Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 60 – NDPS case – Seizure of vehicle -- Release of vehicle on Sapurdari –Merely because vehicle was carrying narcotic substance and the same has been seized under the Act cannot be a ground for declining the release of vehicle on sapurdari -- Condition of the vehicle is likely to deteriorate while in custody on account of non-user thereof -- Aspect of confiscation of the vehicle can be looked at the appropriate stage but it cannot be termed to be a circumstance to deny the release of vehicle on sapurdari -- Vehicle ordered to be released on sapurdari.

(Para 2-7)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 1, 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations as per the FIR are that police on secret information got recovered 100 litre of Lahan from room adjoining residential house of petitioner – As per petitioner false case has been planted against him and he is a simple agriculturist and is not involved in any other case and therefore, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation at all -- Petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and would not make any default in this regard.

(Para 2-7)

A. Binding precedent -- Power of smaller Bench to say ‘per incuriam’ – A judgement may be held to be per incuriam in case it failed to notice an earlier binding precedent which covered the field -- Even in such a situation a smaller Bench cannot say that the judgement of a larger Bench is per incuriam -- The only course available to it is to make a reference to the larger Bench.

(Para 10)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A(4) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167, 173 -- NDPS case – Challan without report of the Chemical Examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory -- Incomplete challan -- Default bail -- By virtue of the doctrine of stare decisis, the Single Bench judgements in Akash Kumar alias Sunny (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14977) and Shankar (CRM No. M-44412 of 2019/20th December 2019) are binding as they lay down a proposition of law although at variance with the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) -- Smaller Bench could not have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam -- Judicial discipline demands that a reference be made to a Division Bench regarding the validity and correctness of the aforementioned Single Bench judgements -- File sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Division Bench for consideration of this matter -- Meanwhile, direction given that petitioner be released on bail

(Para 11,12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Writ petition for a mandamus to transfer the investigation to CBI --  Denovo Investigaiton -- Death of the deceased was initially sought to be passed off as accidental by collision with a train or suicidal -- F.I.R. u/s 302, IPC was registered very much belatedly, albeit reluctantly, only at the persistence of the petitioner and her husband after they repeatedly approached the higher authorities -- Entire investigation and the closure report lack bonafide -- Closure report set aside and direction given for a de novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of the State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern investigation technology also -- No officer who was part of the investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of the team conducting de novo investigation -- Fresh investigation must be concluded within a maximum period of two months and the police report be filed before the court concerned whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with law -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 8-15)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Acquittal by Trial Court – Power of appellate court -- View taken by the trial court was not at all possible, having regard to the evidence on record – High Court rightly set aside the same – Submission that even assuming that other view is possible, same is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court rejected.

(Para 7-11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 54 – Possession of contraband – Onus of proof -- Onus was on the accused to explain the possession and in absence of the same being discharged, presumption u/s 54 of the NDPS Act will kick in.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case – Release of vehicle on Superdari – Held, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of police station -- Large number of vehicles are since seized by the police officials daily and, all are kept unattended -- Resultantly, with passage of time, condition of vehicle becomes beyond repair -- Owner can always be put to terms by the Court while releasing the vehicle -- Trial too is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon, due to current pandemic conditions – Vehicle/car ordered to be released on superdari.

(Para 5-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b), 12 -- Non-payment of arrears of enhanced maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Contempt proceedings -- High Court ordered arrears of enhanced maintenance shall be paid in three equal instalments within six months -- Respondent flouted the order with impunity -- Firstly, the order was not complied by making three equal installments -- Secondly, even Court gave chance to respondent to comply with the order, but the respondent made a self-serving statement in the context of paying of Rs.1.5 lakhs unconditionally without adhering to the payment of arrears of maintenance -- Held, respondent has wilfully and deliberately violated the order and he has no respect for the Court's order -- Respondent convicted for civil contempt u/s 2(b) and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two months with fine of Rs.2,000/-.

