Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 34, 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3 and 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape and kidnapping of girl-child – Regular bail -- Petitioner was not initially named as an accused in the FIR -- Implicated only upon the disclosure statement of the named accused – Case of the complainant was that her daughter had been enticed away by the named accused on the pretext of marriage -- Complainant did not name the petitioner as being involved -- Victim girl did not even mention the petitioner's name in her statement made before the police -- Named accused has already secured bail in this case -- Challan has already been filed -- No specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner -- Petition allowed, direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-4)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Suicide by wife – Acquittal of husband -- In order to give the finding of abetment u/s 107 IPC, the accused should instigate a person either by act of omission or commission and only then, a case of abetment is made out -- No direct evidence of cruelty against the husband or the in-laws -- Nothing to show which particular hope or expectation of the deceased was frustrated by the husband -- Evidence is also lacking on wilful neglect of the appellant, which led to the suicidal death -- Contrary evidence available to suggest that care and treatment was given to the deceased in the matrimonial home and in the hospital, and during the three years of marriage, there was no instance of maltreatment, attributable to dowry demand -- Demand of Rs. 20,000/- was a “cash loan” -- Loan may have been sought by the accused which could not be given -- But there is nothing to show that the deceased was harassed on this count, in the matrimonial home – Held, it is difficult to conclude that deceased was pushed to commit suicide by the circumstances or atmosphere created by the appellant -- In the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home -- Conviction u/s 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.

(Para 10, 11, 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Suicide by wife – Acquittal of husband -- Mens-rea -- To prove the offence of abetment, as specified u/s 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability -- In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased -- Ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous -- Trial Court as well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed -- Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife – Conviction u/s 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.

(Para 15, 19-21)

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

(Para 7,8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21-A, 27, 29 – Supply of secret information to Pakistan -- Anticipatory bail -- Allegations against the petitioners are that they are working against the country and are involved in not only in drug smuggling but also in supplying the secret information of the Indian Army to the Pakistan – Army and the para-military personnel are loosing their lives when cross-border firing happens and the allegations in the FIR that the accused persons are passing on the information of training and movement of the Indian Army make them soft target by the Pakistani agencies -- Petitioners deserves no concession of pre-arrest bail – Petitions dismissed.

(Para 11-13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 96, 100 – Murder case -- Plea of private defence -- Occurrence of 7.10.2000 -- No evidence produced by the accused to show that the complainant party was the aggressor -- No witness was examined to prove that it was the complainant party which opened the attack – Version of accused come on 9.10.2000 -- Prosecution version, which is credible and fully substantiated had been lodged immediately after the incident -- It clearly establishes that the accused were the aggressors.

(Para 35)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149 -- Murder case -- Injuries suffered by accused – Explanation of -- No credible explanation had been given by the prosecution as to the injuries suffered by the accused, however, it is well settled that merely for non-explanation of the injuries suffered by the accused, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected -- Burden can be placed on the prosecution only if the injuries sustained by the accused are serious -- Non-explanation of the injuries of the accused would not be fatal to the prosecution.

(Para 37-39)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149 -- Murder case – Evidence of lalkara -- It is well settled that evidence of exhortation/lalkara is in the very nature of things a weak piece of evidence -- There is often a tendency to implicate some person in addition to the actual assailant by attributing to him a lalkara -- False implication cannot be ruled out – Appellant/co-accused giving lalkara, accordingly acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.

(Para 45-47)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149 -- Murder case -- Common intention – Two c-accused were alleged to be armed with sotas -- No injury has been attributed to them nor has any weapon been recovered at their instance --  Merely because of their presence at the time of the occurrence, it cannot be said that they shared common intention with the accused to cause death of victim – Trial Court acquitted giving them benefit of doubt -- There is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings of the Ld. Trial Court.

