Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (Act No. 57 of 1994), Section 4, 5, 6, 23 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Anticipatory bail -- Prenatal sex determination – Abortion – Disclosure statement -- Interim bail granted to the petitioner on the submission that as allegation she got introduced the family of the victim to the co-accused for sex determination of the unborn child and received commission and petitioner is not involved in the act of abortion, she is the resident of Utter Pradesh and no other complaint is filed against her till date -- Petitioner has joined investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required -- Interim order made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 2-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Anticipatory bail – Regular bail -- Paramount considerations in cases where bail or anticipatory bail is claimed are the nature and gravity of the offence, the propensity or ability of the accused to influence evidence during investigation or interfere with the trial process by threatening or otherwise trying to influence the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused to flee from justice and other such considerations -- During the trial, the court is always in control of the proceedings, and it is open for it to impose any condition which it deems necessary to ensure the accused’s presence and participation in the trial.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Bail after chargesheet -- Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course -- However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court -- High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach -- Impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand and set aside.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Dowry case -- Cruelty – Anticipatory bail -- Regular Bail -- Directions given in Arnesh Kumar’s case (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15107 reiterated and other directions issued:

-- All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

-- All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

-- The police officer- shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

-- The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

-- The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

-- Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

-- Directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the case under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine.

-- The High Court shall frame the above directions in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed by the Sessions courts and all other and criminal courts dealing with various offences.

-- Likewise, the Director General of Police in all States shall ensure that strict instructions in terms of above directions are issued. Both the High Courts and the DGP’s of all States shall ensure that such guidelines and Directives/Departmental Circulars are issued for guidance of all lower courts and police authorities in each State within eight weeks from today.

-- Affidavits of compliance shall be filed before this court within ten weeks by all the states and High Courts, though their Registrars.

High Courts and the Police Authorities in all States are required to comply with the above directions in the manner within the time frame mentioned.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- High Court while rejecting an application for anticipatory bail, in the same breath granted them protection for a period of two months by directing no coercive steps be taken against the respondent(s) for a period of two months – Held, order is self-contradictory – Second part of the order directing that no coercive steps shall be taken against the respondents for a period of two months quashed and set aside.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Condition for grant of bail on undertaking for deposit of Rs.22,00,000/- in the form of FDR in the Trial Court – Held, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating -- If at all the offence alleged against the appellant is proved resulting in his conviction, he would be bound to suffer penal consequence(s) but despite such conviction he may not be under any obligation to repay the amount allegedly received from the complainants -- This too is an aspect which the High Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 438 of the Cr. PC did not bear in mind – Held, High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant and imposing payment of Rs.22,00,000/- as a condition precedent for grant of bail -- Matter remitted back to High court for re-consideration of the application for pre-arrest bail.

(Para 17-30)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Cultivation of 278 plants of cannabis –Demarcation got conducted, which reveals that concerned khasra number though was in possession of accused, but was under co-ownership of several individuals – Custodial interrogation of accused not required by the Investigating Agency – Anticipatory bail granted.