(Para 21, 22)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- NDPS matter – Large period of custody during pendency of appeal -- Suspension of sentence -- Rigors of Section 37 would have to be met before the sentence of a convict is suspended and bail granted and mere passage of time cannot be a reason for the same.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Summoning of additional accused -- Complainant in her statement on the basis of which the FIR had been registered, specifically mentioned the names and roles of respondents No.2 to 7 – By inquiry report, the concerned DSP had found respondents No.2 to 7 as innocent -- Inquiry report is based on the statements of both the parties as also the mobile tower location -- Though in their statements, respondents No.2 to 7 have denied their involvement, yet they were present in the village – Held, power u/s 319 Cr.P.C., to arraign an accused is to be exercised sparingly and where there is strong and cogent evidence, but the Court is duty bound to give due weightage to the evidence collected and the statements recorded at the time of the registration of the FIR, during investigation and during trial – Enough prima-facie evidence to summon respondents No.2 to 7 as additional accused, to face the trial – Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. allowed and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are ordered to be summoned to face the trial as additional accused – Said respondents directed to appear before the trial Court and upon doing so, they ordered to be released on bail by the trial Court, on their furnishing adequate surety and bail bonds.

(Para 17-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Conviction u/s 302 IPC – First appeal dismissed by High Court on account of delay of 1192 days  -- Matter was remitted to the High Court to consider the appeal on merits – Review sought by State -- Held, in a criminal matter, where the life and liberty of a person is in question, one right of appeal has always been accepted and appropriate steps must be taken to effectuate that right -- Considerations on account of delay and limitation ought not to negate the right of appeal inhering in an accused – Review petition dismissed, order under review, affirmed.

(Para 3-6)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), Section 2(ix), 7(ii) -- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 32(e) -- Lot/Code/Batch Identification – Prosecution for misbranding being in violation of Rule 32(e), lacking in necessary declaration of lot/batch numbers – Barcode was available on the sample is not in dispute – Held, lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available in the barcode and which can be decoded by a barcode scanner -- No useful purpose is going to be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue and it will be an abuse of the process of law, causing sheer waste of time, causing unnecessary harassment to the appellant, if the prosecution is allowed to continue – Appeal allowed and prosecution of the appellant quashed.

(Para 2-8)

Electricity Act, 2003 (No.36 of 2003), Section 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- Regular bail in 21 cases -- Onerous and impossible conditions imposed for bail – Inherent power of High Court – Exercise of – Condition imposed of furnishing Rs.50,000/- as bail bond with one local surety for the like amount in each of the 21 FIRs is certainly an onerous condition, as in effect it will mean that he will have to furnish Rs.10,50,000/- as bail bonds with a local surety for the like amount in totality -- Fit case for invoking inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- Impugned orders set aside – Petitioner shall furnish one surety in one case for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and two sureties for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each, which sureties, would be applicable for all 21 cases -- Petitioner, in any case, shall furnish separate personal bonds in all 21 cases -- Upon the same being furnished, the petitioner ordered to be released on bail forthwith.

(Para 1,8-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 Part II – falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – Applicability of -- Contention that once the witnesses had been disbelieved with respect to the co-accused, their testimonies with respect to the present accused must also be discarded -- In effect, relying on the legal maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”, which Indian Courts have always been reluctant to apply -- Trial Court gave specific reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses with respect to the co-accused, and extending the benefit of doubt to them, while convicting the appellant on the strength of the evidence against him – Court found no infirmity in the approach of the Trial Court -- Conviction u/s 304 Part II upheld. Nisar Ali’s case AIR 1957 SC 366 and Rohtas’s case (2019) 10 SCC 554 relied.