(Para 49)

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

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 465 467, 471, 472 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating and forgery – Regular bail -- Prosecution would have to secure sufficient documentary evidence to establish a case -- No purpose would be served by continuing the custodial incarceration of either of these persons at this stage as their further interrogation not required -- Petitions allowed, direction given to release both the petitioners on regular bail

(Para 8,9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang rape – No physical act by petitioner – Regular bail -- As to whether or not the petitioner had any role to play in the commission of the offence by co-accused, would have to be determined by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial -- As matters stand, the medical evidence supports the innocence of the petitioner in so far as the actual physical commission of the offence is concerned -- Trial is bound to be delayed, owing to the present situation caused by the pandemic -- Petition allowed, direction given to release of the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 404, 392, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2018; statement of material witness has been recorded and the courts are not functioning at their full strength due to Covid-19 pandemic, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-6)

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

(Para 4-6)

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

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 364, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 -- Murder case – Proclaimed offender – Regular bail – Acquittal of other co-accused – Petitioner initially was declared a proclaimed offender/person but has been arrested and is now in custody for more than nine months – None of the witnesses out of the 13 prosecution witnesses cited, has been examined, with the prevailing pandemic, where the Courts are working in a restricted mode, the trial is not likely to commence soon or conclude in near future, the present petition is allowed – Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 420 – Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Sections 63, 65 -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 7 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating and copy-right case – Regular bail -- Petitioner acquitted in 5 cases -- Nominated by co-accused from whom the recovery effected -- Petitioner is not a manufacturer and is only stated to be a licensed supplier – Arrested on 5.7.2020, investigation is complete, the challan presented, conclusion of trial is likely to consume some time particularly, on account of restricted functioning of the Courts due to Covid-19 pandemic -- Ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Marriage between the deceased and the petitioner was solemnized about 12 years before the alleged occurrence and the deceased committed suicide at the place of her brother and not in her matrimonial home -- Investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented – Petitioner is behind the bars since 08.06.2020 and the trial of the case is likely to take quite some time to conclude, especially in the circumstances when the functioning of the Courts has been restricted in the wake of the outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19 -- Without expressing any opinion on the merits, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 506, 427 and 120B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) -- Attempt to murder – Addition of section – Bail to accused -- Section 307 IPC does not have new genesis in the case – Earlier, police in their own wisdom had chosen to delete Section 307 IPC from the case -- On the same set of facts, the petitioner was earlier arrested, but granted bail pending trial -- Now again; merely on invoking of Section 307 IPC, Court below ordering the arrest of the petitioner – No justification for taking the petitioner into custody – Petition allowed -- In case the petitioner appears before the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate on or before 06.10.2020, then the petitioner shall be released on bail pending trial u/s 307 IPC.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 323, 325, 452, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Five co-accused have been declared to be innocent by the Police -- Challan has been presented, but charges have not been framed so far -- Looking to the facts and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 308, 323, 341, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No 'grievous injury' was found to have been sustained by the complainant – One injury on the middle of head was opined to have been dangerous to life – Petitioner alleged to have given a blow with base ball bat on the left side of head of the complainant -- Petitioner having been behind bars since the last more than 7 months and not having been attributed the injury, which has been declared as dangerous to life,  further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 427, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Proclaimed offender – Acquittal of other co-accused – Pendency of 9 other cases – Regular bail -- Petitioner was declared P.O. on 24.04.2011 and he surrendered on 15.01.2020 – Other three accused acquitted after trial, complainant turned hostile and other alleged eye-witness was not even examined -- Held, fate of the case practically stands sealed by the acquittal judgment in relation to the co-accused of the petitioner -- There is no possibility of the case improving against the petitioner at this stage -- Mere pendency of other FIRs may not be reason enough to deny bail to him -- Securing his custody for the purpose of the other cases through the process of this case would not be a lawful measure -- Petition allowed – Direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 307, 452, 188, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail – Simple injuries and blunt in nature and no fire-arm injury attributed to the petitioner -- Recovery of pistol effected from the petitioner and there are several FIRs against him -- He is in custody since 06.04.2020, no grievous injury amounting to offence u/s 307 IPC -- After presentation of challan on 29.05.2020, 16 witnesses are required to be examined -- Trial is not likely to conclude in near future keeping in view COVID-19 situation -- No need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- As per FIR, the petitioner and the co-accused have given a lathi blow on the head of deceased – Held, trial Court is yet to decide the culpability of the accused as which of the accused i.e. the petitioner or the co-accused has caused injury on the head of the deceased, as it is conceded case of the parties that there is only one injury on the head of the deceased -- Petitioner being in custody for about 3 years and 9 months and on account of prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation, there is a remote possibility for resumption of regular trial in the coming time – Petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Regular bail -- Earlier released on bail, however jumped the bail – Declared Proclaimed offender – Keeping in view the fact that most of the material witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is in custody with a minor child coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as owing to novel corona virus pandemic, Courts are not working at their full strength and ordinary hearing matters are not being taken up, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed – Direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Single injury case – Murder -- There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted -- It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case -- Nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not -- It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence.