(Para 3-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants -- Anticipatory bail -- A person released on bail is already in constructive custody of law and if law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons, application for anticipatory bail would not lie -- Petition dismissed being not maintainable.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Fraud -- Anticipatory bail – Petitioner executed agreement to sell in favour of KS and power of attorney was duly executed and registered before the Sub Registrar, wherein he was photographed -- Petitioner fraudulently entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant also regarding the same piece of land and accepted the earnest money, however, did not execute the sale deed -- Land sold through KS to another person -- Intention to defraud from the very inception – Anticipatory bail declined.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 370, 120B -- Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (2 of 2013), Section 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Smuggling of human – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail --  Allegations against the petitioner are he along with other co accused cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs 33,00,000/- on the pretext of sending complainant’s son to USA -- Petitioner is the father of the main accused -- Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-9, 24)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Rape – Consenting party --  Misrepresentation -- In statement u/s 164 prosecutrix has categorically stated that they became friends through Facebook; he told her that he is Hindu and on his Facebook profile also he used his surname as “Dixit” and at the inception of the relationship applicant/ accused misrepresented himself and trapped the prosecutrix in his love; had applicant/accused not misrepresented to be of her faith, the prosecutrix would not have given in to the applicant/accused – Anticipatory Bail rejected.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 384, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail -- No post mortem conducted – Death on 02.09.2021, matter was reported to the police on 05.09.2021 -- Allegations of honey trapping and black mailing in the FIR but the exact date and month of the same is not given -- Genuineness of the suicide note will be determined by the trial Court, after the recording of evidence -- Mens rea, if any, on the part of the petitioners, is also matter of evidence -- No prior complaint with regard to alleged honey trapping and black mailing of the deceased by the petitioners -- Further, the petitioners have joined the investigation -- Petition allowed and interim order made absolute.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438  -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail - Rs.8,10,000/- taken from the complainant on the pretext of sending two persons to Singapore – When court was not inclined to grant bail, only then the petitioner was ready and willing to affect a compromise with the complainant -- In that situation his arrest was stayed and he was asked to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, however, he has deliberately chosen not to appear -- Petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation against the petitioner are that he was one of the friends of deceased and was extending help to his wife to remain in adultery with one PS, leaving her husband and children – Held, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage -- Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Petition allowed.

(Para 5, 10,11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 376-C, 506, 34, 201, 384 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66E, 67A, 67-C – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape – Forwarding of Video recording in compromising position – Anticipatory bail -- Prosecution case against the petitioner is that he re-forwarded video recording of prosecutrix with other accused in compromising position to many persons -- On the contention that petitioner is not accused of commission of offence punishable u/s 376, 376-C, 506, 34, 201 and 384 IPC, however, he, at the most, is responsible for commission of offence punishable u/s 66E of IT Act wherein maximum prescribed sentence is three years granted interim bail – Petitioner has joined investigation and no custodial interrogation is required – Petition allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 1-3)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61/1/4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- FIR on secret information – On raid, 60 bottles of country made liquor recovered, however petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and no further recovery is to be effected -- In compliance of order granting interim bail, petitioner joined investigation and cooperated -- Petitioner not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 2-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 437(5), 439(2) – Bail -- Addition of offence – Arrest of accused -- Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody -- Recourse available to an accused is to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences -- Investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5) and 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Court that may have released the accused on bail or the Appellate Court/superior Court in exercise of special powers conferred on it, can direct a person who has been released on bail earlier, to be arrested and taken into custody.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 354-B and 506 (Section 376 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 437(5), 439(2) – Anticipatory bail – Rape -- High Court granted anticipatory bail having been swayed by the “star variations in the narration of the prosecutrix” implying thereby that what was originally recorded in the FIR, did not make out an offence of rape, as defined in Section 375 IPC, which is an erroneous assumption – Prosecutrix was not afforded a hearing, no doubt, the State was present and was represented in the said proceedings, but the right of the prosecutrix could not have been whittled down for this reason alone -- Orders granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2/accused quashed and set aside.

(Para 22-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 – Bail – Anticipatory bail – Basic essentials required in order -- In bail/anticipatory bail matters, High Courts should endeavour to ensure that all basic essentials (i.e. FIR No., Date, the concerned police station and the offences allegedly committed etc.) are duly recorded or reflected in the format of the order.