(Para 1, 11-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 460, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Blind murder wherein none had seen any of the accused -- Petitioners sought to be nominated on the basis of disclosure statements made by the co-accused, who came to be arrested after 9 months of the occurrence and that too after recording of statement of daughter of the deceased – Veracity and admissibility of such statement would certainly be debatable -- Petitioners are not even stated to be involved in any other case, their further detention would not serve any useful purpose -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 341, 354C, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2020 -- Allegations of rape and criminal intimidation are against co-accused -- In the FIR, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and his involvement in the offence has surfaced on the basis of disclosure statement of prime accused -- No obscene material has been found in the mobile recovered from the petitioner -- His another co-accused has already been granted bail and on the ground of parity alone, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail -- That apart, investigation is over and commencement of trial is still awaited -- In the current pandemic scenario, the trial of the case is not likely either to start or get over soon – Taking wholesome view of the matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 4,5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 2(h)(o), 35, 41, 42, 43, 50, 44, 49, 51, 52(3), 53, 54, 55, 57, 57A, 58, 67, 68 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 100,154,156, 157, 173 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(e) – Constitution of India -- Article 21 – NDPS matter – Fair Investigaiton -- Informant and Investigator are same – Effect of -- Observations of Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15; Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709; and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369 and the acquittal of the accused by Supreme Court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts -- It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, Supreme Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

(Para 12(I))

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 2(h)(o), 35, 41, 42, 43, 50, 44, 49, 51, 52(3), 53, 54, 55, 57, 57A, 58, 67, 68 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 100,154,156, 157, 173 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(e) – Constitution of India -- Article 21 – NDPS matter -- Informant and Investigator are same – Effect of -- In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor -- Question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case -- Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.

(Para 12(II))

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 326, 34 – Compromise quashing of FIR -- As per the report, compromise reached between the parties seems to be genuine and without pressure or coercion -- Statements of the petitioners as well as the complainant are also on record which suggest that the matter stands amicably settled -- Petition allowed, FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioner(s). Gian Singh’s case 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh’s case (2014) 6 SCC 466 relied.

(Para 3-7)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 1, 2(12)(13)(20)(35), 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, 102 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Child in conflict with law – Regular bail – Maintainability of -- Whether a child in conflict with law, who is being tried as an adult for the purpose of trial u/s 18(3) of the J.J. Act, could maintain an application for grant of regular bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act or u/s 439 Cr.P.C. before the Children’s Court and the High Court – Held, an application for grant of bail to a Child apprehended or detained by the police will be entertained by the J.J. Board u/s 12 of the J.J. Act and an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. before the Children’s Court will not be maintainable.

(Para 9-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 377 -- Appeal by victim/State for enhancement of sentence – Maintainability of -- Victim’s right of appeal is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation – Held, it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence u/s 377, Cr.PC but no appeal can be maintained by victim u/s 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 374 -- Conviction of accused – Deposit of compensation – Appeal against conviction -- Release of compensation – Right of victim – Held, compensation awarded in exercise of power u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C is under challenge in criminal appeals pending before the High Court, it is not desirable to release such compensation in favour of the appellant, at this stage.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning of additional accused -- No further evidence than what was available during investigation -- When a strong and cogent evidence is led against a person, power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised, it is not to be exercised in a casual manner -- A perusal of the statement of injured witness indicates over implication on the face of it -- No injury has been attributed to either of the respondents -- Gun-shot injuries attributed only to co-accused – If someone was present with co-accused, it cannot be said that they had any common intention or there was meeting of mind or knew that co-accused would be firing -- No fault can be found with the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Order, upheld and the revision petition dismissed.

(Para 20-22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the remaining respondents as an additional accused in the absence of any other evidence than the evidence that was already available with the Investigating Agency is against the well settled proposition of law – No evidence except the statement, which has already been investigated into by the concerned DSPs was relied upon by the trial Court to summon, which was not sufficient for exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C – In case, so many people as named were giving gandasi and lathies blows on the head, victim was bound to have suffered more injuries, which would not have left him alive and probably he would have been killed on the spot -- Trial Court erred in exercising his jurisdiction summoning the other accused where exaggeration and implication is evident on both sides -- Order of Trial Court summoning the petitioners as additional accused set aside.

