt -- Appellants are, hence, entitled to the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the offence.

(Para 39,40)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 78(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 90 boxes of country made liquor/total 1080 bottles for sale in Haryana only, were recovered from boot of white coloured Duster which was driven by co-accused and the petitioner was sitting on the conductor seat -- Petitioner in judicial custody since 07.09.2020 -- Investigation of the case is complete and the final report stands filed -- Considering the above background, custody of the petitioner and the fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate, Court found that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail -- Outbreak of pandemic COVID-19 in the region may further delay the conclusion of trial -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Default bail -- Recovery of 1300 tablets of Alprozolam and 1000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- Incomplete challan was presented in the Court -- No request was submitted to the said Court by the Investigating Agency seeking extension of time for the purpose of investigation of the case -- On the expiry of a period of 180 days, the accused has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court seeking default bail – Subsequent presentation of the report of FSL will not extinguish the right of the petitioner to seek a default bail -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of default bail.

(Para 14-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 399, 401 -- Second revision – Maintainability of – Filing of second revision petition, challenging the order passed by the Court of Session, while disposing of a revision petition is barred and it cannot be entertained by High court -- Revision petition dismissed accordingly.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Murder case -- Acquittal of appellant – Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court – Challenge to -- Test Identification parade unworthy  – Forensic evidence withheld – Identification of accused by wearing of lungi – Un-natural behaviour of eye-witness -- Principle in criminal law which propagates that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted -- Infirmities in the prosecution evidence, made out a case for interference -- Appeal allowed, judgment of trial Court as also of High Court set aside.

(Para 1, 8-16)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(g) – Adverse inference – Co-accused acquitted -- No chemical analyst report, relevant forensic evidence for the seized shirt of co-accused withheld by the prosecution -- When such vital forensic evidence is kept away, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution.

(Para 8.2)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 -- Test Identification Parade – Presence of Police – Identity by lungis -- Test Identification evidence (YIP) is not substantive piece of evidence but can only be used, in corroboration of statements in Court -- Major flaw was the presence of the police during the exercise, resultant communications tantamount to statements made by the identifiers to a police officer in course of investigation and they fall within the ban of section 162 of the Code -- Pahchan patra of the TIP mentions that three lungis were presented, the related witness was shown only one lungi for identification -- Such infirmities would render the TIP unworthy of acceptance, for supporting the prosecution.

(Para 10,11)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Murder case -- Unnatural behaviour of the eye-witness – He was known to the deceased and claimed to have seen the assault -- He did not take any pro-active steps in the matter to either report to the police or inform any of the family members -- Such conduct of the eyewitness is contrary to human nature – His testimony deserves to be discarded.

(Para 14)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 53, 67 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section  161, 164, 173 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 20(3) and 21 – NDPS case -- Statement/ Confession made before officers under NDPS Act –

-- Whether the officer investigating the matter under the NDPS Act would qualify as police officer or not ?

-- Whether the statement recorded by the investigating officer u/s 67 of the Act can be treated as confessional statement or not, even if the officer is not treated as police officer?

-- Whether such a statement is to be treated as statement u/s 161 of the Code or it partakes the character of statement u/s 164 of the Code? –

To arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated u/s 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India – Judgment in Kanhaiyalal (2008 (4) SCC 668) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (1990 (2) SCC 409) do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled -- Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled – Judgments of Noor Aga (2008 (16) SCC 417) and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan’s case (2011) 12 SCC 298 are correct in law. Held,

(i) That the officers who are invested with powers u/s 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

(ii) That a statement recorded u/s 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.

(Para 2, 152-155)

(Majority judgment)

Reference answered.

Provisions of the Cr.P.C do not apply to an inquiry/investigation under the NDPS Act except to the limited extent provided in Section 50(5) and 51 -- Section 173 of the Cr.P.C has not been made applicable to the NDPS Act -- Judgment in Raj Kumar Karwal (1990 (2) SCC 409), which has reaffirmed the verdict of three Constitution Benches does not require reconsideration -- Nor does Kanhaiyalal (2008 (4) SCC 668) require reconsideration.