(Para 3)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3, 14-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452, 323, 506, 148, 149, 427, 458 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Abusing people of SC ST Community – House trespass – Unlawful assembly -- Allegations of abusing the people belonging to the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under SCSTPOA Act, 1989 -- On primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage -- Furthermore, the appellants are first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Appellants ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-8, 13)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Money laundering – Anticipatory bail -- Rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable even with respect to the application u/s 438 Cr.PC.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 498-A -- Second anticipatory bail – FIR by second wife -- Subsequent event -- Merely because an FIR lodged by the previous wife of the petitioner/accused against him was quashed on the basis of compromise subsequent to decision of the first pre-arrest bail petition on merits, is not a substantial ground to entitle him to file the second pre-arrest bail petition.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 498-A -- Second anticipatory bail – Subsequent event -- Pending inquiry before the Women Cell at the time of lodging of the FIR, is not a subsequent event that could afford a ground to the petitioner to file the second pre-arrest bail petition.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 440 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder -- Anticipatory bail – Contention that injury report indicates that the injuries were of a simple nature caused by a hard and blunt object -- In the facts and circumstances of the case direction given that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Dismiss in default -- Bail application listed in the first instance on 02.07.2021 and interim protection was granted -- Thereafter the matter came before the Court almost after an year on 27.09.2022 and because of his non-appearance bail application was dismissed for non-prosecution – Dismissal of the bail application in default not justified and, accordingly set aside.

(Para 3-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheque bounce case – Conditional bail in Appeal subject to deposit 20% amount -- Non-payment of – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of -- A person released on bail is already in constructive custody of law – Anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Manish Jain’s case 2022(1) SCC(Cri) 676 relied.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Condition to deposit 50% of salary – Sustainability of -- Allegation of fabricating documents and using them to obtain employment – High Court granted anticipatory bail with the condition that 50% of the salary earned by him for entire duration of the employment ought to be deposited within six months – Held, imposition of the condition is too onerous and cannot be sustained -- Condition set aside, petitioner ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Respondent granted anticipatory bail subject to deposit of Rs. 75,000/- on offer made by him – Co-accused paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner to get concession of bail – Held, process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail -- Recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings – Criminal proceedings are being prosecuted only as money recovery proceedings -- Hence, the order granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents stands affirmed but, the condition therein, of payment of Rs.75,000/- by the respondent No.2, stands annulled.

(Para 10-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Complainant entered into an agreement to sell the property, and that despite obtaining more than Rs. 5 lakhs for executing that agreement, the petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of someone else for the same property – Dispute is also the subject matter of civil proceedings and suits for permanent injunction and specific performance are pending -- Petitioner was granted interim protection since the date of first hearing i.e. 08.07.2021 – SLP allowed, petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Cheating and forgery -- Charge sheet submitted against the appellant -- State did not bring any material to show that there is necessity of custodial interrogation of the appellant – Appeal allowed, direction given that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 3(2)(D), 7 -- Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, Clause/Section 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Manufacturing fertilizer without any licence -- Appellant disclosed that he is cooperating with the investigating agency -- State also apprised that the appellant has attended the police station on 08.07.2022 – No necessity of custodial interrogation -- Appeal allowed, direction given that in the event of arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Rape -- Petitioner married the complainant though he had not obtained a divorce from a prior marriage – Charge-sheet submitted, after investigation – Interim stay confirmed -- In the event of the arrest, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of – Arrest in another case -- Since the applicant is in custody in connection with another case, the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. would not lie and would not be maintainable.