(Para 28-33)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B -- Snatching with hurt – Regular bail -- Submission that except the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no other evidence as after the arrest of the petitioner, nothing was recovered from him to connect him with the crime -- Petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 10 months and challan stands presented, charges are yet to be framed -- Petitioner has no history of any criminal background and this is the first case registered against him and no test identification of the petitioner was conducted -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case and the prosecution evidence is yet to start -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 8, 10, 12 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(W) (I) (II) & 3 (W) (2) (V) – Aggravated sexual assault -- Challan presented and charges stand framed – In view of the restricted working of the Courts due to pandemic COVID-19 situation, the trial is likely to take some time and petitioner in custody since 05.09.2019 and that out of 16 total witnesses 04 witnesses including the material witnesses have been examined and substantial length of custody i.e. incarceration for a period of one year, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(4) -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release), Rules, 1963, Rule 3, 4 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 61, 85 – R.I. for 10 years – involvement in other 4 cases of NDPS – Release on parole – Right of -- Held, merely because the petitioner is involved in four other cases, would not be a valid ground to deny him release on parole -- Purpose of release is to make sure that the prisoner as such meets with his family members and the general public -- It is a reformative process, whereby a convict is reintroduced to normal life -- By declining the said benefit which was duly recommended by the Superintendent of Jail, would come within the vice of irrationality and perversity, in spite of the settled position of law – Impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, quashed -- Matter shall be reconsidered by the said District Magistrate within a period of 4 weeks, keeping in mind the observations made above and pass necessary orders.

(Para 18,19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Complainant, who is author of the FIR, has furnished an affidavit that neither there was any quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased nor the petitioner gave any beating to the deceased -- Petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2019 -- Moreover, the case is pending before the trial Court for recording prosecution evidence since 16.03.2020 and in view of COVID-19 pandemic, no evidence is being recorded -- Reference in FIR that the complainant has named the petitioner on the basis of an inquiry – Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11,12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 423, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating by way of registered sale deed – Attesting witness – Role of – Anticipatory bail -- Complainant alleged to be cheated by her niece and her niece’s husband in relation to certain immovable property, fraudulently transferred by way of a registered sale deed -- Petitioner was one of the attesting witnesses to the said document -- This being the limited role attributed to him, Court opined that it would suffice if he joins investigation at this stage and co-operates with the police -- Petition allowed and he shall forthwith join investigation and in the event his arrest is warranted in future in relation to this case, the petitioner shall be released on bail.

(Para 2)

Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10(3)(b) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- FIR registered u/s 498-A, 323, 406, 506 IPC – Proclaimed offender – Seizure of passport – Fundamental right to travel abroad -- Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, when the petitioner was in New Zealand on a valid visa – Thereafter, High Court stayed his arrest for a period of 08 weeks -- On arrival from New Zealand, the passport of the petitioner was seized and later, he had appeared before the trial Court and was granted bail – Impounding of the passport is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India -- Petition allowed, seizure memo set aside.

(Para 8-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-A, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Conviction for attempt to snatching handbag -- Appeal against conviction -- First informant failed to identify the appellant in the Court and made a significant improvement while deposing in the Court -- Merely because the mobile phone belonging to the appellant was taken into possession by the first informant and handed over to the police does not prove the involvement of the appellant – Onus to prove its case is on the prosecution – On the disclosure statement of the appellant, the motorcycle was recovered -- Mere recovery of the motorcycle does not connect the appellant to the offence, particularly when the first informant never identified the motorcycle -- Public Prosecutor did not get the motorcycle identified either from the first informant or the alleged eye witness -- Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Judgment of conviction followed by the order of sentence is set aside.

(Para 10-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer power u/s 406 Cr.P.C. – Scope of -- Section 406 Cr.P.C. empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals – Held, only cases and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred.