(Para 270-271)

(Minority judgment)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (Punjab Act 2 of 2013), Section  13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Second bail application for anticipatory bail -- Petitioner alleged to have received a sum of Rs.9 lacs, in order to help the first informant’s son to immigrate to Canada -- First informant and the petitioner have settled the matter not disputed by first informant – Arrest of the petitioner stayed subject to the petitioner joining investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer -- Petitioner shall be bound by the conditions as envisaged under 438 Cr.P.C.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Registration of FIR – Inherent jurisdiction -- No abnormal delay in reporting the matter – Dy.S.P. issued notices to complainant party and recorded statements of various persons -- Police Officer cannot embark upon any elaborate inquiry to ascertain genuineness or reasonableness of the information and cannot refuse registration of criminal case -- It does not lie under the domain of Police Officer to substitute preliminary/detailed inquiry with the investigation of the case, as the investigation can only be done after registration of an FIR -- Refusal to register an FIR is not in accordance with law – Petition accepted and direction given for registration of case.

(Para 33-35)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Registration of FIR -- Reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information are not conditions precedent for registration of case -- Intention of the Legislature is to ensure prompt investigation of a cognizable offence in accordance with law – No discretion left with the Police Officer to register or not to register an FIR once information of a cognizable offence has been placed before him -- Action against erring police officer is warranted in such circumstances in which FIR is not registered in respect of cognizable offence. Some exceptions to the mandatory registration of FIR :

-- If the information does not disclose commission of cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is made out or not. If the inquiry discloses cognizable offence the FIR be registered.

-- In case preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the information is required to be supplied to the complainant within one week after disclosing the reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. Preliminary inquiry can be made in matrimonial disputes/ family disputes/ criminal offences/ medical negligence cases, corruption cases and cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution for more than three months in reporting the matter without satisfactory explanation for the delay -- Preliminary inquiry has to be completed within seven days and the delay if any, should be reflected in the general/daily diary of the Police Station.

Lalita Kumari’s case 2013(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 979 relied.

(Para 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3) --  Non-registration of FIR – Procedure thereafter -- If a person has a grievance that the Police is not registering the FIR u/s 154 Cr.P.C, then he can approach the Sr. Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. by way of filing a representation in writing -- If such representation does not yield any satisfactory result and the FIR is not registered, then it would be open to the aggrieved person to file an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned -- On receipt of such application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can direct for registration of FIR -- Magistrate can also monitor the investigation to ensure an appropriate investigation. Madhu Bala’s case 1997(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 679.

(Para 27)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 , 482 -- Registration of FIR – Constitutional validity-- Expression 'es unius est exclusion alterious' is fully applicable to the interpretation attached with Section 154 Cr.P.C. which means that expression of one thing is the exclusion of another -- Mandate of recording the information in writing excludes the possibility of not recording the information of commission of a cognizable offence in the special register -- Therefore, conducting the investigation into an offence after registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr.P.C. is the procedure established by law and the same is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 29)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157(1) -- Registration of F.I.R. -- Nature of F.I.R. – There are two types of FIRs i.e. the FIR which is duly signed by the complainant u/s 154(1) Cr.P.C and the second type of FIR could be the FIR which is registered by the Police itself on any information received or other than by way of an informant and even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy thereof should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith u/s 157(1) Cr.P.C -- It would be obligatory on the part of Police to register FIR.

(Para 30)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 166 -- FIR – Arrest of accused – Registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr.P.C. and arrest of the accused are entirely different things -- Arrest of the accused is not automatic on registration of an FIR -- Arrest cannot be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence -- It would be prudent for a Police Officer not to arrest a person without a reasonable satisfaction after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fide of a complaint and reasonable belief in the context of complicity of the accused -- Arrest of person and registration of FIR are not directly linked as both have two concepts, operating under different parameters -- Misuse of aforesaid concept would result in action against the Police Officer under Section 166 IPC.

