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)

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)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4, 5, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape case -- Penetrative sexual assault -- Non-production of DNA report – Effect of -- Prosecutrix narrated the incident that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on her -- She was grilled in cross-examination but she stuck to her ground -- Victim narrated the entire incident to her aunt first of all as her parents were not at home -- Prosecution examined victim’s paternal aunt and doctor who had examined the victim and prepared her MLR -- Report of the FSL has been produced, wherein it was opined that human semen was detected on the vaginal swabs, salwar and underwear of the victim -- In view of the aforesaid evidence, mere non-production of the DNA report would not be sufficient to discard the evidence of the prosecution – Appeal against conviction dismissed.

(Para 10-19, 23)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4, 5, 6 – Rape case -- Penetrative sexual assault – sentenced to less than minimum sentence – Non-filing of appeal by State – Effect of -- Punishment awarded by the Ld. trial Court is below the minimum sentence provided under the POCSO Act -- Since there is no appeal filed by the State, High Court did not find it appropriate to re-open the question of sentence.

(Para 20-22)

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)

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 25 -- Delay in sample – Report of Government analyst -- Effect of -- If owing to delay which is predominantly attributable to the State or any of its entities, owing to which an article which deteriorates with time is tested as not containing the requisite standard, any prosecution or penalty inflictable by virtue of such sample being tested, cannot then be sustained – Sample drawn and analyzed by the Government Analyst was delayed for a considerable period resulting in the sample being drawn towards the end of its shelf life -- Samples sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory and tested 8 months beyond the shelf life of the product --  Held, valuable right granted by Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act kicks in on the facts of the case, which would necessarily render any penalty based upon the said analysis of the sample as void -- Order of blacklisting and its confirmation order, is infirm -- Therefore, set aside.

(Para 12-15)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), Section 2(ia)(f), 16(1) -- Delay in sample – Report of Analyst – Not mentioning of insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption – Effect of -- Medical officer did not find any weevils/worms in the sample on seeing it with naked eyes -- Sample taken on 18.8.1982 received in the office of public analysis on 20.8.1982 -- Sample was dispatched to the public analyst on the next date, however, no parcel receipt was produced to that extent – Report was finalized on 07.09.1982 after the delay of 18 days -- No evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused -- Report of the public analyst does not mention that the sample was either “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such an opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the requirements of Section 2 (1a)(f) of the Act -- No evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence u/s 16 (1) of the Act -- Impugned order of conviction is not sustainable.

(Para 2-6)

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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), 19 – Offence under IPC and PC Act -- Sanction under PC Act not forthcoming – Effect of -- Charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under the IPC can continue irrespective of the fact that sanction in respect of offence punishable under PC Act is not forthcoming.

(Para 2, 3)

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 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 506, 120-B, 34 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has categorically deposed as to having been raped by the petitioner -- However, State has not been able to dispute the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, where she has admitted that she had gone with the petitioner to various places -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2018 and that out of 14, only 8 witnesses have been examined so far -- Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420 IPC -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of1983), Section 10, 24 – Immigration matter – Anticipatory bail -- Rs.3 lacs paid to co-accused -- It is not disputed that the petitioner is not directly related to co-accused -- No amount is stated to have been paid to the petitioner -- Anticipatory bail granted.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 494 – Rape case – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2019 -- In the interest of both the sides, the matter has been compromised between the parties -- Complainant has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 8-10)

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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61 – Anticipatory bail -- 450 tablets of tramadol recovered from co-accused, who apprehended at the spot, named another person from whom he purchased – Later petitioner has been implicated on the statement of other co-accused – On direction, petitioner joined Investigaiton and released on ad-interim bail – In view that petitioner joined investigation and not required for custodial interrogation, the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34, 452, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Murder case – Lalkara alleged -- Regular bail – Petitioner is attributed only a 'lalkara', he is in custody for over 09 months, the complainant and 02 eye witnesses have been examined, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Tramadol tablets (282 grams) – Regular bail -- Intoxicating tablets containing tramadol with a total weight of 282 grams has allegedly been recovered from her – Petitioner is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 09 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 -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Alprasafe (2900 tablets of 05 mg each) were recovered from two – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2020 -- Applicability of provisions of NDPS Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is a debatable question that will be adjudicated at the trial only -- In the present scenario of Covid-19 pandemic where the Courts are working with restrictions and taking up only urgent matters, there is no likelihood of commencing or concluding of trial in near future -- Petitioner is a widow with minor children -- FSL report has yet not received to ascertain the quantity of the alleged scheduled drug contained therein -- Petition is allowed.

