Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 120-B – Criminal breach of trust and cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Submission that the petitioner is not in possession of the JCB machine, as there was an agreement between N and the complainant and the said JCB machine has been handed over to N, petitioner has given his specimen signatures for verification to the Investigating Officer for comparison with the signatures on the said agreement -- In view of the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 346/34, 302, 364, 201, 411, 404, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Contention that dead-body, over which, the Post Mortem was conducted, was not actually identified by anyone, including the complainant -- Charges were framed in the Ld. Trial Court as far back on 17.01.2020, thereafter, the prosecution evidence could not commence, on account of onset of Covid-19 pandemic, although as many as 34 witnesses have been cited in the challan -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable short period of time due to prevailing Pandemic – In view of the detention undergone by the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 336, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Raising lalkara -- Regular bail -- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation, role attributed to the petitioner who is alleged to have merely raised lalkara and is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased or his sons and no other overt-act is attributed to him and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19 – Concession of regular bail extended.

(Para 9)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Para 2, 152-155)

(Majority judgment)

Reference answered.

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

(Para 270-271)

(Minority judgment)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is alleged to have hurled a brick bat at the deceased -- Husband of the petitioner was alleged to have caused a blow with a sword on the nose of the deceased and had also pushed him from the roof -- Husband of the petitioner committed suicide while in custody -- Petitioner is a widow with two minor children and she has joined investigation, the order granting interim bail to her is made absolute.

(Para 8,9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Not disputed that except the hearsay statement of the complainant, he has not been able to provide any other material/evidence to connect the petitioners to the act of suicide by the deceased --  Factum of petitioners having a fight with the deceased, cannot, prima facie, be taken as abetment to the deceased to commit suicide -- Except the ligature mark qua hanging, there are no other injuries found on the body of the deceased – Petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and recovery has been effected -- Affidavit of the complainant has also been filed recalling the earlier allegations – Petition allowed.

(Para 3-5)

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

(Para 3-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 377, 388, 389, 109, 115, 116, 120-B – Unnatural offence – Co-accused granted bail – Right of similarly situated co-accused -- Same benefit cannot be declined to the petitioner unless and until certain differentiating facts are brought to the notice between the petitioner and the said co-accused -- As no differentiating fact has been brought to the notice, therefore the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5,6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail – Names of the petitioner(s) does not find mentioned in the FIR and their names have been mentioned in supplement statement, it is a case of no injury and firing of two gun shots have not been attributed to the petitioner(s) – Interim bail granted with a direction to join the investigation -- Factual position not disputed, though petitioners have joined the investigation but the weapon has not been recovered -- Sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners – Interim bail order is made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 304-B, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dowry death case – FIR u/s 306/34 IPC – Charges framed u/s 304-B  and alternative Section 302 IPC – Regular bail -- Investigation in the case is complete and challan has been presented – Petitioner has three children i.e two daughters and one son -- Petitioner being in custody, there is no one to look after the minor children who are exposed to the probability of being infected with the Covid-19 virus -- It has been medically proven that children of that age are more susceptible to get infected due to their lower level of immunity and therefore, they need 24x7 constant care and attention -- As regards allegations, the same can only be adjudicated in the course of trial, which is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon due to Covid-19 pandemic -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6,7)

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

(Para 10,11)

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

(Para 11-13)

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

(Para 1-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 134 -- Murder case -- Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court -- Sole eye-witness – Reliance upon -- Acquittal of accused -- There are inherent improbabilities in the prosecution story and the conduct of eye witness is inconsistent with ordinary course of human nature – It would not be safe to convict the appellants upon the uncorroborated testimony of the sole eye witness -- Incident does not appear to have happened in the manner in which the prosecution wants the Court to believe it had happened -- Since, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt the appellants therefore must be given benefit of doubt -- Impugned orders of the Courts below set aside -- Appellants are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

(Para 32-35)

A. Testimony of witness – Previous enmity – Effect of -- If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony -- In fact the history of bad blood gives a clear motive for the crime -- Therefore this aspect does not, aid the defence in the present matter.

(Para 22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149 –Conviction in murder -- Some witness turned hostile -- But there are enough material evidence and trustworthy testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused and the prosecution need not fail on this count alone -- Some witness may not support the prosecution story for their own reasons and in such situation, it is necessary for the Court to determine whether the other available evidence comprehensively proves the charge -- In the case, prosecution version is cogent and supported by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of the incident -- Their testimonies are corroborated by the medical evidence – Held, hostile witnesses will not affect the conviction of the appellants.

(Para 23, 24)

Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 (Maharashtra Act 33 of 1999), Section 4, 6(1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989) -- Suicide by student due to ragging – FIR for abetment to suicide against appellants – Suspension from college – To take appropriate action u/s 6(1) of 1999 Act, the concerned head of the educational institution must prima facie be satisfied that the allegations against the student have been found to be true, whereafter, an order of suspension can be passed -- Order of Suspension does not even record any such finding or prima facie view -- Order of Suspension is not referable to Section 6(1) of 1999 Act – Order of Suspension was passed purely as a result of registration of crime and did not have any roots in statutory powers conferred u/s 6 of 1999 Act, Court can grant redress to the Appellants – Any adverse impact will negate their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution – Appellants/accused allowed to go back to their courses of study subject to certain conditions.

(Para 26-32)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 – Culpable homicide -- Right of private defence – Regular bail – In view of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, the fact that debatable question as to whether the petitioner legitimately exercised right of private defence or exceeded the same is involved and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 9-12)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914), Section 3(15), 61, 72F, 78, 81 (Haryana) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 – Recovery of 40 cases of country made liquor ‘Falcon Santra’ -- Confiscation of vehicle and Liquor – Release on sapurdari – Right of -- Confiscation has to be done at the subsequent stage – Provisions of Cr.P.C. would come into play -- Held, no useful purpose will be served to keep the 40 boxes of liquor stored in the police station alongwith the vehicle during the pendency of the trial of the FIR – Orders passed by lower Courts dismissing the application for release of vehicle and liquor on sapurdari set aside – Application allowed, release be ordered in the usual terms by the Trial Court.

(Para 1, 7-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B, 120-B, 201, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Beating and snatching – Regular bail -- Petitioner was named in the disclosure statement and recovery of Rs.15,000/- was made from him -- No case pending against the petitioner -- Challan has been presented and charges framed but no witnesses have been examined -- Considering that during the pendency of the trial, the general rule is bail and not jail, investigation is complete, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time -- Emerging of the name of the petitioner in the disclosure statement made to the police itself makes prima facie arguable issue for the petitioner -- Petitioner is granted bail.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching of mobile and cash – Regular bail -- A mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner on the basis of his disclosure statement and nothing remains to be recovered from him -- Challan has been presented and no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner in custody -- Moreover, conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2,6,7)

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)