(Para 31)

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Registration of FIR -- Registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence -- No preliminary inquiry is permitted in such a situation -- Preliminary inquiry can be conducted in matrimonial cases, case relating to family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay of more than 3 months in initiating criminal prosecution or reporting the matter to the police without satisfactory explanation. Lalita Kumari’s case 2013(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 979 relied.

(Para 32)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Registration of FIR – Cancellation of -- It would be prerogative of the Police to file cancellation of the FIR after investigation in accordance with law -- In such eventuality, the complainant would be having a right to file protest petition on receipt of notice from the Court -- Thereafter the Court may accept the cancellation report or proceed with the case as a criminal case on receipt of preliminary evidence or may pass any other order in accordance with law including further investigation.

(Para 34)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Parity with similarly situated co-accused – Right of -- Once, a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted the bail, the same could not be denied to the petitioner unless and until any differentiating fact is pointed out -- No differentiating fact has been pointed out between the petitioner and co-accused -- Hence, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for the grant of bail on the ground of parity with co-accused – Without commenting upon the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail

(Para 13,14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of cases -- Transfer power u/s 406 of the Code is to be invoked sparingly -- Only when fair justice is in peril, a plea for transfer might be considered -- Court however will have to be fully satisfied that impartial trial is not possible -- Equally important is to verify that the apprehension of not getting a level playing field, is based on some credible material and not just conjectures and surmises.

-- Plea for transfer of case should not be entertained on mere apprehension of a hyper sensitive person

-- While considering a plea for transfer, the convenience of parties would be a relevant consideration -- It can’t just be the convenience of the petitioner but also of the Complainant, the Witnesses, the Prosecution besides the larger issue of trial being conducted under the jurisdictional Court.

(Para 20-22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of cases -- Petitioner is not pointing any fingers towards the courts and his apprehension is based only on the action taken by the State -- Transfer of trials from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State’s judiciary but for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked.

(Para 23)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 437 -- Default bail – Condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- – Permissibility of – Held, only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail u/s 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be -- And within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail -- Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. -- Condition imposed by the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Condition quashed and set aside.

(Para 9-11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail -- Condition directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned is unsustainable, as it is too harsh -- Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail – Condition modified by Supreme Court.

(Para 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Fair trial – Cross-examination – Right of -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to place on record certain documents was allowed, no witness was recalled or examined for the purpose of proving the additional record and the same was taken on file straightway – Petitioners filed application u/s 311 Cr.P.C to recall witnesses for the purpose of cross-examining them in relation to the additional record -- Application dismissed on the ground that the petitioners could lead defence evidence and examine any official from the concerned department – Held, denial of the petitioners' right of cross-examination cannot be countenanced -- It is a valuable right given to the accused and such right cannot be diluted in this fashion -- Approach adopted by the learned ASJ negated the very basic and fundamental norms of a fair trial – Direction given to ld. ASJ to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination and proceed thereafter with the case in accordance with law – Revision allowed.

(Para 10-14)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21, 226, 227 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452, 324, 323, 34 -- Right to go abroad – Pendency of FIR – Effect of -- Accused is presumed to be innocent until convicted -- Rights of an accused does not automatically get suspended merely because he is being prosecuted in a criminal case -- One of the facet of right to liberty is to travel abroad – Held, while deciding such applications, the Courts must have regard to the nature of allegations, the conduct of the accused and above all, the need to ensure that the accused does not pose the risk of evading the prosecution – Concern of the Court ought to be only to ensure speedy trial of the criminal case and avoid the possibility of accused fleeing the reach of law -- Liberty of a citizen or a non-citizen cannot be unreasonably curtailed except in the circumstances as discussed above.