(Para 1,2,5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 – Murder – Last seen evidence -- Motive -- Homicidal death not established or that in fact victim had died -- His body has not been recovered -- No belonging of victim recovered from the accused or on his disclosure statement – Accused alleged to have made disclosure statement pursuant whereto he got recovered a kirpan buried under eucalyptus tree which was taken into possession – Circumstance of last seen does not of itself lead to the inference that the accused has committed the crime -- It does not appeal to reason that a serving Army person would murder his colleague for mere Rs.40,000/- -- Held, prosecution not able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt -- Appeal allowed, conviction and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 36-46)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Regular bail -- Allegation that couple entered into marriage and boy side to spend money to facilitate immigration of couple to Canada – Girl has been successful in migrating to Canada and the boy has failed to do so and apparently appears to be a matrimonial dispute – A debatable issue arises over the very applicability of Section 420 IPC and his joining the investigation would suffice the purpose – Petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and on his doing so, he shall be released on bail till submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) – Thereafter, he will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 302, 324 – Two incidents one at Truck Union and another at Civil Hospital – Murder took place at Truck Union – Later injuries inflicted at Civil Hospital -- Three surviving appellants – Overt Act -- Allegation of lalkara – Consideration of -- 

– ‘GS’ alleged to be armed with handle of spade has not been attributed any overt act in the occurrence either at the Truck Union or at Civil Hospital – Only role attributed to accused ‘SPS’ is of raising a lalkara at the time of the second occurrence and both of them were alleged to be armed only with handle of spade, and the fact that they are all members of one family, the chances of their false implication cannot be ruled out -- Their appeal accepted and they acquitted of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt.

-- ‘I.S.’ alleged to have given two blows with sword which hit on the right index finger and palm of right hand of PW1 -- As per PW9 Doctor these injuries were caused with sharp weapon and were simple in nature – Considering the fact that no overt act has been attributed to ‘I.S.’ in the incident at Truck Union and his presence is doubtful, he is acquitted of the charges u/s 148 and Section 302/149 IPC by giving him the benefit of doubt -- However, his conviction u/s 324 IPC and the sentence thereunder maintained.

(Para 4, 56-59)

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 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 451, 109, 323 & 34 – Outrage modesty of woman – Anticipatory bail -- In attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, petitioner had pulled the chunni of the complainant and also caused bruises with his hands on the face and breast of the complainant -- However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had not used any weapon -- Therefore, nothing is required to be recovered from him, as such – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(Para 1,5,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 50 – NDPS matter – Joint Memo of recovery – Regular bail -- Consent memo and recovery memo shows that a joint memo was prepared and even a joint consent was taken from the accused persons – High Court has issued guidelines from time to time with regard to investigation to be carried out in the NDPS cases, however, it appears that the investigating officers are not following the same -- Petition allowed -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-7)

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3(2), 3(3) 4 and 24 -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, Rule 4 -- Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (10 of 1983), Section 2, 6 , 24-A -- Percentage of area under roads, open space etc. in layout plans -- Common areas and facilities -- Delicencing of area meant for residential purposes and allocating the same to commercial projects -- An ambiguous term was used in the Builder-Buyer agreement that 8.0 acre was reserved for “future development” -- It is beyond comprehension how builder himself could reserve a part of the area (8.0 acres) out of 18.98 acres for future development -- Builder acted in a manner as if he was not governed by any Enactment/Rules -- Reliance placed on Builder-Buyer agreement is absurd -- An agreement between parties cannot override the law lay down to regulate urbanization and to prevent ill-planned and haphazard development -- No justification is forthcoming for delicensing of part of the area meant for housing project for commercial purpose and a huge mall (Ambience Mall) having been allowed to be raised thereon – Rights of the residents of the housing project need to be preserved -- Held, order delicencing part of residential area for commercial purpose is without authority of law and needs to be quashed -- As regards, the illegal actions and offence, if any, made out, and possible collusion between the builder and State authorities, a separate investigation is necessary by an independent agency – Direction given to Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the entire issue after registering a formal FIR by a team of Officers to be chosen by the Director, CBI within six weeks -- An effort shall be made to complete the entire investigation within six months and a status report be submitted in sealed cover within three months.