(Para 7.2)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder case – Motive – Motive is not an explicit requirement under the Penal Code, though “motive” may be helpful in proving the case of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence -- Motive is always in the mind of person authoring the incident -- Motive not being apparent or not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny of the evidence by the courts while coming to a conclusion -- When there are definite evidence proving an incident and eyewitness account prove the role of accused, absence in proving of the motive by prosecution does not affect the prosecution case.

(Para 8, 8.1)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300, 302, 304 Part I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- When the deceased served extra beer to two persons who came from outside, the accused became angry and told the deceased why he is giving more beer to out-town people and not giving to local people and thereafter the problem started and in that scuffle the accused took out the knife and stabbed from behind – Held, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted -- Accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death -- Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC – Appellant sentenced to undergo 8 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to further undergo one year R.I.

(Para 9-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Out of total 21 witnesses, 04 witnesses have already been examined –Trial is likely to take some time to conclude and in view of the facts that the petitioner is in custody since 01.10.2017 and that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the courts are not working at their full strength, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3-5)

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)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- 650 tablets of Clovidol-100SR recovered – Charge has been framed but no witness has been examined -- Considering the quantity of contraband recovered being marginally above the commercial quantity and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

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)

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)

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 366, 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC has stated that she wants to take the case back and wants to marry the petitioner -- Furthermore, she has refused to get herself medically examined -- Considering the fact that the petitioner, who is 19 years of age, is in custody since 15.02.2020 and his culpability is yet to be established during trial, which is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 6,7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 16 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Kidnapping -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2019, investigation is complete and challan has already been presented -- Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the courts are not functioning at their full strength -- No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5)

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 341, 323, 506, 379-B, 427, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching and beating case -- Regular bail – Petitioner in custody since 23.5.2020 -- Investigation is already over and charges are yet to be framed, thus, taking into consideration the factum of Covid-19, trial is not likely to be completed in near future, therefore, his further incarceration would not serve any purpose -- Petition allowed.

(Para 11)

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)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 28 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Sentenced for life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Power of Trial Court – Held, it is not open to a court inferior to the High Court and Supreme Court, while awarding a sentence of life imprisonment under IPC to further provide for any specific term of incarceration, or till the end of a convict’s life, or to direct that there shall be no remission, as an alternate to the death penalty – That power is available only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court -- Trial court held to be in error in adding the rider that it would be for the remainder of her natural life and without any remission. V. Sriharan @ Murugan (2016) 1 SCC 1, relied

(Para 11-14)

B. Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Sentenced for life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Parole/Temporary release – Right of -- Divisional Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application for temporary release/parole, on the grounds that the trial Court by an order awarded her a sentence of imprisonment for life i.e. whole of her natural life, without any remission, consequent to her conviction for the offences u/s 302, 343 and 120-B of the IPC -- Divisional Commissioner’s order is legally unsustainable and set aside -- Petitioner’s application for parole remitted to the Divisional Commissioner to consider afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 1,15)

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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201, 411, 115 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that he was handed over the weapon after the incident was over and that too by the main accused while the petitioner was in his own house -- Co-accused, from whom the motorcycle, on which the main accused was riding, was purchased has been granted bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is released on bail.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – Regular bail -- Offences registered against the petitioner are triable by the Judicial Magistrate -- Law is more liberal with regard to grant of bail to a woman -- Challan has been presented in the Court but conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4,5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Dead body not recovered -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased -- Entire family i.e. wife, minor son and the present petitioner, being the brother of the wife of the deceased has been enroped, whereas, dead body has not been recovered till date and the only evidence is the extra judicial confession -- Petition allowed, petitioner released on bail.

(Para 1-3)

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 18 injections of Buprenorphine of 2 ml each -- Though 18 injections of Avil of 10 ml each were also recovered from the petitioner, but the same do not fall within the ambit of NDPS Act --  No other case pending against the petitioner and he is in custody since 19.06.2019 -- Considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time, petitioner released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

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)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 -- NDPS matter – Pendency of 5 more FIRs – Parole to meet family – Right of -- Petitioner has undergone 3 years and 22 days out of 10 years in custody and he has not availed parole even once during these past 3 years -- Merely on apprehension that the petitioner will again indulge in selling heroin and even registration of FIRs, cannot be made a ground to deny him right to meet his family after 3 years -- Direction is given to the respondents to release the petitioner on six weeks' parole to meet his family.

(Para 5, 6)