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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2) (n), 120-B – Rape case – Minor girl aged 15 years – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 22 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 55 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules (total 1320 in number) and 14 plastic vials of Corex Syrup were recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested on the spot, there is no question of effecting any recovery of contraband from his conscious possession – Petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2019 -- Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not sufficient enough to establish the petitioner's culpability satisfactorily -- Petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however, there is no mention of the petitioner being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Long detention undergone by the petitioner, as also the fact that the trial is not likely to be commenced or completed in a reasonable time on account of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic -- Ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 380, 452, 34 (lateron added 395, 397) – Regular bail – Compromise between the parties – Seeing the nature of accusation against the petitioners and also the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 concession of regular bail extended to the petitioners.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- 50 kg of Poppy husk weighed with bag -- Default bail – Regular bail -- In case the poppy husk had been weighed separately from the bags wherein it was contained, it would not have come under the commercial quantity -- Challan ought to have been presented within a period of 60 days, considering the fact that the recovery was not of commercial quantity, which has not been done -- There is delay in the presentation of challan – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 11)

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

(Para 16)

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

(Para 17)

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

(Para 21)

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

(Para 25, 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10,12 -- Anticipatory bail by minor/ juvenile – Maintainability of -- An inference cannot drawn that the legislature intended to debar a juvenile from seeking relief of pre-arrest bail -- Children below age of 18 years coming within definition of juvenile be treated with kindness and compassion even if they are found in conflict with law – Could not be the  intention of the legislature that such juvenile should be first apprehended and then produce before Juvenile Justice Board -- Petition is found to be maintainable.

(Para 1,7,8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Delay in furnishing bail bonds – Effect of -- Petitioner did “avail of” his right u/s 167(2) of the Code and furnished personal bail bond with surety, which was accepted and attested by the Court, he would be deemed to have been released from custody -- Petitioner was not released because two other cases were pending against him – Surety withdrew the surety furnished by him -- Court permitted the petitioner to furnish fresh bail bond with surety -- Since he was in custody in other cases, therefore, he did not furnish the fresh bail bond with surety – After granted bail in other cases, petitioner requested the Court to accept the personal bail bond with surety as directed vide earlier order, which was declined – Held, mere delay in furnishing personal bail bonds/surety cannot visit the petitioner with adverse consequences and the order granting bail u/s 167(2) of the Code does not cease to exist or comes to an end or stand eclipsed -- Petitioner is directed to furnish personal bail bonds with surety and thereafter ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 141 – Judgment passed by Supreme Court of India -- Courts below ignoring the judgment by saying not applicable, without discussion – Permissibility of -- Ld. Court below, in the order has taken notice of the judgment, but refuses to follow the same by observing that “these judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case” – Held, a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India -- No doubt, the ratio decidendi laid down in a judgment is binding and not obiter dicta -- However, before distinguishing judgment, the Court is required to analyse that what is the ratio laid down in the judgment and thereafter, proceed to explain the same -- Manner in which the ld. Court below has ignored the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not appreciable.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 7A -- Default bail – Right of – Accused on interim Bail – Effect of -- Petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Kidnaping – Compromise quashing – Petitioner and girls were minor at relevant time -- No evidence of actual commission of an offence under the POCSO Act, warranting to take a stricter view – Fit case for exercise of inherent powers so as to give a quietus to the issue – FIR and all proceedings pertaining thereto are quashed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

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

(Para 14, 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 406, 120-B, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Appeal against conviction -- Dismissed in default – Permissibility of – Appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed in default but must be taken up and decided on merits even if the appellant in-person or the counsel representing him, is not present – Judgment and order set aside – Matter remanded to be disposed of on merits -- Meanwhile, considering that the appellant has been in jail for a period of almost 11 years, bail granted. K. S. Panduranga’s case (2013) 3 SCC 721 relied.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Contents of FIR – Amendment in – Registration of FIR -- Later on, by registering two DDR certain new facts were added in the FIR, a procedure which is unknown to the criminal law – Held, there is no such provision in Cr.P.C. for amending the contents of the FIR.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Allegation of cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail -- Dispute regarding agreement to sell and receiving of Rs.10 lacs -- Petitioner No.1 is ready to deposit the said amount in the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to show his bona fide -- Admitted case of the complainant that they had business transactions with the petitioners and have already filed suit for recovery – Held, entire case is based upon the documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required -- Petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail -- Two month time granted to deposit the amount of Rs.10 lacs before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate without prejudice to their right of defence.

(Para 24-26)

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

(Para 28)

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

(Para 34)

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

(Para 35)

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

(Para 51, 52)

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

(Para 9)

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

(Para 13)

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

(Para 15)

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

(Para 15,17)

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

(Para 16)

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

(Para 25, 26)

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

(Para 33)

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

(Para 2,6)

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

(Para 1,5)

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

(Para 1, 4,5)