(Para 28-36)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304-A – Motor vehicle accident case -- Causing death by negligence – Contention that petitioner/convict is suffering agony of trial for almost 6 years and has been leading a disciplined life and is not involved in any other criminal case, prayed for a lenient view -- Actual sentence undergone 3 months and 28 days -- Conviction of the accused-petitioner maintained, his substantive sentence of 1 year is reduced to the sentence already undergone -- Fine of Rs. 1,000/- shall remain intact -- Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to be paid to the victims/legal representatives of deceased.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 506, 148, 149 – Charges framed u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner suffered three injuries including two fractures on the fingers of his left hand – Though in the said case, the police had filed a cancellation report, yet the fact remains that in the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the SDJM – Petitioner is attributed a sword blow on the abdomen of Taya of the complainant -- Whether or not the petitioner is an aggressor, is yet to be determined -- Petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2019 -- Challan has already been presented and the charges have also been framed -- Petition allowed, regular bail granted to petitioner.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 370, 406, 420, 120-B IPC -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 – Immigration matter – Regular bail -- There is no evidence of the petitioner having received any part of the amount allegedly paid by the complainant -- Amount was paid only to the co-accused -- In the absence of any specific overt acts being attributed to the petitioner, Court held that he would be entitled to protection subject to conditions -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-3)

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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 307, 379-B, 427, 436, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No material except the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 23.02.2020, challan having been presented but charges yet to be framed – Bail allowed.

(Para 2-5)

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 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Anticipatory bail – Three other cases -- 1.7 kg of Heroin recovered from co-accused – Petitioner was never apprehended at the spot and that the only evidence against him is in the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial – For other three cases, he was never arrested at the spot and has been granted anticipatory bail – Petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Forgery and fabrication – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations that petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability -- All the documents are already in possession of the police -- Whether the petitioner had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis a vis the documentary evidence already seized – Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(Para 5,6)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Record or the circumstances of the case do not show that there is any reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is likely to bring himself into association with known criminals if released on bail; or that he will expose himself to some moral, physical or psychological danger – Policy and provision of the Juvenile Justice Act is in favour of grant of bail to the juvenile -- Since the circumstances or the grounds justifying denial of the bail are not discernible in the case, therefore, the petitioner deserve to be allowed concession of bail.

(Para 1, 5-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- FIR to Ilaka Magistrate/CJM with delay of 11 days – Effect of -- Held, delay in compliance of Section 157 of the Code cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the appellant -- Albeit, this fact has to be considered at the time of examining the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses.

(Para 3, 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- Murder -- Name of deceased missing in proceedings – Effect of -- Fact that the field unit had not recorded the name of the deceased in the proceedings, is inconsequential for these details are duly mentioned in the panchayatnama and other documents which were prepared on the same day and were sent to Doctor (PW-3) who had conducted the post mortem -- Lapse on the part of the field unit in non-mentioning the name of the deceased would not justify an order of acquittal.

(Para 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Quashing of complaint/summoning order after Proclaimed offender order – Held, it would be in the interest of justice to see at the first instance whether any offence is made out against the petitioners as per allegations levelled against them in the complaint or not -- Because if the complaint fails, as a necessary corollary, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom would automatically go.

(Para 1, 14, 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Summoning order -- Proclaimed offender order – Quashing of -- Father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law – Role of – Specific allegations – Requirement of – No direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that they had given beatings to the complainant or demanded any dowry article or misappropriated the shtridhan – It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives – Casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners – Held, case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law -- Consequently, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings including the summoning order and order declaring proclamation offender, qua petitioners are quashed.