(Para 10,11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21, 226, 227 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452, 324, 323, 34 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 9 -- Right to go abroad – Renewal of Passport -- Pendency of FIR – Effect of -- Petitioner is struck in the country because he is an accused in a minor offence and conclusion of the trial of the case is taking a lot of time – It has been more than three years since the FIR was registered -- Petitioner has already, with the prior permission of the Court, visited the USA twice during the pendency of the case and did came back -- No doubt, the petitioner overstayed for a few days in the year 2019, however, he did return before the date fixed in the case -- Still further, the petitioner has only applied for renewal/re-issue of the passport – Direction issued to the passport authorities to immediately renew/re-issue the passport of the petitioner, on completion of all the formalities -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 452, 120-B and 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Report of JMIC that statements of the parties were recorded which indicates that the compromise is genuine, without any coercion or undue influence -- Inherent jurisdiction of u/s 482 Cr.P.C. exercised so as to secure the ends of justice -- Continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law – FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 190, 482 – Cancellation report of FIR – ACJM vide impugned order directed attached the cancellation report with protest petition and fixed the case for evidence of the complainant – Held, cancellation report filed by the police is not binding on ACJM -- Magistrate may accept the report or on receipt of protest petition or even suo-motu direct re-investigation or further investigation and protest petition filed can be treated as complaint petition, if prima facie a case is made out -- As of now, the impugned order cannot be set aside on mere apprehension that protest petition has already been treated as a complaint u/s 190 Cr.P.C – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190, 207, 208 – Challan filed – Cognizance by court -- Right of accused to copy of challan -- It is only after taking of the cognizance and issuance of process that the accused is entitled, in terms of Sections 207 and 208 of the Code, to copies of the documents referred to in said provisions.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 173, 190, 207, 208 – Challan filed – Cognizance by court – Right of accused to copy of statement u/s 164 Cr.P.c. – No person is entitled to a copy of statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code till the appropriate orders are passed by the court after the charge-sheet is filed -- Right to receive a copy of such statement will arise only after cognizance is taken and at the stage contemplated by Sections 207 and 208 of the Code and not before -- Application of accused was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge and the order so passed did not call for any interference by the High Court.

(Para 16,17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclamation order – 30 day notice – Requirement of --  A clear period of 30 days was not afforded to the petitioner-accused so as to cause his appearance before the court -- Thereafter, the matter was adjourned but no fresh proclamation was ordered to be issued – Such adjournment beyond 30 days cannot be treated as compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. -- Impugned order set aside – Direction given to surrender and also make the payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the complainant -- On his doing so, ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7,8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance in Trail – Presence ordered to secure through warrant of arrest -- Anticipatory bail -- On account of an accident accused got fracture on his leg and could not appear -- Resultantly, his presence was ordered to be secured through warrant of arrest – Petition disposed of, accused shall surrender before trial Court within fifteen days positively and on surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court -- Trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 446 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in accordance with law -- Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to warrant of arrest already issued against him.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 354, 341, 323, 365, 506, 148/149 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(s) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- S.I.T. upon examining the 'Call Detail Records', had come to a conclusion that as per 'Tower Location' information, none of the two petitioners was present at the spot at the time of occurrence – None of the petitioners is attributed the fatal blow either as per the FIR or as per the supplementary statement made by the complainant -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last more than 6 months and challan already stands presented -- None of the petitioners is stated to be involved in any other case, as per the custody certificate -- Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7,8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- FIR against accused – Permission to go abroad – Right of – While evaluating the issue, Court must have regard to nature of the allegations, the conduct of the appellant and above all, the need to ensure that he does not pose a risk of evading the prosecution – Appellant regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020 -- Lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of the case be a bar on the travel of the appellant to the US for eight weeks to attend to the business of revalidating his Green Card -- Human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial -- There is no reason or justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks – Appellant granted permission subject to certain conditions.

(Para 21-24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 – Grievous injuries -- Non-taking of cognizance by police – Reference made to medical record -- Despite representation to the SSP no action has been taken in this regard -- It would be in the interest of justice to issue directions to respondents to look into the matter and the representation and to take action if required in accordance with law.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 461(I), 462 -- Criminal cases – Trail of offence/offender  – Territorial jurisdiction – Appropriate Court to raise the issue -- Words “tries an offence” are more appropriate than the words “tries an offender” in section 461 (l) -- This is because, lack of jurisdiction to try an offence cannot be cured by section 462 and hence section 461, logically, could have included the trial of an offence by a Magistrate, not empowered by law to do so, as one of the several items which make the proceedings void -- In contrast, the trial of an offender by a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction, can be saved because of section 462, provided there is no other bar for the court to try the said offender (such as in section 27) -- But Section 461 (l) makes the proceedings of a Magistrate void, if he tried an offender, when not empowered by law to do.