(Para 12)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(3), 14, 14A(2), 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Anticipatory bail – Jurisdiction of High Court -- The word bail in section 14A(2) would include anticipatory bail also – Firstly, the accused should have approached the Special Court for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. -- Appellate jurisdiction alone can be exercised by the High Court, order granting or rejecting the anticipatory bail u/s SC/ST Act shall be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 14A of the Act and not Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(Para 13-26)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Disclosure statement -- Recovery of 1.700 kilograms of Chura Doda Post from co-acused – Petitioner named in disclosure statement -- It is a settled principle of law that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who has been named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused -- No merit, petition dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory Bail – 72 hours’ notice before arrest – Direction given by the High Court to the State that 72 hours’ notice should be given to the first respondent in the event that the State finds it necessary to arrest him in connection with any complaint pertaining to a cognizable offence at the behest of the Joint Registrar (Audit) is manifestly incorrect in law -- Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court, accordingly vacated and set aside.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B, 167, 218, 330, 323, 195, 348, 365, 477A, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Kidnapping/ Abduction -- Anticipatory bail -- While granting anticipatory bail to the respondents/ accused, the High Court neither considered the allegations against the respective accused nor the role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of registering the FIR in the year 1994 nor the role played by them during the investigation -- High Court has also not taken note of the recommendations made by the Committee headed by a former Judge of Supreme Court – Appeals allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside -- Anticipatory Bail Applications remitted to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of order declaring accused proclaimed person – Submitted that the petitioner was never served with the summons and has now come to know about the pendency of the complaint and he is ready to surrender before the trial Court and face the trial -- Issuance of notice of motion to respondents dispensed with, petition allowed, impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed persons, set aside -- Petitioner directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and on doing so, the trial Court will release him on bail -- Till then arrest stayed.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376B, 376(2)(N), 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a doctor in a government hospital where the complainant was allegedly working as a nurse -- FIR indicates that parties were in a physical relationship since May 2016 -- FIR was lodged in October 2017 -- In the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation is not required – Direction given in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Suicide note show that the deceased was under extreme stress and tension on account of matrimonial discord and on account of pendency of some litigation pertaining to grant of maintenance -- It will certainly be debatable as to whether the aforesaid conduct as mentioned in the suicide note would qualify to be termed as an abetment to commit suicide -- Petitioner has joined investigation and she is not required for any custodial interrogation -- Petitioner not involved in any other case -- Interim directions made absolute.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Compromise between parties – On an earlier occasion, anticipatory bail of co-accused was dismissed – Considering the fact that the petitioners and the complainant belong to the same family and they have reconciled the things, petition allowed – Petitioners granted the concession of anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 – Life and liberty – Arrest of accused -- Object of arrest is neither punitive nor preventive -- It has become very common to put criminal law in motion even though dispute involved is purely contractual or civil in nature -- Many times arrest entails deprivation of source of income of entire family besides forever stigma in a closely knit society like ours -- There is neither mechanism to compensate a man who is later on found innocent nor acquittal can return valuable time, energy, status, future of family members especially children which is lost on account of incarceration of bread earner of the family -- Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1) of our Constitution --  Life of every human being is most precious gift of God and everyone has very limited span of life which cannot be spoiled on account of incompetence, personal grudge, vengeance of someone; or brutal, illegal, unethical action of the State machinery.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 302, 328, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 446, 482 -- Constitution of India,  Section 21 – Murder trial -- Jump of bail – Quashing of Non-bailable warrants/ Cancellation of bail bond. Held,

i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone as proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The petitioner has come forward to face trial and undertakes to appear before trial court on each and every date, thus, his presence would meet ends of justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-;

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court;

iv) The petitioner is resident of Jagraon and trial is pending at Ludhiana, thus jurisdictional court and police authorities have direct access over the activities of the petitioner.

v) The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by this Hon'ble High Court;

vi) Trial is pending since 2017 and petitioner is ready to face trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or complainant;