(Para 17)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157, 174 -- Scope of section 174 Cr.P.C. proceeding – Nature of -- Proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. is limited to the inquiry carried out by the police to find out the apparent cause of unnatural death -- These are not in the nature of investigation, undertaken after filing of FIR u/s 154 CrPC --  Held, inquiry conducted u/s 174 CrPC is limited for a definite purpose but is not an investigation of a crime u/s 157 of the CrPC.

(Para 18-21)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157, 177, 178, 181(4) -- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), Section 5, 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506, 120B -- Criminal breach of trust -- Death at Mumbai – Jurisdiction of Patna Police to register complaint – Consent for CBI Investigation by Bihar police -- Legality of -- At the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that the concerned police station does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case -- Allegation relating to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money which were to be eventually accounted for in Patna (where the Complainant resides), could prima facie indicate the lawful jurisdiction of the Patna police -- Exercise of jurisdiction by the Bihar Police appears to be in order -- At the stage of investigation not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police -- Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful.

(Para 22-30)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157, 177, 178, 181(4), 406 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), Section 5, 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506, 120B – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Criminal breach of trust -- Death at Mumbai – Proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. at Mumbai -- Patna Police registered FIR, subsequently transferred it to the CBI – In future, if commission of cognizable offence u/s 175(2) CrPC is determined, the possibility of parallel investigation by the Mumbai Police cannot be ruled out – Both states are making acrimonious allegations of political interference against each other, the legitimacy of the investigation has come under a cloud -- To ensure public confidence in the investigation and to do complete justice in the matter, Court exercised powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution, while according approval for the ongoing CBI investigation, holding that if any other case is registered on the death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput and the surrounding circumstances of his unnatural death, the CBI is directed to investigate the new case as well.

(Para 35-41)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 84 – Unsoundness of mind -- Plea of – Pleas of unsoundness of mind u/s 84 of IPC or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age, ordinarily ought to be raised during trial itself -- Belated claims not only prevent proper production and appreciation of evidence, but they also undermine the genuineness of the defence’s case -- Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value -- In order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong.

(Para 14-17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(8), 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 341 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Injury on the person of complainant was found to be dangerous to life on the basis of CT scan showing fracture left temporoprital bone of skull – Offence u/s 307 IPC is aggravated form of original offence and the same was added after 05 months of registration of FIR -- Interpretation based on Section 320 IPC (Eightly) would also come in operation – Trial has not started so far as challan has not been presented in the present case – Both the parties have amicably resolved their differences – Chances of conviction of the petitioner would be very bleak -- In such a situation, inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in view of guidelines in Narinder Singh and others's case 2014(2) RCR (Crl.) 482 -- Consequently petition allowed -- FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 13, 22-27)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Recovery of 50 vials of Winicirex Cough Syrup and 400 tablets of Carisoma – Petitioners are in custody since 13.06.2019 and there is no other case pending against them -- In absence of any specific allegation in the FIR as to which of the petitioners was holding the strip of the bag and considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time -- Petitioners admitted on regular bail.

(Para 4-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 1300 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride total weight comes to 546.169 grams recovered – Petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2020 -- Challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed -- Since trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future and there being no other case against the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(Para 3-7)

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

(Para 9-11)

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

(Para 26, 27)

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

(Para 28-30)

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

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

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

(Para 36)

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

(Para 36)

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

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

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

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

(Para 38-42)

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

(Para 2-4)

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

(Para 5)

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

(Para 1-4)

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

(Para 5,6)

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

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 451, 323 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 75 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioner.

(Para 3, 8)

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

(Para 9, 21)

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

(Para 15)

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

(Para 16-18)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 10-14)

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

(Para 15-17)

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

(Para 2-5)

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

(Para 1-3)

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

(Para 6-13)

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

(Para 3-6)

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

(Para 12,13)

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

(Para 4-6)

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

(Para 2-7)