-- the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an “offence” or “offender” as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence

-- if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in sections 177 to 184 of the Code and

-- these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same.

(Para 38, 39)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 26, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 461(I), 462 -- Criminal cases – Territorial jurisdiction – Transfer of petition – Power of -- Facts to be established by evidence, may relate either to the place of commission of the offence or to other things dealt with by Sections 177 to 184 of the Code -- In such circumstances, Supreme Court cannot order transfer, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, even before evidence is marshalled -- Hence the transfer petitions dismissed.

(Para 41, 42)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, Rule 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Summoning of accused – Challenge to -- Insolvency proceedings – Effect of -- Account of the Company was frozen by virtue of orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the NCLT -- All the moveable and immoveable assets of the Company have been taken over – Held, cheque in question is dated 12.06.2017, which was dishonoured on 29.07.2017 i.e. much prior to the passing of the order by the NCLT -- Even the legal notice dated 26.08.2017 served upon the petitioner is prior to commencement of IBC proceedings – Petitioner cannot thus take ruse under NCLT order passed after the institution of impugned complaint and passing of the summoning order.

(Para 3,4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 160, 438, 482 – Blanket Anticipatory bail – Alleged,  due to participation in the protest of the Farmers' Bill, 2020, the police are running after petitioners to implicate in some false case apart from harassing and humiliating them by conducting raids at their houses under the influence of the senior leaders of the ruling party -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case or opining on the veracity of the allegations the petition disposed of with a direction that in case the presence of the petitioners is required in connection with the investigation of any case, procedure as contemplated under Section 160 Cr.P.C be strictly followed.

(Para 3,4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 437, 439 – Statutory/ Default bail granted – Challan filed before submitting bail bonds – Cancellation of bail -- Before petitioner could furnish his bail bonds the challan was filed at about 5.00 p.m., following which, the statutory bail already granted was cancelled vide the impugned order – Impugned order set aside and a direction passed upon the Ld. Court below to accept the bail bonds, if any, in compliance of the previous order granting him statutory bail – Held, cancellation can only be ordered on merits of the case u/s 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C., and not merely on account of the fact that challan had been presented by the I.O after the said order was passed.

(Para 2-9)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11 -- Circumstantial evidence – Chain of circumstances -- In case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

(Para 5.4)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 100(4), 166 (3)(4) – Search in violation of Section 100(4) and 166(3)(4) of Cr.P.C -- Circumstantial evidence – Role of -- Investigaiton officer received a secret information that one jeep is lying in abandoned condition on the Chandigarh road and though the distance was around 300 kilo meters, he straightway went to Chandigarh and recovered the jeep in the presence of Bhunter people brought by him and did not follow the procedure as required to be followed under Section 166 (3 & 4), Cr.P.C -- Even he did not comply with the provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C -- Non-following of the aforesaid provisions alone may not be a ground to acquit the accused -- However, considering the overall surrounding circumstances and in a case where recovery is seriously doubted, non-compliance of the aforesaid play an important role.

(Para 7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 366 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Kidnapping – Appellants facilitating procurement of Sim Card – Conspiracy – Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Sim card was allegedly used by co-accused and his colleagues in the commission of offence of kidnapping -- Whether the appellant was a party to the agreement to do or caused to do the illegal act of kidnapping to be a member of the criminal conspiracy -- No substantial evidence that the appellant was aware that the sim card would be later on or was likely to be used in the commission of the offence of kidnapping -- Sentence suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal pending before High Court.

(Para 4-6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-A, 120-B -- Conspiracy cannot be assumed from a set of unconnected facts or from a set of conduct at different places and times without a reasonable link.

(Para 5)