Petition allowed, petitioner directed to appear before Trial Court on 09.12.2022 and furnish fresh bail bond/surety bond to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 1, 14 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail – Petitioner has no criminal antecedents – Allegations are transporting alcohol, which is the State’s privilege, without paying the revenue and in violation of the State’s Excise Policy -- Given the sentence prescribed, the nature of evidence, and other factors and circumstances peculiar to the case, it may be appropriate to afford the petitioner a final opportunity to course-correct -- Maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years – Petitioner makes a case for bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-9, 24)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3, 14-A (2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438(2), 482 -- Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act -- Complaint/FIR should disclose the caste of the offenders alone, it should disclose that the appellants-accused were aware about the caste of the complainant as well – The element of intentional, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public view, should clearly be borne out from the FIR -- Merely uttering such words in the absence of intention/mens-rea to humiliate the complainant in public view, every such quarrel or altercation between the members of non-scheduled caste & scheduled caste and if the imputations are grossly vague and perfunctory, would not, ipso facto, constitute acts of commission of offence, which are capable of cognizance under the Act -- All the essential/basic ingredients of the offence are deeply lacking in the complaint, which formed the basis of FIR -- Appellants directed to join investigation and in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 8-11)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Common tendency and frequency of the complainants of involving and roping the accused on vague & bald allegations under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act, have been tremendously increasing day-by-day in our society -- Even the plain and simple occurrence under the Indian Penal Code is given the colour of offence under Section 3 of the special Act by adding false and vague allegations -- This tendency needs to be curbed -- If not discouraged, in that eventuality, it will ultimately weaken those true cases of the prosecution as well even against the real culprits and the very object and purpose of the Act, would pale into insignificance in this relevant behalf.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Condition to deposit salary – Sustainability of -- High Court granted pre-arrest bail on the condition that she will return the salary which she has received while working as a Panchayat Teacher – Held condition of returning the amount drawn by her as salary on appointment as Panchayat Teacher is neither justified nor required under the law while grant of pre-arrest bail to her, condition set aside.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Absence from Trial – Cancellation of bail -- Petitioner on bail was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however, on account of noting a wrong date, he absented and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued – Petitioner directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and he will be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail/surety bonds.

(Para 1-5)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –While granting bail High court observed “… Though on the one side, there is a possibility of such hugs and kisses being manifestations of affection by an uncle, one cannot ignore the possibility of such show of 'affections' being coloured by sexual overtones. However, those are all matters for investigation.” – Held, observations made are totally unwarranted and have been made overlooking the specific allegations contained in the FIR, duly supported with the Statement of the victim-girl child u/s 164 of the Code – High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free-hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –Victim-girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail.

(Para 12)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail -- Charge-sheet filed -- It will be unfair to presume that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

(Para 14)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Custodial interrogation -- In many anticipatory bail matters, one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted -- There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.

(Para 15)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – Prima facie case – Nature of offence -- Custodial interrogation -- There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail -- First and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused -- Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail -- However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

(Para 15

F. Binding precedent – Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of High Court --  Decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in the Joy’s case (2019) 1 KLT 935 deals with Section 29 of the POCSO Act -- When the learned Judge decided the anticipatory bail application, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Joy was binding to him -- He could not have ignored a binding decision -- It is a different thing to say that if he may disagree with the view taken and accordingly refer it to a larger Bench.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 120B, 323, 324 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – FIR in matrimonial dispute --Anticipatory bail – Condition of ad-interim compensation of Rs.10 lacs in favour of wife – Legality of – Held, no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs.10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail -- Appeal allowed and the order passed by the High Court directing the appellant to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs is hereby set aside.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 438 – Attempt to murder -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Anticipatory bail – Prosecution agencies did not consider it appropriate to arraign the petitioner as an accused -- Thus, a view favouring the petitioner exists, and on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- No phone calls exchanged between the petitioner and the main accused from whom the recovery has been effected – Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further investigation -- Petition allowed, interim order ordered to be made absolute.

(Para 1-5)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3, 4, 14-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452, 354, 323, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Dismissal of anticipatory bail by Session Court – Remedy against -- Petitioner apprehending arrest has come up before High Court again u/s 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail – Held, as per Section 14-A of SCSTPOA, 1989, an appeal would lie against an order of bail – Present petition is not maintainable -- Since the petitioner has chosen the wrong provision of law, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal under section 14-A of SCSTPOA and to enable the petitioner to do so, arrest stayed for two weeks.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are that they duped the complainant for a sum of Rs. 90 Lacs – Petitioner is a lady aged just 39 years, considering the allegations and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the petitioner, on this ground alone she is entitled to bail --  Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct -- Maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years -- Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 apply to this petition – Possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions – Petition allowed, conditions imposed.

(Para 6-28)