(Para 1,18,19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 -- Cheating for getting employment -- Regular bail -- Co-accused are alleged to have made the fraudulent assurance to the complainant of getting employment for him in FCI and to have received the amount from him -- Petitioner is merely alleged to have accompanied the complainant for his joining on asking of his co-accused and did not make any fraudulent representation and did not receive any amount from the complainant -- Question as to involvement of the petitioner in commission of the subject offences is to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial -- Due to pandemic of Covid-19 trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail, he is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 9,10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 377 (2) – Appeal against inadequacy of sentence – Accused’s right to plead for acquittal – Held, accused is justified in contending that it is open to the said accused to challenge the finding and order of conviction recorded against him in the appeal filed by the State -- In the appeal filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for reduction of the sentence.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 304 Part I, 326 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Total five accused, State pursuing appeal against one accused -- Death of deceased by one fatal blow on the head, which was with the intention of causing his death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the case would be covered by Section 304 Part I, IPC -- It is certainly not a case to simply proceed u/s Section 326 of the IPC -- Accused convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I and Section 148, IPC.

(Para 1, 12-16)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 139, 146 – Defence of accused -- Cross examination of prosecution witness on that point – Requirement of – A witness is required to be cross-examined to bring forth inconsistencies, discrepancies and to prove the untruthfulness of the witness – Party intending to bring evidence to impeach or contradict the testimony of a witness must give an opportunity to explain or answer when the witness is in the witness box.

(Para 56-63)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 364A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Kidnapping – Last seen evidence – Murder – Burdon of proof – When the prosecution has proved the act of kidnapping and the last seen evidence soon before the approximate time of death of victim – Prosecution has discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt – It was then for the accused to rebut the presumption of any other intervening fact before the death of the victim.

(Para 77-81)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 364-A, 34 – Kidnapping and murder – Death Sentence/ Life Sentence -- Motive of the accused to take life was to become rich by not doing hard work but by demanding ransom after kidnapping a young, innocent boy of 8 years – Considering circumstances and facts on record, case falls short of the “rarest of rare” cases where a death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the appellants -- Death sentence converted into the life imprisonment till the end of the life, no remission till the accused completes 25 years of imprisonment.

(Para 100)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case -- Compromise quashing -- Money changed hands – Would certainly fall within the ambit of 'undue influence' as it would amount to bestowing an unscrupulous gift to influence the prosecutrix from pursuing criminal proceedings against the accused – Serious and grave allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner who unabashedly indulged in blackmailing and threatening her and her family -- Allegations levelled in the FIR, prima facie reflects the mental depravity of the petitioner who tried to exploit a hapless married woman by fraudulently luring her into a relationship with him, raping her and thereafter putting her matrimonial ties with her husband in peril by coercing her to continue her dalliance with him -- Not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR.

(Para 12-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) – Acquittal in rape case – Leave to appeal – Accused was driver of the official vehicle of husband of prosecutrix – She was pregnant on the date of alleged incident – Prosecutrix and her husband did not report about the alleged incident dated 04.03.2014, to the police, till 02.02.2015 -- Even during the next 15 days after the alleged incident, she kept on accompanying accused in the official vehicle for medical check-up -- There is no corroborative evidence in the shape of medical report, to strengthen the testimony of prosecutrix regarding the alleged rape -- No reliable evidence for continuously giving threats to the prosecutrix, on her mobile phone -- Trial Court appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective, while giving benefit of doubt to respondent No.2/accused -- There is no illegality in the impugned judgment – Application seeking grant of leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 17-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 498-A, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise after conviction – Quashing of FIR/ Conviction/ Order of sentence -- To secure the ends of justice and in the interest of all concerned, fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C and quash the FIR registered – Sentence for the offence under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC for a period of two years is set aside on the basis of the compromise.

(Para 1, 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Dowry demand – Physical assault – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Allegations that she was subjected to merciless physical assault on a number of occasions, however, no medical evidence in support -- Father of the complainant while deposing admitted that in fact the main dispute between his daughter and her husband was on account of a suspicion, which his daughter had qua her husband having illicit relations with his sister-in-law – Complainant herself admitted during her deposition that the dowry articles and the istridhan, which were given to her at the time of her marriage, were in her possession and had been under lock and key in her matrimonial home -- On a complaint moved to the SSP, an inquiry was conducted, it was found that no such instances of harassment had ever taken place -- Complainant miserably failed to rebut the aforementioned inquiry report in any manner – Not a fit case for grant of special leave to appeal, acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8, 9)